White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes

Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 8, 2003

[eureka!]

"Capitol Hill Blue is NOT reliable & is just shy of World Weekly ... the guy who founded it is good of heart but their journalistic ethos are highly questionable and it wouldn't be the first time they've outright made things up."

I've enjoyed Thompson's rants but I have also gathered that he also hates Bush. This title pretty much confirms that...

[Mr. Bird]

Sounds like more straw grabbing by the Dims!

I don't think any of these claims of deception will get any traction with the voting public unless it is something so blatantly disgusting that no one can ignore it. Personally, I don't think the current president is capable of such malfeasance. But the bottom line is that the average American is still enraged over 9/11. And though the Left doesn't like it, and it may not be attractive, such rage has a way of alleviating concerns about killing a whole bunch of people who promise to kill you, your children, and everyone you care about.

When, in the days following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, people somberly recollected Japan's "waking the sleeping giant", they wrongly were referring to the American military. It is the American public that constitutes the once sleeping giant. And having been asleep for a half century, we're in no mood to return to bed so quickly...We will tolerate a great deal for our collective protection, and this president appears to be well-suited to these times.

[Steel Wolf]

Okay, here's the deal, eeeeveryone knows this:

Bush did lie. It's all about oil. We're in a quagmire. He and Osama were old college buddies. The whole war on terrorism is rigged. The Patriot Act abolished the Constitution. The war was revenge for Daddy Bush. Our tanks aren't within 100 miles of Baghdad. Bush is on a Zionist crusade to destroy Islam. Saddam never had WMD. Even if he did, they all magically disappeared, so the invasion was a fraud.

See, it's just that simple.

[justshe]

***The troubling thing is that Wilkinson, whoever he is, goes on the record claiming to have been present at briefings where Bush basically say to hell with the evidence, I'm going with my gut. ***

---

Any federal employee that comes out of a 'briefing' with the President (multiple briefings if THAT fact is correct) and proceeds to shoot his or her mouth off about the content of those private briefings, should be fired immediately.

I hope this jerk is no longer employed.

[justshe]

I think the Washington Dispatch is trying the same thing (re: a new type of publication). Although THEY are soliciting submissions from readers for publication.....all for no pay, you understand. WD bills their project as a newsletter to be delivered directly to your email address.

Wonder how they are making money....selling email addys perhaps?

[dead]

CHB is well known for it's leftie leanings.

Now come on! They are absolutely not known for their “leftist leanings.” They even got audited by Clinton's IRS.

They are factually-challenged conservatives who have an overriding hatred of the Bushes.

[deport]

The statement in question is as follows from the State of the Union Address:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

[justshe]

"...such rage has a way of alleviating concerns about killing a whole bunch of people who promise to kill you, your children, and everyone you care about."

---

Dennis Miller refers to this as a form of preemptive health care.

[Zavien Doombringer]

True, sort of like Worldnetdaily.com, which at one time I thought was a great web paper...wrong. I found out about FreeRepublic on WND and been here since, I haven't gone back to post or read like I used to.

[Mr. Bird]

I like that!

[Cobra64]

What a crock. People make decisions based on fact and/or "intelligence." If W had bad intel, that doesn't make him a liar. The media is pathetic. In this case, the author is a liar by making an unfounded statement.

[dead]

I'm sorry. I am so confused.

I was thinking about World Net Daily! They were audited by Clinton's IRS.

Capitol Hill Blue is mildly left-leaning, pretending to be non-partisan.

[autoresponder]

If Capital Hill Blue is the new lib organ they need to try some of those spam ad products and overdose!

[rockfish59]

Where would we be if Mr. Al was Prez?

[Digger]

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

Just needs repeating.

[alnick]

The headline says that the WH admitted that Bush lied about nukes.

Read further down and it says that Ari said, "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."

That is not an admission of a lie, even though this Wilkinson character makes his claims. It's an admission that Bush was given one piece of bad evidence. Bush believed it to be good evidence at the time. The headline said that the Whitehouse admitted that Bush lied. The headline is clearly a lie, meant to smear the president.

Based on a blatant lie in the headline, the rest of the article is discredited.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

This could be Bush's Watergate.

Talk about jumping to extreme conclusions based on a dubious claim. Sheeeesh !!!!!!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Is this a reliable source?

No.

[rwfromkansas]

Capitol Hill blue is not reputable.......based on their past Bush attacks.

But, the fact that somebody went on the record is VERY significant.

[leftiesareloonie]

The headline of the story is definitel a crock. But Bush's "anger" and his orders to "find someone who will verify the story: if the CIA can't because he "knows" its true isn't acting on bad intelligence. It's ignoring the intelligence and going with his gut and then "lying" about the basis of his belief, which wasn't any intelligence report, but just his own gut feelings.

Lots of people, and not just on the left, might fear that's a pretty thin basis for taking a nation to war.

I'm not even guess whether this Wilkinson guy is credible. But if what he claims is true then it's kinda scary. And Bush's goose might well be cooked.

But we'll see. If no one else comes forward, then I predict the whole thing blows over.

But what might be going on here is that the CIA doesn't want to be the "fall guy" and they may be staging something of a coup -- a scary thought in itself.