Replies

A perfect example is the "erroneous intelligence information that made it into the State of the Union Address". Sheesh. I've emailed FNC so many articles that debate that statement and I know other Freepers have as well.

How do you debate that statement? Both the Whitehouse and the CIA admit that the claim was not valid.

No, Dave. The White House and CIA do NOT say the uranium claim was invalid. What they say is that they could not validate the claim personally, but the British and MI5 still stand by the uranium intelligence claim. There is a vast difference - as explained by Rumsfeld this morning - between having invalid intelligence and being unable to validate the intelligence personally.

I'm sure given the liberal press you will be able to find a newspaper article that does NOT accurately reflect either the president's, Rumsfeld's or Tenet's comments concerning this uranium intel. The DNC has already made a commercial inaccurately quoting the president in his state of the union speech where he said that based on British intelligence, we have been informed that Saddam seeks to buy uranium. No one said he had bought it. No one said our intelligence was convinced of it.

Not true.They said it should never have made it into the speech as there was only one source..the Brits and we couldn't corroborate it.The statement was"British intelligence says there is evidence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa"Britain won't share source but is sticking by the statement.

I should have added to my most recent response that "erroneous intelligence" is in itself a biased statement. The press have again proven that they do not understand the very nature of intelligence. Fully 50% of it is probably "wrong" but is based on the best guess and information available at the time.

As others have pointed out, the statement was 100% accurate. We had sources that have since been discredited (and were very questionable at the time the SOTU address was being written) that tended to corroborate the Niger incident. There has also been other info about other possible sources (Congo and another north African country I can't remember at the moment). The Brits might also have other (better?) information from Niger of from one of these other countries. To this day, the Brits stand by their estimate, though they don't want to reveal their sources for the intelligence.

One thing that Condi Rice could have made more clear was the fact that in the earlier Cincinatti speech incident, the information might not have been pulled because it was inaccurate. It could have been pulled because it was too specific and might have endangered the source. She hinted that it was too specific, but she didn't make it clear that information that is so specific as to potentially identify the source can be pulled to protect the source, even it the information is highly accurate.

How do you debate that statement? Both the Whitehouse and the CIA admit that the claim was not valid.

So talk to Britian. Bush didn't say "The U.S. intelligence has.... "
Sheesh! What has Bush got to do with all this? All he did was read what he had. Britian has even more evidence of Saddam and Africa. They were right! He was a threat. Who can argue that?
Man, the left sure is making a mountain out of a mole hill over nothing.

Both the Whitehouse and the CIA admit that the claim was not valid.

No, the WH still thinks the British Intelligence is accurate but the CIA has not confirmed to their satisfaction to meet the level it would be included in a presidential speech.

Rice just repeated they do believe Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Africa, and she said what we've been posting for two days now: Britain vigorously stands by their intelligence, which is what President Bush said: That British intelligence has found that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Africa.

That is accurate in every way.