White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy

Washington Post ^ | July 8, 2003 | Walter Pincus

[Pest]

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

The statement was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report, which raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security.

[Pest]

I hadn't seen this article posted. If it has been, feel free to pull it.

I don't know how well the White House speech writers check their sources, but it looks like they are probably red faced now.

[Support Free Republic]

Your Donation Helps Counter These Guys
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Dog Gone]

I don't even know why this is news. The uranium story was debunked a long time ago as a forgery, but Bush was accurate in stating that British intelligence has a report about it.

The media is trying to spin this as deliberate deceipt on the part of Bush, I guess.

[Pest]

I think it's because this is the first time the White House actually admitted it.

Personally, I have mixed feelings on it. I am sure there are mistakes made sometimes. I don't really believe that the President knowingly lied about the issue. However, it just gives the left wingers fodder and I don't think GW really needs that right now.

[sam_paine]

it just gives the left wingers fodder and I don't think GW really needs that right now.

When does he really need that?

[Galtoid]

Clinton would have spun and spun; Bush admits mistakes.
Even if the report was incorrect, can anyone make the case that Saddam should have remained in power? Ya gotta look at the larger picture, instead of focusing on minute details. The Left will never be happy with W. He knows it; they know it; and we know it. Have a safe summer.

[OldFriend]

Thanks, you are right. The media is simply ragging on this story for their own purposes. The leftist agenda is to furthered at all costs.

Many months ago this segment of the intelligence was disavowed but there was other information regarding purchases from Nigeria that was confirmed.

[Pest]

Clinton would have spun and spun; Bush admits mistakes.

That's a point worth repeating. I was reluctant to post this story for fear of being branded a "troll". However, I thought that it would be good to have an intelligent discussion about the topic.

We will have to face the fact that this is going to be one of the Dems talking points and we should formulate a strategy to respond. I will add this comment to the list.

[zook]

Here's what we need to argue: Regardless of the specific memo's veracity, it is highly likely that Iraq *was* trying to obtain uranium from *somewhere.* In fact, it remains possible that they were trying to obtain it from Niger. If Iraq *was* trying to obtain uranium from Niger, what better strategy than to create a smokescreen of forged documents?

What's interesting is that I'm hearing the usual lib talking heads claiming things like, "it turns out that Bush's claim wasn't true." We have no evidence that it wasn't true, only that the memo was fraudulent. There's a big difference.

[The G Man]

I don't even know why this is news. The uranium story was debunked a long time ago as a forgery, but Bush was accurate in stating that British intelligence has a report about it.

The media is trying to spin this as deliberate deceipt on the part of Bush, I guess

BINGO!

The left hates Bush more than they hate America. Its as simple as that.

[af_vet_rr]

I don't know what bothers me more, that the WH presented such flimsy evidence in his speech, or that a reporter came up with better intel.

[Pest]

The left hates Bush more than they hate America. Its as simple as that.

And republicans are so enamored with Bush that they are willing to overlook any transgression.

Personally, I think GW is the best President since Reagan. However, to be intellectually honest, we need to scrutinize everything every politician does or says.

Let's face the facts. Bush is not infallible and with the US as the only superpower, we have an extra responsibility to be correct. When GW speaks, the world listens.

Something as relatively minute as this could be a major faux pas in both international and national politics.

Maybe GW and his speech writers will be more careful in the future.

[Gabrielle Reilly]

ping.

[YaYa123]

I love when distinctions between the Clinton and Bush administrations are so clearly defined. We shouldn't be surprised the media continues to regurgitate a Bush mistake, nor that they refuse to give him his propers for dealing with it honestly.

[Pest]

I don't know what bothers me more, that the WH presented such flimsy evidence in his speech, or that a reporter came up with better intel.

My sentiments exactly. Couple this with the Medicare B.S., GW's support of the Supreme Court's ruling on the U of M affirmative action issue, and the increased government spending, I am starting to wonder about the man that I voted for.

I do have a theory however. I believe that GW is playing politics (a necessary evil I guess). I think he is looking to the reelection in 2004. He is trying to pick up more moderate votes AND trying to head off several big democrat issues in the process.

This is a bit off subject, but I believe that when GW gets elected for a second term, things will change significantly. Look at how Reagan cut taxes in his first term then cut spending in his second term. I think GW is also taking a page from Clinton's playbook and taking some of the Dems issues away from them and making them his own. Again, politics at work.

[kegler4]

"I love when distinctions between the Clinton and Bush administrations are so clearly defined. We shouldn't be surprised the media continues to regurgitate a Bush mistake, nor that they refuse to give him his propers for dealing with it honestly."

Ah, but has he dealt with it honestly??

According to AP, a former U.S. ambassador told the highest levels of Bush's administration -- at least up to Dick Cheney -- that the Niger story was B.S. loooong before Bush's speech. So unless this ambassador (Joseph Wilson), who was sent by Bush to Africa to investigate this story, is lying, Bush still isn't coming clean.

[Tai_Chung]

This is all about the 2004 elections.

President Bush's strongest quality is his honesty. The DNC and the media is trying to convince people that he is not honest.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bush is only as smart as the information he's given. Aides with agendas (and Secretaries and Vice-Presidents) can feed info to the President so he makes the decision they want him to make. Garbage in, garbage out. Bush's job is only to react to information he's given.

[Sangamon Kid]

Bush is only as smart as the information he's given. Aides with agendas (and Secretaries and Vice-Presidents) can feed info to the President so he makes the decision they want him to make. Garbage in, garbage out. Bush's job is only to react to information he's given.

Oh, wonderful! We have a marionette for a president.

[Pest]

Oh, wonderful! We have a marionette for a president.

This is true to a certain extent. Can you imagine the amount of information that the President gets? The aides distill all the info for him then he (with the help of his staff) makes decisions. However, as the President, he has final responsibility. As the saying goes: The Buck Stops Here.