Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-22-2003, 09:26 PM

I guess righteous indignation at being lied to is probably - what - "been there, done that" by now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hptop_tb

Quote:

Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA
Oct. Memos Raised Doubts on Iraq Bid

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 23, 2003; Page A01

The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa, White House officials said yesterday.

The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.

The information, provided in a briefing by Hadley and Bush communications director Dan Bartlett, significantly alters the explanation previously offered by the White House. The acknowledgment of the memos, which were sent on the eve of a major presidential speech in Cincinnati about Iraq, comes four days after the White House said the CIA objected only to technical specifics of the Africa charge, not its general accuracy.

In fact, the officials acknowledged yesterday, the CIA warned the White House early on that the charge, based on an allegation that Iraq sought 500 tons of uranium in Niger, relied on weak evidence, was not particularly significant and assumed Iraq was pursuing an acquisition that was arguably not possible and of questionable value because Iraq had its own supplies.

Yesterday's disclosures indicate utop White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation. The claim was a major part of the case made by the Bush administration before the Iraq war that Hussein represented a serious threat because of his nuclear ambitions; other pieces of evidence have also been challenged.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 07-23-2003, 12:49 AM

So, they confess to outright lying. And why aren't they being impeached?

Sue Sponte · 07-23-2003, 12:57 AM

The media appears to be ignoring a painfully obvious issue while focusing entirely on whether the administration knowingly misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq. As the administration continues to offer more explanations, it's painfully obvious that, at best, these yahoos are wholly incompetent. Basically, the party line now is having multiple people explain how they screwed up or didn't recall intelligence provided to them.

I'm not sure which is worse: knowing manipulation to promote an agenda or complete incompetence at the highest level of the adminstration when it comes to determining whether to put the lives of our soldiers at risk.

RufusAtticus · 07-23-2003, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ
So, they confess to outright lying. And why aren't they being impeached?

Where's the lie? Bush stated "British intellegence has received reports that Iraq is trying to buy Nigerian Uranium." That is true. Bushcroft just quitely hid the fact that they knew the reports were bogus.

bleubird · 07-23-2003, 01:28 AM

That should be Assbushcroft.
bleubird

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2003, 12:49 AM	#2
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	So, they confess to outright lying. And why aren't they being impeached?

07-23-2003, 12:57 AM	#3
Sue Sponte Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: west Posts: 1,213	The media appears to be ignoring a painfully obvious issue while focusing entirely on whether the administration knowingly misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq. As the administration continues to offer more explanations, it's painfully obvious that, at best, these yahoos are wholly incompetent. Basically, the party line now is having multiple people explain how they screwed up or didn't recall intelligence provided to them. I'm not sure which is worse: knowing manipulation to promote an agenda or complete incompetence at the highest level of the adminstration when it comes to determining whether to put the lives of our soldiers at risk.

07-23-2003, 01:28 AM	#5
bleubird Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: alaska Posts: 2,737	That should be Assbushcroft. bleubird

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.