White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes

Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 8, 2003

[leftiesareloonie]

After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President Bush lied in his January State of the Union Address when he claimed Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The acknowledgment came as a British parliamentary commission questioned the reliability of British intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Bush said in his State of the Union address that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The president's statement was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer acknowledged.

An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country." 

[CWOJackson]

He got the zot from the big man himself.

[Mike the lurker]

He's where he belongs, hangin with his buds at the Little place :)

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, he's gone now? Well...can't say I didn't see that coming.

[Phsstpok]

He didn't "LIE". He made a false statement based on poor intelligence.

Actually, he made a true statement:

"we have intelligence which shows..."

We did have intelligence reports and those reports did indicate that the Iraqi's were trying to get the nuke material. That's all absolutely true.  It's like Drudge reporting that a Republican operative was shopping the story that old Sid Vicious was a wife beater.  What Drudge said was absolutely a true statement.  The Republican operative was the one with false info. What turns out not to be true in this case is the conclusion that the source was reliable. Bush based his conclusions on the assessments given him by those who should have known.

[OldFriend]

The media is relentless with their lies and inuendos. It's imperative that we set the record straight. And where in the world is the RNC?????????

[Saundra Duffy]

B.S. alert. "Misinformed" might be a better word - not LIED. Sheeeeeesh.

[cyncooper]

The media is relentless with their lies and inuendos. It's imperative that we set the record straight.

Keith Olberman had Andrea Mitchell on. He was practically begging her to tell him that amongst all these finger pointers someone with an "envelope of documents" would expose somebody. Clearly the hoped for "somebody" Olberman had in mind would be President Bush.

Mitchell said the WH had conceded on background before today that the report was false, but not on the record. I don't believe that is true. I believe the whole forged document topic was brought up before the UN for all to see.

[cyncooper]

Are you really saying it wouldn't bother you at all if the worst that Bush's critics have to say about the lead-up to war was true?

Yes, it would bother me if the charges made were true. But they aren't.

Supposed he lied, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and suppose that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11. Are you saying you wouldn't care, since Saddam was a bad guy anyway and deserved to be offed.

It has already been documented that Saddam had something to do with Al Qaeda, so it's too late and in fact false (you don't like false stuff, remember?) to say he had "nothing" to with them. But I guess we may soon know even more.

No matter the mendaciousness of the public justification given by the president for the war.

Again, it is false (oh dear, there you go again!) to state that the president used this report alone as justification for war.

[OldFriend]

Have heard about the doubts about this Niger connection for months now.

The media is hoping to pin it's hope on this non issue. Let them go for it!

[OldFriend]

The media would have us think the words 'REGIME CHANGE' were never utterred by this President. Pretty hard to do that when we remember John Kerry's regime change comments about the President. He did apologyze did he not! Or is that all a figment of our imagination.

[OldFriend]

Looks like a certain banned jerk is back under a new name.

[snooker]

Yep, in fact Bush quoted the source which happened to be wreong about it's data. The British investigation concluded and said the info was not correct.

Hardly a lie.

But ... hate is a blinding illness.

[snooker]

<<< ... Some people here are salivating Democrats lying in wait to "get" the POTUS. >>>

the kooks are among us.

[JoeSchem]

If he is, and if others back him up, then Bush is probably a very deep trouble.

I doubt it. If he did lie -- and that has not been established -- he lied to liberate a country, not to have sex with an intern. And if you recall, the American people thought it was okay to lie in order to have sex with an intern.

If Bush goes in 2004, it'll be for the same reason that Hoover, Nixon, Ford, and Bush Elder went -- because of a tanking economy. And no, there was nothing wrong with Nixon in 1974 that a booming economy wouldn't have cured. Sorry for being such a cynic, but as I recall, Gore almost won in 2000, despite telling a whopper-a-minute in the presidential debates, and that tells you all you need to know about how the American electorate feels about veracity.

[WhiteGuy]

It really matters little,

The control of the iraqi oil and the market to sell it are both in the bag..................

There was also that 80 billion in tax dollars to be spent on "contractors".

[CWOJackson]

There's an easy test to find out. Just yell out "Twinkie" and if he throws himself on it then you know who it is.

[autoresponder]

Only 15% of the actual voters really intelligently study and know the candidates, political agendas, and critical defining issues well in advance of a Presidential election.

The remaining 85% all get superficial information from the major TV networks mainly and/or vote on previous party voting experiences or their families traditional political party.

Little serious attention is paid by the truly "undecided" voters until the last 2 weeks before the election.

That was why that late last minute hachet job was released by the Gore campaign Democrats about George W*s DUI arrest in Maine many years ago in his youth.

1 - They did not want to give the Bush campaign time to explain and refute it.

2 - They did not want voters to forget it or discount it over time because it became "stale".

3 - They did not want it to be eclipsed by another more important incident.

4 - They did not want to let the Bush campaign team and Carl Rove come up with an big issue or dramatic press release that made the DUI incident diminish.

5 - They did not want to give swing and undecided voters a chance to think rationally and switch any votes back to Bush.

6 - They did want to let emotionally vote changing Conservative voters that got mad at Bush for moral, religious, or ethical reasons and so might vote for Gore change their minds as they so the true larger issues and character and so vote for Bush.

It is a game for the advertising geniuses and the brilliant political gurus behind the candidates like Carl Rove.

The wild card is a renegade liberal judiciary like SCOFL, radical left wing Socialist racial hustlers like Jesse Jackson, all those smarmy trial lawyers in the Democrat party, the South Florida Democrat precinct officials, and AFT whores.

Fortunately, the RNC, FR, talk radio hosts, internet newsites, a growing Conservative citizenry, a lack of intelligence, and SCOTUS by the Democrats prevailed over the scumbags!

[cyncooper]

Would we ever give Clinton a pass on something like this?

Let's see....Lying depraved jerk (clinton) vs. honorable trustworthy man (President Bush)....

No. I wouldn't give clinton a pass on "something like this" because in his case it would probably turn out to be true, that he would lie deliberately.

As it is, your premise falls because "something like this" hasn't happened with President Bush. No lie, no deceit.

[cwb]

"Would we ever give Clinton a pass on something like this?"

The question isn't would we give Clinton a pass on this...it's would the media. The "partisans" on both sides always question the opposing sides motives and intentions...that's politics. What isn't is the way the media is treating a year old story that was discredited almost as long ago. There were even questions whether these parts (if true) could be used for other applications.

The fact is the media did give Clinton a pass. It gave him a pass in Kosovo over the 100,000 mass graves and the Racak Massacre. It gave him a pass over the same type of intelligence failure that led to the bombing of the Al-Shifa Pharamceutical plant...intelligence that claimed it was a VX nerve producing facility. Do you recall the investigation into this intelligence failure that destroyed the Sudan's most important medical-producing facility and the multi-million dollar lawsuit that followed? Or how about the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?

Give me a break...Clinton bombed Iraq on 4 separate occasions and I never heard the "elite" media questioning the veracity of the intelligence information...nor for the fact, anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle. For the last 3 hours I've been listening to CBS/ABC radio's 1/2 hour newsbreak headling with "Bush administration admits intelligence failure." Never once did I hear the Clinton administration admit to any of its failures...or the media persue them. Oh, wait...CLinton did blame the Chinese Embassy bombing on the CIA and their antiquated maps.