Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll - Page 4 - 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: 32,749
Local Time: 02:03 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: 10,885
Local Time: 08:03 PM
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: 08:03 PM
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: 32,749
Local Time: 02:03 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: 10,885
Local Time: 08:03 PM
[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: 08:03 PM
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: 01:03 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: 02:03 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: 08:03 PM
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
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 09:03 PM
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: 3,544
Local Time: 09:03 PM
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: 10,885
Local Time: 08:03 PM
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: 09:03 PM
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: 01:03 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: 08:03 PM
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  
Old 07-11-2003, 01:30 PM   #76
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:03 PM
The reason the credibility issue is important is as follows:

#1) We were told he was within a year of a nuclear bomb
#2) The evidence used to make this case had been discredited almost 12 months earlier.
#3) We went to war under the premise that we were immediate danger from said weapon.
#4 The NBC weapons that were allegedly present in 1988 was not enough of a reason to go to war when we did. It was the IMMEDIATE threat that this administration was selling.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 02:11 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Dreadsox,

"The reason the credibility issue is important is as follows:"

"#1) We were told he was within a year of a nuclear bomb"
"#2) The evidence used to make this case had been discredited almost 12 months earlier."
"#3) We went to war under the premise that we were immediate danger from said weapon."
"#4 The NBC weapons that were allegedly present in 1988 was not enough of a reason to go to war when we did. It was the IMMEDIATE threat that this administration was selling"

1. US intelligence was not the only country that speculated that this was the case. German intelligence also had similar estimates. The IAEA certified Iraq as clean back in 1988 of any Nuclear program. In May of 1991 following the Gulf War, UN inspectors found that Iraq was less than a year away from having a nuclear weapon. We were lucky that time, there is no way we could afford to be wrong a second time though!

2. A certain piece of evidence was discredited, not the entire body of evidence that US and other countries have had on Iraq's past Nuclear programs. They did it before they could do it again. No inspectors at all in the country for four years, but were supposed to take Saddam at his word and not worry about it.

3. Totally false. One reason we went to war was to prevent the full development of such a weapon. But essentially, we went to war because of Iraq's failure to disarm which they were required to do in 1991.

4. False. The WMD that Iraq did have in 1998 was a violation of the UN ceacefire Agreement and multiple UN resolutions. Iraq was required to give up these weapons in 1991, because they were viewed as an Immediate danger to the international community. 75% of the Worlds energy comes from the middle east and the Iraq's possession of WMD in conjuction with their military could be used by Iraq to enable them to disrupt the worlds supply of energy.

I find it rather naive, the belief that Saddam had no nuclear ambitions and for four years without UN inspectors was a model Boy Scout. Its also, in my opinion, naive to believe that Saddam would independently disarm himself.
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 03:10 PM   #78
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: 02:03 AM
1. You are right Germans were convinced in the late 80ies that Iraq could build an atomic bomb, that's why they supportet to the Gulf war of 1991 (Desert Storm)
For this war i'd like to quote our foreign minister in the UN
"Excuse me sir, i'm not convinced"

2.Your Government said that they didn't have new evidences allready -> every new evidence they mentioned before the war were either old or faked.

3. the US went to war because of the immediate danger, that's why they had no time to wait until Mr. Blix could finish his job (why? maybe because some politicans were afraid that they had even less reasons for the invasion after the UN-Inspectors finished their job?)

4. It was a violation, right - but the question is if it was worth the war, if the US citizens would have agreed to the war just because he didn't fullfill old resolutions 100%

Because of the military presence Saddam was more and more willing to fulfill them (he destroyed his rockets a few days before the war) But i guess The hawks inside the government would have seen it as face loss if they couldn't drop some bombs

Klaus
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 03:51 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:03 PM
[Q]1. US intelligence was not the only country that speculated that this was the case. German intelligence also had similar estimates. The IAEA certified Iraq as clean back in 1988 of any Nuclear program. In May of 1991 following the Gulf War, UN inspectors found that Iraq was less than a year away from having a nuclear weapon. We were lucky that time, there is no way we could afford to be wrong a second time though![/Q]

That is why Colin Powell eliminated the information about the uranium a week after the President included it. It was FALSE information. Powell spoke yesterday about how careful he was to make certain that HE presented truthful information to the UN. It is complete horseshit that the President was allowed to say what he said.

[Q]2. A certain piece of evidence was discredited, not the entire body of evidence that US and other countries have had on Iraq's past Nuclear programs. They did it before they could do it again. No inspectors at all in the country for four years, but were supposed to take Saddam at his word and not worry about it.[/Q]

Are we now going to invade every country on the planet that we think may have the desire to aquire a Nuke? I am sorry, but, the President of the United States was allowed to Present information that our intelligence agencies new was BOGUS. It was seven days later that they made certain Powell did not bring it up. The ambassador said that in FEB 2002 they knew the information was false.

[Q]
3. Totally false. One reason we went to war was to prevent the full development of such a weapon. But essentially, we went to war because of Iraq's failure to disarm which they were required to do in 1991.[/Q]
The reason we NEEDED to act quickly was the "Clear and Present Danger" That is why the United States went around the wished of the UN and the Security Council. THere is NO evidence that Hanz Blix was not accomplishing what he set out to do. THere is no evidence that the political and military pressure was not forcing Saddam to comply. The Case to the AMerican people was that we were in immediate danger. That IRAQ was a sponsor of Terrorism with possible links to AL-Qaeda and if they ever got a Nuke, watch out.

[Q]
4. False. The WMD that Iraq did have in 1998 was a violation of the UN ceacefire Agreement and multiple UN resolutions. Iraq was required to give up these weapons in 1991, because they were viewed as an Immediate danger to the international community. 75% of the Worlds energy comes from the middle east and the Iraq's possession of WMD in conjuction with their military could be used by Iraq to enable them to disrupt the worlds supply of energy.[/Q]

Do I really need to start posting the quotes from the speeches to make my case? The Vicepresidents quotes, the Presidents quotes?

Your premise is that Iraq was going to use them on their neighbors while the US Military was there building up in Kuwait last fall? Iraq was going to use them when the inpections were going on that showed good faith in the process? Do I have to once again point out that in ALL CEASE FIRES brokered by the UN only the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if action should be taken?

What benefit would Iraq have gotten out of using the weapons? The whole world against them again? You say we are NAIVE? Give me a break. Saddam was going to use them and that would what, force the UN to do something?
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-11-2003, 04:21 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 08:03 PM
Let's start here:

We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ‘nuclear mujahideen’ -- his nuclear holy warriors… Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” George W. BushOctober 2002


The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003


Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press

3/16/2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
May 30, 2003

This wasn’t material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Press Briefing

6/2/2003


“I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons… I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - June 2003

"It doesn't appear there are any more targets at this time," said Lt. Keith Harrington whose team has been cut by more than 30 percent. "We're hanging around with no missions in the foreseeable future." Keith Harrington, Lt. Colonel
Iraq
6/9/2003

Those documents were only one piece of evidence in a larger body of evidence suggesting that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Africa ... The issue of Iraq's pursuit of uranium in Africa is supported by multiple sources of intelligence. The other sources of evidence did and do support the president's statement. Sean McCormack, National Security Council Spokesman
Statement to press
6/13/2003

A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003

My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good.In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
6/18/2003

You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
7/9/2003
__________________

Dreadsox 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 08:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×