The latest news is that W will agree to an independent probe abou the faulty intelligence.
By the way.. whatever happened to the probve about how the USA got forged documents about the Iraqi Nuclear arms?
From Monday's Washington Post
QUOTE
Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said the White House never said Iraq was an \"imminent\" threat. But when McClellan's predecessor, Ari Fleischer, was asked whether Iraq was an imminent threat, he replied: \"Absolutely.\" And when White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked whether Hussein was an imminent threat to U.S. interests, he replied: \"Well, of course he is.\"
In addition, Bush aides have regularly said that they were following the advice of intelligence experts. On Thursday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the weapons conclusion \"was the judgment of our intelligence community, the judgment of intelligence communities around the world.\" Yet the White House, at various times, went beyond what the CIA advised. In addition to the allegation about Hussein's nuclear purchases in Africa, which the CIA discouraged, the White House asserted, without consulting with the CIA, that Iraq \"could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given.\"
Please do not let the obvious lying to go unanswered.
In addition, Bush aides have regularly said that they were following the advice of intelligence experts. On Thursday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the weapons conclusion \"was the judgment of our intelligence community, the judgment of intelligence communities around the world.\" Yet the White House, at various times, went beyond what the CIA advised. In addition to the allegation about Hussein's nuclear purchases in Africa, which the CIA discouraged, the White House asserted, without consulting with the CIA, that Iraq \"could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given.\"
QUOTE
ung:
...if we were to use W.Bush's logic that no matter how old the aggression, we can use it to attack. Right?
Sooooo.....then..... we would be justified in launching an attack on England since the british army did engage us in war....
of course that was more than 200 years ago.... But we do know that they had massive stock piles of weapons and they were an imminent threat to the US. Right? So let's attack London now!
Sounds good to me! We can offer Great Britain one condition: Have the Queen shave her legs or we invade! ...if we were to use W.Bush's logic that no matter how old the aggression, we can use it to attack. Right?
Sooooo.....then..... we would be justified in launching an attack on England since the british army did engage us in war....
of course that was more than 200 years ago.... But we do know that they had massive stock piles of weapons and they were an imminent threat to the US. Right? So let's attack London now!
and did you hear? we have compiled evidence that England has been stock piling NUKLAR WEAPONS!
Do you really want the next sign to be a mushroom cloud? (to borrow from Condi's words)
we must act now to stop this nation that has shown a history of cruel and despotic behavoir and who is now actively hording WMDs.
Do you really want the next sign to be a mushroom cloud? (to borrow from Condi's words)
we must act now to stop this nation that has shown a history of cruel and despotic behavoir and who is now actively hording WMDs.
I am so surprised that the President is going to agree to an independent commission on this issue but he wants it to conclude its work after the 2004 elections.. is he really that arrogant that he wants the commission that is looking into 9/11 to end its work before the 2004 elections..
bush has not agreed to an INDEPENDENT review of intelligence gathering. he will appoint its members, and likely set its ground rules.
[ February 02, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]
[ February 02, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]
Hey, the following countries have WMDs, especially NUKULAR WEPONS, so when are we attacking?
- The United Kingdom (fancy shmantzy name and all, plus they burned down our pretty capital, jerks!)
- France (they speak funny and don't like us one damned bit!)
- Russia (hey, are those commies still hanging around?)
- China (hey those commies still ARE hanging around!)
- South Africa (lots of black people and crazy white folks with bombs and they don't always like us!)
- India (they have more Hindus than the US and Europe's total population, more Muslims than Iran and Iraq combined AND a bunch a nukes!)
- Pakistan (they're friends with lots of people who hate us and want to bomb India off the face of the earth with their NUKULAR WEPON!)
- Israel (6 million people and way too many warheads!)
- North Korea (if only we hadn't supported Rhee and the pro-Japanese generals right after World War II, now they've built a nation-sized bunker!)
- The United Kingdom (fancy shmantzy name and all, plus they burned down our pretty capital, jerks!)
- France (they speak funny and don't like us one damned bit!)
- Russia (hey, are those commies still hanging around?)
- China (hey those commies still ARE hanging around!)
- South Africa (lots of black people and crazy white folks with bombs and they don't always like us!)
- India (they have more Hindus than the US and Europe's total population, more Muslims than Iran and Iraq combined AND a bunch a nukes!)
- Pakistan (they're friends with lots of people who hate us and want to bomb India off the face of the earth with their NUKULAR WEPON!)
- Israel (6 million people and way too many warheads!)
- North Korea (if only we hadn't supported Rhee and the pro-Japanese generals right after World War II, now they've built a nation-sized bunker!)
QUOTE
ung:
The latest news is that W will agree to an independent probe abou the faulty intelligence.
By the way.. whatever happened to the probve about how the USA got forged documents about the Iraqi Nuclear arms?
Or the Valerie Plame probe?The latest news is that W will agree to an independent probe abou the faulty intelligence.
By the way.. whatever happened to the probve about how the USA got forged documents about the Iraqi Nuclear arms?
Hey, when's Republican Tom Kean's 9/11 Commission going to issue its damning findings? Oh yeah...May, that is, unless W gives them the extension they asked for. NOT.
Now it's theoretically possible tha the commission truly is independent.
However.... how will a panel selected by W.Bush be able to probe the Cheney White House in a truly unbiased fashion?
However.... how will a panel selected by W.Bush be able to probe the Cheney White House in a truly unbiased fashion?
George Tenet spoke at GU today as an SFS alum.
While he said before hand he would clear up misconceptions and exonerate the White House. It's important to remember that his first priority and allegiance lies with his own agency, The CIA and second to the Cheney White House.
Therefore, it was interesting to hear him seemingly exonerate the White House from claims of undue pressure. Yet he also said that his own agency never exaggerated or misrepresented the facts as the White House is trying to portray.
While he said before hand he would clear up misconceptions and exonerate the White House. It's important to remember that his first priority and allegiance lies with his own agency, The CIA and second to the Cheney White House.
Therefore, it was interesting to hear him seemingly exonerate the White House from claims of undue pressure. Yet he also said that his own agency never exaggerated or misrepresented the facts as the White House is trying to portray.
QUOTE
ung:
Therefore, it was interesting to hear him seemingly exonerate the White House from claims of undue pressure. Yet he also said that his own agency never exaggerated or misrepresented the facts as the White House is trying to portray.
So he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, then? George, come on, where's the truth? Something is seriously wrong, and if he can't see it, should he be heading the CIA?
Therefore, it was interesting to hear him seemingly exonerate the White House from claims of undue pressure. Yet he also said that his own agency never exaggerated or misrepresented the facts as the White House is trying to portray.
actually he's not.
Notice he denies undue White House influence (meaning the CIA did not buckle under and therefore fudge its reports)
The implication is that any inflation of Iraqi arms danger occurred in the Oval Office. Not from CIA
Notice he denies undue White House influence (meaning the CIA did not buckle under and therefore fudge its reports)
The implication is that any inflation of Iraqi arms danger occurred in the Oval Office. Not from CIA
QUOTE
actually he's not.
Notice he denies undue White House influence (meaning the CIA did not buckle under and therefore fudge its reports)
The implication is that any inflation of Iraqi arms danger occurred in the Oval Office. Not from CIA
This is the kind of ironic part of this issue - since the White House set up its own mini-intelligence agency during the run up to the war that "analyzed" the data coming in from other intelligence services, the CIA and NSA did not need to exaggerate any threats - the White House was more than willing to take that task on themselves.
Notice he denies undue White House influence (meaning the CIA did not buckle under and therefore fudge its reports)
The implication is that any inflation of Iraqi arms danger occurred in the Oval Office. Not from CIA
Correct!
It's interesting what you say. The Cheney White House is attempting to shift all blame and responsibility to outside agencies. When all along, it had a separate and parallel intelligence operation running out of the Oval Office.
anyway... this is the latest courtesy of the Wash Post.
[ February 09, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
It's interesting what you say. The Cheney White House is attempting to shift all blame and responsibility to outside agencies. When all along, it had a separate and parallel intelligence operation running out of the Oval Office.
anyway... this is the latest courtesy of the Wash Post.
QUOTE
FBI agents have interviewed at least eight current and former Bush aides -- including Matalin and McClellan -- and have questioned them about thousands of e-mails that the White House surrendered in October, along with stacks of call logs and calendars, the sources said.
The logs indicate that several White House officials talked to columnist Robert D. Novak shortly before July 14, when he published a column quoting \"two senior administration officials\" saying that Plame, \"an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction,\" had suggested her husband for a mission to Niger to investigate whether Iraq tried to acquire uranium there as part of an effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Plame is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon. He became a prominent critic of Bush's case for war after conducting the mission in 2002 and finding no proof that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials.
The White House e-mails include criticism of Wilson, the sources said.
A parallel FBI investigation into the apparent forgery of documents suggesting that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger is \"at a critical stage,\" according to a senior law enforcement official, who refused to elaborate. That probe, conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents, was launched last spring after UN officials pronounced the documents crude forgeries.
The logs indicate that several White House officials talked to columnist Robert D. Novak shortly before July 14, when he published a column quoting \"two senior administration officials\" saying that Plame, \"an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction,\" had suggested her husband for a mission to Niger to investigate whether Iraq tried to acquire uranium there as part of an effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Plame is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon. He became a prominent critic of Bush's case for war after conducting the mission in 2002 and finding no proof that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials.
The White House e-mails include criticism of Wilson, the sources said.
A parallel FBI investigation into the apparent forgery of documents suggesting that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger is \"at a critical stage,\" according to a senior law enforcement official, who refused to elaborate. That probe, conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents, was launched last spring after UN officials pronounced the documents crude forgeries.
[ February 09, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
An EDITORIAL
alright, have it your way, i'll start yelling at the kids again.
while I see some of the points made in the article MIB provides for us, there are key differences of opinion extant.
It's true that Saddam did not welcome us in with open arms and a chambermaid offering mixed drinks. It is true that Saddam helped contribute to his own mystique and "still dangerous" reputation.
But what else do we expect from power hungry dictators desperately clinging to power who we have annoyed by placing sanctions and taking the northern and southern provinces of his country?
despite the obstacles and less than fully compliant attitude of Saddam, we still had our part and duty to perform. Namely, we had to assess the situation with ALL of the information available and make PRUDENT AND EDUCATED decisions about how to proceed. after all.. who's in charge here? Saddam or the USA? is the tail wagging the dog?
The Cheney White House failed to do that. They simply saw a not fully compliant saddam and like a shark smelling blood, charged ahead without giving any thought to the circumstances and consequences. (and that's the most favourable explanation for the administration) Do they not have brains and the capability to determine if the situation warranted sending US citizens to battle and very possible death? (something W.Bush and Cheney have never experienced)
What's less than favourable as explanation would be if the White House knew exactly what they were doing as it carefully cherry picked only intelligence fitting into the pre-determined schema. while ignoring other bits of info that disagreed with their chosen path.
When Rush Limbaugh did that it was called "doctor shopping". When the administration does that, it's called "national tragedy and outrage".
[ February 11, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
It's true that Saddam did not welcome us in with open arms and a chambermaid offering mixed drinks. It is true that Saddam helped contribute to his own mystique and "still dangerous" reputation.
But what else do we expect from power hungry dictators desperately clinging to power who we have annoyed by placing sanctions and taking the northern and southern provinces of his country?
despite the obstacles and less than fully compliant attitude of Saddam, we still had our part and duty to perform. Namely, we had to assess the situation with ALL of the information available and make PRUDENT AND EDUCATED decisions about how to proceed. after all.. who's in charge here? Saddam or the USA? is the tail wagging the dog?
The Cheney White House failed to do that. They simply saw a not fully compliant saddam and like a shark smelling blood, charged ahead without giving any thought to the circumstances and consequences. (and that's the most favourable explanation for the administration) Do they not have brains and the capability to determine if the situation warranted sending US citizens to battle and very possible death? (something W.Bush and Cheney have never experienced)
What's less than favourable as explanation would be if the White House knew exactly what they were doing as it carefully cherry picked only intelligence fitting into the pre-determined schema. while ignoring other bits of info that disagreed with their chosen path.
When Rush Limbaugh did that it was called "doctor shopping". When the administration does that, it's called "national tragedy and outrage".
[ February 11, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
Liar, Liar!
Uh oh, here he goes with the dictatorship idea again....
"There is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon." - W, Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
And then, just to confirm his looniness:
"I was a prisoner too, but for bad reasons."—W to Argentine President Néstor Kirchner, on being told that all but one of the Argentine delegates to a summit meeting were imprisoned during the Argentine military dictatorship, Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 13, 2004
HUH???
[ February 28, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
"There is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron-clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon." - W, Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
And then, just to confirm his looniness:
"I was a prisoner too, but for bad reasons."—W to Argentine President Néstor Kirchner, on being told that all but one of the Argentine delegates to a summit meeting were imprisoned during the Argentine military dictatorship, Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 13, 2004
HUH???
[ February 28, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Rummy squirms on Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...
SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.
SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...
Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...
SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.
SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...
Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
The efforts of Rumsfeld and Rice to continue to spin the actions of the administratin are beyond pathetic.
I still wonder where all those FOXNews pundits who "staked their reputations" on the finding of the WMDs are now. What are they thinking now?
I still wonder where all those FOXNews pundits who "staked their reputations" on the finding of the WMDs are now. What are they thinking now?
Oh, I have no fear that Faux News will find some way to spin all of this into some form of fool's gold. You know, it's just all of us evil, creepy, terrorist-loving liberals who keep hounding our poor, poor beleaguered President.
[ March 16, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: kalabro ]
[ March 16, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: kalabro ]
QUOTE
twin58
Houston Wood's website at UVa
Houston Wood's CV
In a thread called Kerry's heroism, timber07 said:QUOTE
ung:
from sunday's washington Post front page... link to Post story
Excerpt:from sunday's washington Post front page... link to Post story
QUOTE
....
In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.
Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that \"it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently.\"
....
Most U.S. experts,\" Powell asserted, \"think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.\" He said \"other experts, and the Iraqis themselves,\" said the tubes were really for rockets.
Wood, the centrifuge physicist, said \"that was a personal slam at everybody in DOE,\" the Energy Department. \"I've been grouped with the Iraqis, is what it amounts to. I just felt that the wording of that was probably intentional, but it was also not very kind. It did not recognize that dissent can exist.\"
I kept thinking, \"why does that name sound so familiar?\" Then I remembered: I took a course in differential equations from him. I had no idea about his career in the field of gas centrifuges. Of course, I don't suppose he would be encouraged to talk about that too much.In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.
Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that \"it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently.\"
....
Most U.S. experts,\" Powell asserted, \"think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.\" He said \"other experts, and the Iraqis themselves,\" said the tubes were really for rockets.
Wood, the centrifuge physicist, said \"that was a personal slam at everybody in DOE,\" the Energy Department. \"I've been grouped with the Iraqis, is what it amounts to. I just felt that the wording of that was probably intentional, but it was also not very kind. It did not recognize that dissent can exist.\"
Houston Wood's website at UVa
Houston Wood's CV
QUOTE
Sound familiar? Clinton acted on the best intelligence available to him, something George Bush understood at the time. Fast forward to 2003, George Bush has this SAME intelligence and more to make his decision to invade Iraq. Bill Clinton never disputed that he ALSO believed Iraq had WMD.
Now I ask you this. If you think Bill Clinton did such a fantastic job with this evidence then, why do you think Bush is doing a lousy job with the same information now?
Since the topic there has shifted to the lack of veracity and the manipulation of the intelligence on Iraq, and since there was already a thread at Outsports on that subject - this one - I decided to respond in this thread.Now I ask you this. If you think Bill Clinton did such a fantastic job with this evidence then, why do you think Bush is doing a lousy job with the same information now?
I refer one and all to the news article linked at this beginning of this post. Also, by Googling for "Houston Wood centrifuge", I found this link:
Spinning the Tubes
which itself links to a .pdf file written by Houston Wood:
Introducton to Gas Centrifuges
to the stupid defense made by the WBush white House saying "well... Clinton did it too"
I reply. W came AFTER Clinton. which means that WBush had newer and more information concerning Iraq than Clinton did. Just like I now have more and better info about some things than I did a year ago. You know?
Among these newer info that W.Bush was receiving that Clinton did not have was The report that Iraq in fact did NOT buy uranium from Africa, The centrifuges could NOT be made from those tubes, that many people doubted that Iraq had WMD, and most importantly that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 (that last point was something that did NOT come up during the Clinton years)
so to all those saying "Clinton did it too!" ... are you saying that WBush had nothing to show for his time in the office? and that NOTHING NEW had come his way? and are you saying that WBush can do no better than Clinton? Interesting to hear that from those who so demonized him for everything previously.
[ April 27, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
I reply. W came AFTER Clinton. which means that WBush had newer and more information concerning Iraq than Clinton did. Just like I now have more and better info about some things than I did a year ago. You know?
Among these newer info that W.Bush was receiving that Clinton did not have was The report that Iraq in fact did NOT buy uranium from Africa, The centrifuges could NOT be made from those tubes, that many people doubted that Iraq had WMD, and most importantly that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 (that last point was something that did NOT come up during the Clinton years)
so to all those saying "Clinton did it too!" ... are you saying that WBush had nothing to show for his time in the office? and that NOTHING NEW had come his way? and are you saying that WBush can do no better than Clinton? Interesting to hear that from those who so demonized him for everything previously.
[ April 27, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: ung ]
I just finished reading Richard Clarke's book - and found it very fascinating. It also completely debunks the idea the Bush and Clinton both were working with the same information from experts on Iraq or Al Queda. In fact, it appears that the Bush administration came into office believing a) anything Clinton was focused on was irrelevant, and 
that they already knew the deal with Iraq and just needed confirmation (unfortunately, it also appears that George Tenet was all too willing to go along with the administration on this).
It is also Clarke's contention that Clinton dealt effectively with both Iraq and Iran-sponsored terrorism in the early years of his administration, which may have been one of the reasons Al Queda gained strength (Iraq's one attempt at terrorism against the US was the plot to kill King George I). It is also his contention, backed up by pretty good evidence, that the Clinton administration was focused on getting rid of Al Queda (and not "swatting at flies") but there was not a consensus on how best to do this, and the problems with inter-agency infighting that have been exposed during the intelligence hearings were already present at that time. Unfortunately, even the less-than-perfect system Clarke and others had put together to counter Al Queda was gutted by the Bush Administration, and is still unlikely to be working at all.
that they already knew the deal with Iraq and just needed confirmation (unfortunately, it also appears that George Tenet was all too willing to go along with the administration on this). It is also Clarke's contention that Clinton dealt effectively with both Iraq and Iran-sponsored terrorism in the early years of his administration, which may have been one of the reasons Al Queda gained strength (Iraq's one attempt at terrorism against the US was the plot to kill King George I). It is also his contention, backed up by pretty good evidence, that the Clinton administration was focused on getting rid of Al Queda (and not "swatting at flies") but there was not a consensus on how best to do this, and the problems with inter-agency infighting that have been exposed during the intelligence hearings were already present at that time. Unfortunately, even the less-than-perfect system Clarke and others had put together to counter Al Queda was gutted by the Bush Administration, and is still unlikely to be working at all.
Just bumping this up with the recent release of the Sentate report on the intelligence that justified the Iraq invasion. Apparently Bush is still defending his decision to invade, and continues to find creative ways to justify it:
This is not the first time Bush has conveniently forgotten that inspectors were in country and making progress before the war. I have no doubt the administration thinks the American people will forget this, but quite frankly Kerry and Edwards should pounce on this and get Bush to admit he has either forgotten, or is a liar (okay, maybe he's drinking again and has blacked that part out).
Bush defends Iraq invastion - MSNBC
QUOTE
Without directly acknowledging the intelligence was flawed, Bush said a wide array of government leaders, from members of the Clinton administration to lawmakers to the U.N. Security Council, had studied the same intelligence and “saw a threat.”
During the Clinton administration, official U.S. policy toward Iraq became “regime change” — a stance that sought the ouster of Saddam Hussein, he noted.
But Saddam refused to open his country to inspections, Bush said.
“So I had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman or defend America. Given that choice I will defend America.”
Um, President Bush, UN weapons inspectors WERE IN THE DAMN COUNTRY UNTIL JUST BEFORE YOU INVADED! During the Clinton administration, official U.S. policy toward Iraq became “regime change” — a stance that sought the ouster of Saddam Hussein, he noted.
But Saddam refused to open his country to inspections, Bush said.
“So I had a choice to make: either take the word of a madman or defend America. Given that choice I will defend America.”
This is not the first time Bush has conveniently forgotten that inspectors were in country and making progress before the war. I have no doubt the administration thinks the American people will forget this, but quite frankly Kerry and Edwards should pounce on this and get Bush to admit he has either forgotten, or is a liar (okay, maybe he's drinking again and has blacked that part out).
Bush defends Iraq invastion - MSNBC
the thing I'm wondering is this. when the forged documents came to light, congress and the White House vowed to get to the bottom of this. The documents were revealed as forgeries BEFORE the war even started.
Nothing has happened. no one has been able to figure out how this happened? and what about the Valerie Plame affair? Who in the administartion revealed the identity of a CIA covert agent?
But since this is about what the White House calls MISUNDERSTANDINGS concrning iraq data, lets just say we need answers for the questions of the forgeries.
I loved W.Bush's defense given today in TN. "even the UN agreed the Iraqis had WMDs..."
Of course what God's Earthly Emissary is forgetting is that the UN was convinced of this fact by Colin Powell's detailed presentation at the UN. The UN did not agree with the american assessment independently. They arrived at that conclusion based on the evidence WE presented to tham as fact!
Nothing has happened. no one has been able to figure out how this happened? and what about the Valerie Plame affair? Who in the administartion revealed the identity of a CIA covert agent?
But since this is about what the White House calls MISUNDERSTANDINGS concrning iraq data, lets just say we need answers for the questions of the forgeries.
I loved W.Bush's defense given today in TN. "even the UN agreed the Iraqis had WMDs..."
Of course what God's Earthly Emissary is forgetting is that the UN was convinced of this fact by Colin Powell's detailed presentation at the UN. The UN did not agree with the american assessment independently. They arrived at that conclusion based on the evidence WE presented to tham as fact!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.