If Bush lied, then WTF?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You did read in the article where everybody in the administration admits that the words shouldn't have been in the speech, didn't you? Why do you think that is?

Quote: "In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech."

The CIA generally fact checks things that the president says in his State of the Union addresses to try to avoid any chance of a mis-statement. There's an obvious risk in using foreign intelligence--you could be getting played. I think they were quite right in saying that the 16 words should NOT have been included in the speech. Nevertheless, it turns out that those words were correct.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
No? How long does it take to convert raw uranium into a nuclear bomb?

Forever when you don't have it. Anyway, Bush said that Iraq had "recently" sought uranium when the supposed info was regarding a meeting that occurred four years prior where the subject of uranium never came up. So Bush's statement was false.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
The CIA generally fact checks things that the president says in his State of the Union addresses to try to avoid any chance of a mis-statement. There's an obvious risk in using foreign intelligence--you could be getting played. I think they were quite right in saying that the 16 words should NOT have been included in the speech. Nevertheless, it turns out that those words were correct.

No they were not as the article makes absolutely clear. What part of this don't you get:

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That is not information that shows Saddam has WMDs. It's information that suggests Saddam might have wanted to buy material that could be used to make WMDs in the past.

Attempts to purchase uranium on the black market most definitely show that Saddam did wish to continue his nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, if we knew that he was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger, then it was reasonable to assume that he'd also attempt to procure nuclear material from other sources--and there would be no assurance that he'd been similarly unsuccessful in other avenues.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback this stuff, now that we've got boots on the ground in Iraq. But at the time we could only draw inferences from the obviously limited covert intelligence that was available. The facts were the Saddam was known to be in the market for nuclear material, Saddam had tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction in the past against both his neighbors and his own people, and Saddam was refusing to allow the inspectors to do their jobs. What was the logical inference?

Originally posted by no1marauder
No they were not as the article makes absolutely clear. What part of this don't you get:

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "[b]we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."[/b]

The Brits had the goods on them. The CIA did not. The CIA didn't want to rely on the British intelligence. Arguably that's smart. Doesn't change the fact that Saddam was shopping for uranium.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
We're not talking about whether or not any president has ever lied. Of course they've lied. Everyone of them has lied at some point--as has every other person on the planet. I seem to recall that even the great [...moment of silence....] Ronald Reagan lied when he had to, in order to protect the security of an ongoing clandestine military mission. ...[text shortened]... ling Saddam. We're discussing whether Bush was a liar, or whether his attackers are liars.

Reread what I wrote.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
Attempts to purchase uranium on the black market most definitely show that Saddam did wish to continue his nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, if we knew that he was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger, then it was reasonable to assume that he'd also attempt to procure nuclear material from other sources--and there would be no assurance that ...[text shortened]... ddam was refusing to allow the inspectors to do their jobs. What was the logical inference?

More lies.

There were no attempts by Saddam to purchase uranium on the black market. The inspectors were being allowed to do their jobs. And different inferences could perhaps be drawn, but that's a far cry from "knowing" that Saddam had WMDs as members of the Bush administration repeatedly claimed.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
The Brits had the goods on them. The CIA did not. The CIA didn't want to rely on the British intelligence. Arguably that's smart. Doesn't change the fact that Saddam was shopping for uranium.

He wasn't. The article makes that completely clear. That you keep making this false claim shows that you're either A) illiterate or B) a liar.

Originally posted by no1marauder
He wasn't. The article makes that completely clear. That you keep making this false claim shows that you're either A) illiterate or B) a liar.

What part of:

"Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded."

isn't clear to you?

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
What part of:

"Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded."

isn't clear to you?

The British claim is based entirely on the 1999 meeting. However, "The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.

So what is the proof for your claim that Saddam was seeking uranium?

Originally posted by no1marauder
More lies.

There were no attempts by Saddam to purchase uranium on the black market. The inspectors were being allowed to do their jobs.

Ridiculous. Saddam had a long and sordid history of failing to comply with the inspections. To claim otherwise is laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

Originally posted by no1marauder
The British claim is based entirely on the 1999 meeting. However, "[b]The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under ...[text shortened]... trade.

So what is the proof for your claim that Saddam was seeking uranium?[/b]

Funny, the Brits say otherwise. No doubt you know more than British intelligence on this matter.

"Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
Ridiculous. Saddam had a long and sordid history of failing to comply with the inspections. To claim otherwise is laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

Are you denying right before the war, the inspectors were active in Iraq and repeatedly asked for more time to finish their work? Since your memory is bad:

UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
Funny, the Brits say otherwise. No doubt you know more than British intelligence on this matter.

"Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

The British made a bunch of assumptions. Wilson actually talked to the Niger official who was at the meeting. Which is better information?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The British made a bunch of assumptions. Wilson actually talked to the Niger official who was at the meeting. Which is better information?

Given the fact that Wilson and his wife have demonstrated a political interest in lying about this, I wouldn't give much credibility to them. In either case, that would be arguing about what is known (or believed to be known) now. The question is what was believed to be true at the time?