Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2003, 08:22 AM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Hello,

Here's an article from yesterday's NYT regarding the 'African uranium':

Quote:
Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, July 7 The White House acknowledged for the first time today that President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies when he declared, in his State of the Union speech, that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

The White House statement appeared to undercut one of the key pieces of evidence that President Bush and his aides had cited to back their claims made prior to launching an attack against Iraq in March that Mr. Hussein was "reconstituting" his nuclear weapons program. Those claims added urgency to the White House case that military action to depose Mr. Hussein needed to be taken quickly, and could not await further inspections of the country or additional resolutions at the United Nations.

The rest of the story can be found at the site of the New York Times
The article also states that even before he made his State Of The Union intelligence services casted the uranium information in doubt. This seems to become a tricky situation...

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 09:36 AM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,

Here's an article from yesterday's NYT regarding the 'African uranium':



The article also states that even before he made his State Of The Union intelligence services casted the uranium information in doubt. This seems to become a tricky situation...

C ya!

Marty
Someone else will hang for this so we have the appearance of truth.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 09:42 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 05:03 AM
I wonder who is going to be the fall guy. The CIA?
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-08-2003, 09:56 AM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Naah, I think it'll be a low-level White House/Pentagon employee who gets blamed for inserting that comment without seeking approval. You don't want to piss of any agencies, you might need them next time...

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 12:21 AM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:03 AM
[Q]ASHINGTON, July 8 The State Department told a Congressional committee today that seven days after President Bush gave his State of the Union address, in which he charged that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium in Africa, American diplomats warned the International Atomic Energy Agency that the United States could not confirm the reports.[/Q]

Let me get this straight. They put it in the speech. There was evidence from almost a year before that their information was bogus. Bush gives the speech, and then they tell the IAEA that they cannot confirm it within a week of the speech?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/in...partner=GOOGLE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 07:05 PM   #66
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:03 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030709_1801.html

"Rumsfeld, in a terse exchange with Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said he learned only "within recent days" that the Africa claims were based on faulty evidence. U.N. officials determined the documents were forgeries before the war."

What a crock of bullshit.
My baby Rummy doesn't seem so cocky now does he. He may just end up being the fall guy if the fire gets too hot.


"Still, some have claimed the evidence was manipulated or misrepresented to build a case for war.

Greg Thielmann, an official with the State Department's intelligence bureau who retired last year, told an Arms Control Association forum on Wednesday that when it came to Iraq, the administration took an approach that seemed to say, "We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers."
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-09-2003, 07:50 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
"What a crock of bullshit.
My baby Rummy doesn't seem so cocky now does he. He may just end up being the fall guy if the fire gets too hot."

If Bush's opponents want to make this a 2004 campaign issue, Rummy will get to enjoy another 4 years as secretary of defense.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 06:10 AM   #68
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:03 AM
STING2:

Mr. Rumsfeld mentioned today that they didn't have new evidences for invading Iraq, they just interpreted it in a new way..
...for me that means that every "new evidences" they talked about were faked

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 09:23 AM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Sting, why do you keep bringing this back to a "campaign issue". Isn't it enough that it's a huge credibility issue for the current administration? And one that the American people OUGHT to be concerned about? Or is having false information passed onto the public to convince them to go to war just a-ok in your book?
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-10-2003, 09:57 AM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 05:03 AM
I remember seeing somewhere that Bush was told that the uranium story was very sketchy, and he pounded his fist on the table and said if the CIA couldn't prove it wasn't true, they better find somebody who can, because he knew it was true and he knew he would be proven right after the fact. I don't know if it appeared on this forum though.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2529.shtml
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 11:24 AM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
RockNRollDawgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 3,305
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
I remember seeing somewhere that Bush was told that the uranium story was very sketchy, and he pounded his fist on the table and said if the CIA couldn't prove it wasn't true, they better find somebody who can, because he knew it was true and he knew he would be proven right after the fact. I don't know if it appeared on this forum though.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2529.shtml
Sounds like something Bush would do. The CIA have their hands
full now. They have to "find" WMD and now uranium and
Bin Laden & Saddam too.
Hopefully, when Bush loses the next election, the CIA will be
revamped and new competent people will be put in their place.
__________________
RockNRollDawgie is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 12:21 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Someone else will hang for this so we have the appearance of truth.

Peace
I believe that Mr. Tennant will be resigning as Director of the CIA. He will take the fall on this in my opinion.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 12:34 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
I remember seeing somewhere that Bush was told that the uranium story was very sketchy, and he pounded his fist on the table and said if the CIA couldn't prove it wasn't true, they better find somebody who can, because he knew it was true and he knew he would be proven right after the fact. I don't know if it appeared on this forum though.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2529.shtml
if terrance j wilkinson said so then it must be true.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 01:11 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:03 AM
sulawesigirl4,


"Sting, why do you keep bringing this back to a "campaign issue". Isn't it enough that it's a huge credibility issue for the current administration? And one that the American people OUGHT to be concerned about? Or is having false information passed onto the public to convince them to go to war just a-ok in your book?"

A certain percentage of all intelligence that the USA has today is partly inaccurate. That is a simple fact of intelligence. There is no such thing as "perfect intelligence".

There is no credibility issue in regards to intelligence that has turned out to be false. This happens every day at the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It happens in business and in peoples personal lives.

I keep on bringing up the campaign issue because I'd love the democrats to pursue it, because there is NOTHING there.

But let me ask you and others who are so interested in this issue. Do you understand that the vast Majority of the evidence Bush used to state the reasons for war with Iraq come from the UN inspectors reports from 1998, and Saddam's failure to account for that WMD in 2002?

Why do you and others sweep this fact under the rug? The only reason I can see is for political reasons. Opponents of Bush typically want to find some form of "dirt" to use against the president politically.

Its a fact that Saddam had 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, and hundreds of tons of Mustard Gas in 1998. Why are the people who harp on Bush's alleged lying, so unconcerned about this WMD Saddam told inspectors in 2002 that he had destroyed yet showed not evidence of such destruction?

There has always been and will always be intelligence, used by public officials that later turns out to be inaccurate. What should not automatically follow is a potential plot for the next Oliver Stone movie.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 01:28 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 05:03 AM
sting, of course there is no such thing as "perfect" intelligence. I think we all know and accept that. However, politicizing intelligence to get to an already decided outcome is a dangerous thing and I would hope that it concerns everyone, whether they vote Republican or Democrat.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com