Compare and Contrast

I chalk it up to the press slant - ""my country''s better than yours!""

Add to that this report which asserts:

As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate.

Factual, schmactual. The British had a bogus report, one that the CIA didn''t put much credence in and warned the White House about brining up. Nevertheless, it was added to the State of the Union as a key selling-point* for the war. Whether or not the statement of the British having intelligence was factually correct, by bringing it up in the State of the Union, the president rubber-stamped it as being the truth.

* = On Hardball, Chris Matthews (who could kick Bill O''Reilly''s ass in a clean fight) keeps bringing up that what brought moderates over to the Administration''s side on the war was the fear of having ""The Bomb"" in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Now he (and perhaps they) is understandably upset that this nuclear assertion from the State of the Union (which, as the CBS report points out, was never brought up again by officials after the SotU) has been proven false.

The explanation is simple. George Bush has favorable approval ratings and can afford to say he made a statement that can not be support by fact. Further, he is taking the fallout now, with 15 months to the next election.

Meanwhile, Blair is taking a lot of heat from the war and is not willing to concede anything.

If you look at the polls (and I won''t bother citing them since they are everywhere), this is clear: Americans wanted Saddam Hussein out whether there was WMD or not (whether it be out of fear of terrorists or simply for sympathy over the suffering of the Iraqi people) and the British citizens wanted substantial justification under a U.N. resolution.

And I hate to go back to what this is really all about - undermining the credibility of George Bush in an effort to gain political favor for the Democrats. As Ratboy has discovered this is not working.

We have 34 out of 55 of the high ranking Iraqi officers that are captured and are being questioned. This takes time. I understand we want to get Bush out of the White House, but let''s see what the military can get out of the captives.

Think of how long it took to find out how the Shuttle Columbia exploded. With all the information things take time. I think the Dems should give it a year and see what develops. Than if nothing discovered, they will be closer to the election which will be more damaging to Bush. Which, after all, is what all this is about.
If you think there is no justification for war because of all of the lies, blah blah blah, does you believe Saddam Hussein should be restored to power? If it is a ""fictitious war"", doesn''t Hussein have the right to have his country back? If not, than why are we still debating this issue?

The British had a bogus report, one that the CIA didn''t put much credence in

Well, the point of the articles is that the British stand by their report. However, I do realize that you were there, in Niger, and probably have a better handle on things than British intelligence.

As for the CIA, I thought the big rumor was that they are a bunch of spineless ninnies who put together analysis based on what they think their bosses want. They don''t have much credibility with me to put down the Brits if this is true... Who are you going to trust, scaredy-cat, lifetime bureaucrats who can''t do better than a show on CBS, or James Bond?

I guess I''m missing the point. Are you saying that because one piece of information used months before the war might be false, that Saddam didn''t have or want WMD''s? For God''s sake, he himself told us he had them in 1998. Maybe he used them all up at birthday parties for his sons, but I doubt it.

The tens of thousands of liters of sarin, anthrax, and vx that Saddam reported and then couldn''t account for last year would all fit into two tanker trucks. We have truckloads of cocaine and Mexicans coming across our border with regularity (sometimes in one really fun "Fiesta-mobile"). This happens even though our borders are vigorously patrolled. Neither the combined efforts of the Coast Guard, INS and the police, nor the fact that our native population is on our side let''s us find all that stuff.

I know it's been three whole months. Normally in that amount of time the US government would have solved any problem – or at least formed a committee to pick the stationary to print the agenda on"… We gave Saddam a year's notice that we were coming in. How about giving us that long to look?

You discredit chemical finds, protective gear, and mobile labs, but the fact is that there is disagreement on each of these. These things may or may not have been part of weapons programs, and all we have are maybes either way. We did find part of his nuclear program, and this has never been disputed. Does the existence of hidden nuclear centrifuges make you and Chris Matthews think Saddam wasn''t interested in getting a nuclear bomb? Or are nuclear centrifuges really good for rose gardens, along with pruning and manure? I''m sure that these finds are the tip of the iceberg.

We get criticized that fighting is ongoing. We are chastised and told Saddam is still alive. We are told to leave by the international community and a small vocal part of the populace. We have even stated that we don''t plan to stay long. If I were an Iraqi with information about Saddam''s WMD programs, I might wait to see what happened before putting my neck and my family on the line. I might give it more than 3 months before coming forward.

Look, intelligence is an art, not a science. It is a he said-she said proposition. Most intelligence wouldn''t hold up in a court of law as evidence. The fact that some people doubt some of it while others believe it isn't hard evidence either way. This hard, cold fact of international reality can be found in any Tom Clancy movie.

Saddam was our enemy. His history with WMD''s and tremendously poor judgment offered us enough reason to take him out, even if the population of Iraq had loved him, like the American people loved Reagan. The fact that he was a murdering tyrant just makes it all the more justified. Again, he was our enemy. When the hell did we start giving our enemies free passes? That''s how this mess got started. If we had started enforcing the Bush doctrine 20 years ago, the Middle East would be democratic and terrorism would be something to make black-and-white movies about.

My personal opinion is that we don''t want enemies, but should wholeheartedly deal with the ones we get. If the general public needs to hear WMD's as an excuse, well we can just drag out Bill Clinton, the UN, Hans Blix, German and French intelligence agencies, and the CIA – all of them told us about Saddam's WMD's. We may not able to take out every despot who murders his people and threatens his neighbors, but we should be cheering every time we sneak one in.

Rat, you call the public "mindless sheep". I'm confused. Are you saying that we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam, or do you have issues with the justifications for war? If you agree Saddam should have gone, surely you can understand why we tried extra hard to sell the "mindless sheep" using an issue they would understand and agree with.

"ralcydan" wrote:

You discredit chemical finds, protective gear, and mobile labs, but the fact is that there is disagreement on each of these.

In one of Mex''s threads, there''s a link that says that the mobile labs found were nothing more than weather balloon stations, not Winnebagoes of death.

Does the existence of hidden nuclear centrifuges make you and Chris Matthews think Saddam wasn''t interested in getting a nuclear bomb? Or are nuclear centrifuges really good for rose gardens, along with pruning and manure? I''m sure that these finds are the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe you missed the part where it was stated that the centrifuge was buried in 1991. I highly doubt they could just dig it up and get a nuke within a few months.

Rat, you call the public "mindless sheep". I'm confused. Are you saying that we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam, or do you have issues with the justifications for war? If you agree Saddam should have gone, surely you can understand why we tried extra hard to sell the "mindless sheep" using an issue they would understand and agree with.

Which was a bold face lie. Saddam, as it has been proven now, could not have built ""The Bomb,"" what with half his country getting probed by weapons inspectors and the other parts bombed on a daily basis. Connecting Saddam to 9-11 was a bold face lie; capture al-Qaeda types have said they never talked with the Iraqis. And that Iraqi intel officer that was captured recently that Republicans are whooping about because they say he met with Mohammed Atta in Prague? Turns out this Iraqi was never near Prague. Your kind must have a very off-kilter moral center if you think lying with a straight face to the American people is justifiable to futher your ends. You know the last time the government willfully deceived the American public to further its own agenda? Do you know the last time a Presidential Administration thought it knew better than its own military leadership? Do you know the last time American soldiers died because of presidential stubborness?

And now it looks like the Administration has picked the fall guy for their mistakes.

there''s a link that says that the mobile labs found were nothing more than weather balloon stations, not Winnebagoes of death.

The Iraqi ambassador claimed that the trucks shown on on the satellite photos were weather balloon stations. If they were actually weather balloon stations, why did Saddam move them before the war started, as opposed to blowing up a balloon and proving his point? Do you think Saddam would have missed to opportunity to humiliate Bush? He could have bought himself another year in the court of world opinion if he had blown up one balloon. Was he just to stupid to think of it?

Maybe you missed the part where it was stated that the centrifuge was buried in 1991 . I highly doubt they could just dig it up and get a nuke within a few months.

I saw that. And I know I don''t care. The fact is that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. I know that the world is a better place without him in power. And I know I don''t know enough about nuclear centerfuges to be able to speak about whether the one in the rose garden could be used again.

What I do care about is the precedent set by the find. It shows that Saddam has a history of hiding weapons programs before being invaded. It shows that even with teams of UN inspectors searching Iraq, Saddam successfully hid a WMD program for 12 years. And it shows that saying the Administration lied after only 3 months of looking is woefully premature.

Your kind must have a very off-kilter moral center if you think lying with a straight face to the American people is justifiable to futher your ends

What on earth do you mean by ''your kind''?

You do understand that the American people have been lied to about innumberable liberal social programs since the 1930''s, right? The liberal ''intellectual elite'' have spent years thinking they know better than the rest of the world, and twisting reality to suit their ends. That is a ''pot meet kettle'' argument if I have ever heard it.

Do you know the last time a Presidential Administration thought it knew better than its own military leadership? Do you know the last time American soldiers died because of presidential stubborness?

Clinton in Somalia?

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

The Iraqi ambassador claimed that the trucks shown on on the satellite photos were weather balloon stations. If they were actually weather balloon stations, why did Saddam move them before the war started, as opposed to blowing up a balloon and proving his point? Do you think Saddam would have missed to opportunity to humiliate Bush? He could have bought himself another year in the court of world opinion if he had blown up one balloon. Was he just to stupid to think of it?

British intelligence confirmed it. Besides, they tested negative for any trace of biological weapons. Next thing you''ll tell us that a field of sheep sh*t was being used to refine weapons grade anthrax.

I saw that. And I know I don''t care.

Then quit trying to claim that that centrifuge was an example of an imminent threat to US security. The North Korean nukes are a bigger threat to US security and chances are the DPRK might be willing to sell a few to the highest bidder. Odd how the Administration didn''t seem to notice this, even when the DPRK sent a shipment of SCUD-like missles to Yemen.

The fact is that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons.

A lot of world leaders want nuclear weapons. A lot have them. The reality should be that nobody should have them. Period. These are not weapons to win wars and stop terror; these are weapons to destroy nations and cause terror.

I know that the world is a better place without him in power.

The Iraqi people are better for it in the long term. Maybe the Middle East. The world might not be better off in how he was removed.

What I do care about is the precedent set by the find. It shows that Saddam has a history of hiding weapons programs before being invaded.

It shows that he shouldn''t have entrusted people to hide things for him. Did you read the report at all? The man who had it hid it so that the Ba''athists couldn''t find it because he''d know what they''d do with it. This is not an imminent threat to US security; this is the Keystone Cops in Baghdad.

It shows that even with teams of UN inspectors searching Iraq, Saddam successfully hid a WMD program for 12 years.

Um, did the Inspectors ever say that he DIDN''T have WMDs? No, they didn''t. There was enough evidence gathered by them in 1998 to give Air Tasking Orders to destroy WMD plants in Operation Desert Fox.

And it shows that saying the Administration lied after only 3 months of looking is woefully premature.

Even in the face of these revelations, you won''t even admit that there''s a problem? My god man, what will it take to make you wonder? There was a serious problem with the intelligence. The CIA knew this and told both the offices of the vice president and the president. They ignored them and use the uranium angle to manipulate public opinion. This is as serious a violation of the public trust as ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman.""

What on earth do you mean by ''your kind''?

You do understand that the American people have been lied to about innumberable liberal social programs since the 1930''s, right? The liberal ''intellectual elite'' have spent years thinking they know better than the rest of the world, and twisting reality to suit their ends. That is a ''pot meet kettle'' argument if I have ever heard it.

And don''t try to bury a conservative lie under a liberal lie. You were at least mature enough not to shout ""Clinton"" at the top of your lungs. Oh wait...

Clinton in Somalia?

Reagan in Lebanon. LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam. Stupidity rides in both the DNC and GOP.

The fact that the centrifuge merely existed in 1991 should be reason for concern...not relief that it was buried.

In 1981 the Israeli Air Force bombed Osiraq, the location of a French-manufactured Iraqi nuclear reactor. While condemned around the world, the attack nevertheless set the Iraqi nuclear program back by quite a few years; previously Iraq was estimated to be 5-10 years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon.

Essentially the attack prevented Iraq circa 1991 from becoming North Korea circa 2003.

How much square footage does one need to construct a nuclear weapon...or even a radiological weapon? Given that we''re talking about a country the size of California -- a country which has had an active nuclear program since the late 1960s -- I find it laughable that people with no experience with denial & deception operations, nuclear energy or intelligence analysis can be so quick to dismiss this issue. The fact that partisan politics has become part of this whole thing makes it even more absurd.

You know, one of the problems that I find with discussions like this is that the members of the liberal elite (and a much smaller number of the conservative extreme), assume that we have access to all the knowledge in the world, and all that is missing is the political or social commitment to using it. And that is just patently wrong.

The reality is that the world is full of judgement calls. It is full of very-real trade-offs. And it is full of inadequacy and failings on the part of man.

I don''t assume that just because we haven''t found something intentionally hidden yet, it means that we were misled. I know that the US protected its strategic interests, as well as provided the path to a better future for the Iraqi people by removing Saddam from power.

I know that the President of the United States is faced daily with decisions that are full of gray areas. And that I expect him to answer each one, to the best of his ability, based on the best knowledge that is available to him at that time, in the best interest of the American people. If it turns out later that a mistake was made, well, that is part of the human condition. if he makes too many of them, well, he won''t get re-elected.

I do not assume that if a mistake was made (in general, this is not a statement about the Niger report or the SotU), that it was done as an intentional lie. I do not assume that perfect knowledge exists, and it is merely waiting to be unleashed upon the world by some annointed few.

No one here argues that Saddam didn''t have WMD. If that is the case, what is the argument? If everyone knows that Iraq has hidden WMD, then what is the hubub about? That the President might have been wrong about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa? Or are people upset that he made a case on the basis of nuclear desires when the evidence wasn''t 100%?

Or, is it as Lawyeron points out, that this is a political ploy to cast a shadow of doubt on a President in order to further the Democrats'' political goals?

Like Ral said, is there anyone here that thinks that Saddam didn''t have WMD? Is there anyone here that thinks we should offer him his country back?

"Rantage" wrote:

How much square footage does one need to construct a nuclear weapon...or even a radiological weapon? Given that we''re talking about a country the size of California -- a country which has had an active nuclear program since the late 1960s -- I find it laughable that people with no experience with denial & deception operations, nuclear energy or intelligence analysis can be so quick to dismiss this issue. The fact that partisan politics has become part of this whole thing makes it even more absurd.

In order to properly refine weaponable uranium and plutonium, such as that the North Koreans have been doing unabated for the past year, you''d need a pretty big and obvious facility to do it. Assembling the bomb would require a space no bigger than a conventional bomb factory.

However, since anybody could pretty much watch the DPRK refine the stuff from civilian satellites, I highly doubt such an effort in Iraq would go unoticed. It requires pretty hefty facilities and safety precautions (and if there weren''t, you''d see a large number of irradiated people running around Iraq). Now, there are reports they did have uranium (which they might have extracted from depleted uranium shells used in the war in 1991) and it was looted (so we''ll never know its true origins); no where in these reports did it say that this material was found near a processing center or near a bomb plant.

Getting back to the earlier topic, I''m still amazed by the silence on the key fact presented here: the president willfully asserted a fact that was proven false. The CIA warned both his office and the vice president''s office not to use the British report. The CIA man in Niger said that any assertion that Iraq bought uranium from Niger is flimsy at best. Despite knowing this, President Bush and his handlers decided to make that assertion as part of the State of the Union speech designed to make the case for going to war with Iraq. As the old legal axiom puts it, if you can prove someone on the witness stand lied (or didn''t use true facts) once, you should consider the rest of that person''s testimony into question if not throw it all out altogether.

Assembling the bomb would require a space no bigger than a conventional bomb factory

Well, in the Sum of All Fears, they did it in a 10x10 foot area. And in the Peacemaker, they did it in the back of a moving truck. And since I don''t think anyone in this discussion has any sort of first hand knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb, we might as well be pulling assumptions out of a hat. Rat is probably right about the size of facility needed to refine nuclear materials. But again, I really have no idea, and since the centerfuge that was found was small enough to be buried in a rose garden, it might not take that much space at all. If any of the GWJ readers are nuclear physicists, please chime in and let us know.

I''m still amazed by the silence on the key fact presented here: the president willfully asserted a fact that was proven false.

Yes, he willfully asserted a fact that he said he thought at the time to be true, and was later claimed to be faulty. Does saying something that you think is true and later having it proven false make you a liar? Hell, in the context of all of the evidence of WMD, would you have made a different decision?

From CNN:

Rice''s and Bush''s remarks came in the wake of comments from unnamed sources who said the president''s speechwriters had included the discredited line in the State of the Union address -- even after the CIA had raised concerns about the quality of the information.

Sources said this week that early drafts of the speech cited American intelligence about Niger and the uranium, but intelligence officials urged the removal of the information because they did not have ""high confidence"" in it.

I love ''unnamed sources''. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but always free to cast the first stone.

No one has proven that the President knew the evidence was false. The British are still claiming their report is true.

As the old legal axiom puts it, if you can prove someone on the witness stand lied (or didn''t use true facts) once, you should consider the rest of that person''s testimony into question if not throw it all out altogether.

Sure. So go ahead and prove that he lied. And by that, I mean prove that he knew for an unequivocal fact that the report was false and made the decision to knowingly include it. Because no one else seems to be able to do that. All that anyone can do it quote unnamed sources that he was advised the intelligence might be faulty. Not false...faulty. If you can prove he lied, let John Kerry or Howard Dean know, because they would love to hold a press conference presenting your evidence. Until then, I''ll stick by that other old legal axiom: Innocent until proven guilty.

Whatever. The centrifuge was hidden from weapons inspectors and was contraband to the Iraqis. As I stated in a previous post it took North Korea less than 5 years to build a nuclear missile after their purchase of a centrifuge.
The hiding of the centrifuge from weapons inspectors is primae facie evidence of an intent to renew a nuclear weapons program at a future date. You can''t just buy these things at Wal-Mart, which is why it was so difficult for Hussein to part with. Although it was buried in a garden, I seriously doublt it was used as a flower pot.
As for Reagan and Lebanon. He screwed up big time, and admitted it. Bush admitted he gave false information in his State of the Union address. If you ever listen to Clinton or his backers you''d think he never made a mistake.
And on a somewhat related topic, it amuses me when liberals get upset when we bring up Clinton. It''s as if he''s some kind of blight that they''d rather forget. He''s the last Democratic President and the most popular President the Democrats have had in the White House since John F. Kennedy. That''s over 40 years! Carter is an easy target and Lyndon Johnson is the only truly evil President we''ve ever had and I''m scared to talk about him.
Maybe we do need another Democrat in the White House so I can have someone else to pick on.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Yes, he willfully asserted a fact that he said he thought at the time to be true, and was later claimed to be faulty.

There''s the rub, though. He had the CIA warning him that the intel wasn''t reliable. So, maybe he did know and gambled no one would care. It worked; he had near unanimous support domestically for the war (whether or not it was support of the troops or support of the idea of the war is anybody''s guess; the polls depend on the phrasing of the question).

I heard an arugment today that dismissed this situation by saying that such baseless assertions to garner support are made in State of the Unions all the time. Here''s where I disagree. When you have a president say they''ll implement Program X and it will get Result Y, it''s one thing. It''s entirely different when a president makes a claim about a direct threat to the nation (or lack of a threat), it''s entirely different.

No one has proven that the President knew the evidence was false. The British are still claiming their report is true.

What a sorry state MI6 is in then. Especially when the note they based it off of had a forged signature of a Niger offiicial who had been retired for years at the time the note was allegedly made.

I heard today that Bill Clinton has gone on record in support of Tony Blair and the WMD intel. Do conservatives want a confirmed liar and Democrat supporting their cause?

And by that, I mean prove that he knew for an unequivocal fact that the report was false and made the decision to knowingly include it. Because no one else seems to be able to do that.

The British intelligence was based on that oft-mentioned Niger note that was an obvious fake. When asked to verify it, the CIA couldn''t find anything to back it up and voiced their concerns to the White House. Despite the questions, the decision was made to include the British intelligence hoping that by saying it was British, they could avoid getting into trouble. There still are a few unanswered questions such as who knew what when and decided what to do.

Lies? Maybe; a full investigation may reveal it, but we''ve seen the stone-walling the 9-11 commission is complaining about from government agencies.

Faulty intel? Absolutely, glad to see you can admit that.

Misleading the American public? Oh yes ineedy. The fact that they said it was ""British"" in order to cover themselves is disquieting. Why would they make this assertion? Why would tell us this when its veracity was in question? And why did they wait until now to tell us? I guess this all goes down to if you think that national security and foreign policy goals should supercede telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Edit: And now it seems that DCI George Tenet is falling on his sword for the Administration. Details here. Can you say Ollie North?

Lord, this is like May 2002 all over again when the Democrats were charging that George Bush knew about the plot to topple the twin towers but did nothing.
Nobody is buying that George Bush knowingly lied except die hard party regulars, such as yourself, Rat Boy. I''d have an easier time convincing you that Clinton was impeached because he committed the crime of perjury rather than because he had an affair than you or others will ever have trying to convince a majority of voters that this is another example of George Bush lying so that innocent people can die. You can scream it from the rooftops, but the indifference is deafening.
A majority of Americans, many who would never admit it publicly or in a poll, are looking to the Republicans to fight the war on terror and against tyrannical leaders such as Saddam Hussein. They see the Democratic Party as a bunch of whiners.
So, in the end what do you have? Another case of ""nice try"". George Tenet will admit that he supported the statement, and C''est La Vie. Since they won''t be able to blast George Bush the Dems will lose interest in this topic and its on to the next attack. Let''s have it, Republicans love a good scrap.
The Republicans are going to come out of this smelling like a rose and the Democrats are going to have egg on their face for their pathetic efforts to discredit George Bush.
Keep it up guys and it''ll be another 40 years before you have another two term Democrat President.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

In order to properly refine weaponable uranium and plutonium, such as that the North Koreans have been doing unabated for the past year, you''d need a pretty big and obvious facility to do it. Assembling the bomb would require a space no bigger than a conventional bomb factory.

If you look at the size of the facilities that the U.S. used in support of its atomic weapons program through the mid-fifties, you''ll see that while they are large, they are not monstrous. This one was a bit over 62,000 square feet in size.

Now, look at this list of Iraqi nuclear facilities that were known to exist. What are the chances that the list is complete?

However, since anybody could pretty much watch the DPRK refine the stuff from civilian satellites,

a) John Q. Public is not an imagery analyst and b) commercial imagery does not yet provide the level of detail required to do such analysis.

I highly doubt such an effort in Iraq would go unoticed.

DoD briefing on Iraqi Denial & Deception practices, circa 2002

Details of an Iraqi facility that was undiscovered until U.S. ground troops happened across it.

Getting back to the earlier topic, I''m still amazed by the silence on the key fact presented here: the president willfully asserted a fact that was proven false. The CIA warned both his office and the vice president''s office not to use the British report.

From Clifford May''s article today:

...Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. It is not true "” as USA Today reported on page one Friday morning "” that ""tainted evidence made it into the President''s State of the Union address."" For the record, here''s what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.""

Precisely which part of that statement isn''t true? The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium. Is it possible that the British government was mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that Her Majesty''s government came by that belief based on an erroneous American intelligence report about a transaction between Iraq and Niger? Yes "” but British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet say that''s not what happened.

They say, according to Britain''s liberal Guardian newspaper, that their claim was based on ""extra material, separate and independent from that of the US.""

...

A big part of the reason this has grown into such a brouhaha is that Joseph C. Wilson IV wrote an op-ed about it in last Sunday''s New York Times in which he said: ""I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq''s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.""

Actually, Wilson has plenty of choices "” but no basis for his slanderous allegation. A little background: Mr. Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to verify a U.S. intelligence report about the sale of yellowcake "” because Vice President Dick Cheney requested it, because Cheney had doubts about the validity of the intelligence report.

Wilson says he spent eight days in Niger ""drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people"" "” hardly what a competent spy, detective, or even reporter would call an in-depth investigation. Nevertheless, let''s give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that he was correct when he reported back to the CIA that he believed it was ""highly doubtful that any such transaction ever took place. ""

But, again, because it was ""doubtful"" that Saddam actually acquired yellowcake from Niger, it does not follow that he never sought it there or elsewhere in Africa, which is all the president suggested based on what the British said "” and still say.

*cough*

"Rantage" wrote:

because Cheney had doubts about the validity of the intelligence report.

Here''s the most revealing thing in your entire post and one that which nobody here has answered. IF EVEN THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD DOUBTS ABOUT IT, WHY WAS IT MENTIONED IN THE STATE OF THE UNION?

If you look at the size of the facilities that the U.S. used in support of its atomic weapons program through the mid-fifties, you''ll see that while they are large, they are not monstrous.

They''d still be obvious to American spy satellites. And the old sites were; otherwise Ilan Ramon and his flight of Israeli fighters wouldn''t have had anything to bomb in the early ''80s, nor would American forces during Desert Storm. But given the current outcry over North Korea and Iran''s nuclear program, would it not have been reasonable to assume that the US, with its dozens of satellites and constant aircraft overflights, would have noticed something going on in regards to nuclear weapons?

What are the chances that the list is complete?

Fairly complete, I''d say. The facilities used here were all large, industrial buildings, not Winnebagoes of Death and not holes in the desert. A nuclear program isn''t something that is that easily concealed.

And the fact they had a minor uranium mining operation going brings up an interesting point. If they could mine the stuff themselves, why would they bother going to Africa to buy it?

a) John Q. Public is not an imagery analyst and b) commercial imagery does not yet provide the level of detail required to do such analysis.

You could try looking here.

Or here.

And here. Bear in mind some of this is based on old, pre-Gulf War 1 intel before every knowable site was bombed by Coalition aircraft or destroyed by the IAEA.

I wouldn''t call Global Security.org ""John Q. Public.""

If you''re trying to convince me, please try using sources that aren''t biased. I doubt the Rumsfeld-led DoD would dare put out a report that wouldn''t support their position. And report that is ultimately attributed to a reporter for a right-wing Israeli newspaper is hardly impartial.

I''m still amazed by the silence on the key fact presented here: the president willfully asserted a fact that was proven false.
""Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound.

...There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq.

...Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.

...our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

...In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

...Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct "” i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."" - George Tenet, Director of Central Inteligence, July 11, 2003

Another case of a stupid Clinton appointee messing things up...

It is literally impossible to say that George Bush was lying. It has not been proven that Iraq was not trying to obtain uranium from Africa, even in Niger. The British stand by their report. And Tenet has stated that the CIA doubts about this informaiton were not shared with the President or Vice President.

The CIA knew this and told both the offices of the vice president and the president.

Prove it. There is simply no evidence that the President knew the report was possibly false, no matter how many times you say there is.

I like how the big news is basically a nitpick over one disputed bit of intelligence. Where is the big story on the 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs, wherein the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, in spite of the dubiousness of the Niger report?

Looks like the CIA thought and reported that Saddam was indeed trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapon''s program. And since you put so much faith in the CIA when it comes to debunking British inteligence reports, I assume you bow down before their expert analysis here.

Edit - oh, and as regards this:

Rantage wrote:
because Cheney had doubts about the validity of the intelligence report.

Rat Boy responds:
Here''s the most revealing thing in your entire post and one that which nobody here has answered. IF EVEN THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD DOUBTS ABOUT IT, WHY WAS IT MENTIONED IN THE STATE OF THE UNION?

Actually, Rat, if you read the Op/ed piece quoted, Cheney''s office raised doubts about the Niger report in February - after the speech had occurred.

Well, in the Sum of All Fears , they did it in a 10x10 foot area. And in the Peacemaker , they did it in the back of a moving truck. And since I don''t think anyone in this discussion has any sort of first hand knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb, we might as well be pulling assumptions out of a hat. Rat is probably right about the size of facility needed to refine nuclear materials. But again, I really have no idea, and since the centerfuge that was found was small enough to be buried in a rose garden, it might not take that much space at all. If any of the GWJ readers are nuclear physicists, please chime in and let us know.

You really don''t have to be a nuke scientist to understand the things involved, a healthy interest in nuclear weapons can prove really handy. As said before, the assembly of the bomb itself isn''t too hard although it would take a lot of expertise and the right tools and equipment to do it. I guess a moderately rich country like Iraq could pull it off if it were given enough time.

The biggest problem still lies in the procurement fissionable material, either Uranium-235 or Plutonium. Now plutonium is gathered (extracted, takes some time and a fairly large facility) as a by-product from uranium that is used as fuel in nuclear plants. Seeing that Iraq didn''t have a nuclear plant the only way they could ever have gotten plutonium is either by buying it or theft, both of which would have probably left a trail and some evidence. Uranium-235 is a whole other matter. Your average dug up from a mine uranium is U238, its raw form which isn''t very fissionable and first needs enrichment before enabling it to be used in reactors/weapons. With this process you up the ante on the amount of U235 in the natural ore, this is high grade nuclear material making up only <1% of the raw natural ore. The enrichment of U238 in order to contain more U235 can be achieved by a number of methods, i.e. centrifuges, gas diffusion or electromagnetical separation. With the two latter technologies being very hard to understand and put together as a viable method of enrichment centrifuges make a better choice for an aspiring nuclear power.

When you want to produce weapons grade uranium you have to get the percentage of U235 at about >90% and you''ll need about 25 kilos to produce a crude but effective weapon (estimates place this amount of needed material much lower with more sophisticated methods). A facility that could produce such amounts of uranium in a decently low amount of time would need hundreds if not thousands centrifuges to do the job, these things would have to be running 24 hours a day and would take up massive amounts of electrical power. Getting such a huge project underway is a damn diffcult task and probably the only reason so relatively few countries have succeeded in producing nuclear weapons today.

My point is that one centrifuge in a man''s back yard doesn''t make a uranium enrichment plant. You need a location, infastructure, manpower and liquid assets to get a nuclear project going, not a rosegarden.

</bad spelling and grammar, sue me, it''s 2:20AM here and my leet english skills are lacking anyway>

Whatever, India and Pakistan had a nuclear program and we totally missed it.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/980...

""Our failure to detect this shows that India did a good job of concealing their intentions, while we did a dreadfully inadequate job of detecting those intentions,"" Shelby said.

RatBoy, read this report from Amnesty International and then tell us what a terrible decision the President made in overthrowing Hussein.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/airepor...

And yes, they do cite Iraq''s failure to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors for suspected weapons sites in 1999.

Is this really the issue the Dems need to stick their neck out on?

Let''s get past the minutae of whether this fact was true or that intelligence was reliable.

Put it on the record Rat Boy, do you think the President was wrong in taking Saddam Hussein out of power, and do you support his return to power?

If you do, please state your reasons that Saddam Hussein should remain in power.

If you don''t, than thank your President for making the world a better place.

Put it on the record Rat Boy, do you think the President was wrong in taking Saddam Hussein out of power, and do you support his return to power?

If you do, please state your reasons that Saddam Hussein should remain in power.

If you don''t, than thank your President for making the world a better place.

Yeah, but that''s not an argument in a discussion on wheter the president lied to the citizens of the US or not, is it, Lawyeron?

"ralcydan" wrote:

It is literally impossible to say that George Bush was lying.

He certainly didn''t tell the truth.

It has not been proven that Iraq was not trying to obtain uranium from Africa, even in Niger. The British stand by their report.

Which relied on that one note that proved false. Prove that they were trying to buy it, even though they had their own uranium mine.

And Tenet has stated that the CIA doubts about this informaiton were not shared with the President or Vice President.

However, there have been reports that they did tell the White House. This is just some political manuevering to give the White House plausible deniability. George Tenet is the fall-guy here; he won''t be around much longer.

Prove it. There is simply no evidence that the President knew the report was possibly false, no matter how many times you say there is.

Their offices knew. If they never bothered to tell the president, then they should be fired. I remain unconvinced that nobody would be willing to tell their commander in chief this critical information to avoid him looking like an ass before the nation.

I like how the big news is basically a nitpick over one disputed bit of intelligence.

I like how you''re downplaying this critical mistake. When I heard the SotU speech with a group of people, there was an audible change in the room at that particular quote, indicating that the president had just sold the war to a few more people. This claim literally changed a lot of minds among the moderates about the threat of Iraq. These sixteen words literally elevated Iraq past North Korea on the nuclear threat list; the implication that Iraq ""recently"" purchased uranium implied that they were about to go nuclear. It was a text-book manipulation of public perception which literally put many people in his thrall. I''d like the American people to see this for what it truly was: the conscious manipulation of opinion by using exaggerated and faulty evidence. In this post-9-11 world, people are literally dominated by fear and paranoia, and the Administration successfully cashed in on it.

Where is the big story on the 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs, wherein the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, in spite of the dubiousness of the Niger report?

A link to this please. And bear in mind that the CIA has thus far proven ineffectual in finding anything in Ira.

Looks like the CIA thought and reported that Saddam was indeed trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapon''s program. And since you put so much faith in the CIA when it comes to debunking British inteligence reports, I assume you bow down before their expert analysis here.

Come up with a better counter-argument than that. There''s a big frickin difference between disproving a forgery made by someone with the skill of a ""12 year old"" and finding a nuclear weapons program that has so far proven elusive enough to call their existence into question.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

Put it on the record Rat Boy, do you think the President was wrong in taking Saddam Hussein out of power, and do you support his return to power?

If you do, please state your reasons that Saddam Hussein should remain in power.

If you don''t, than thank your President for making the world a better place. :)

How utterly juvenile of you to call my patriotism into question. I expected far better out of you. If you can come up with nothing better than that to prove your point, then don''t comment here.

These sixteen words literally elevated Iraq past North Korea on the nuclear threat list; the implication that Iraq ""recently"" purchased uranium implied that they were about to go nuclear.

And when someone took the time to read my long elaboration on uranium enrichment you could deduct from it that the procurement of Uranium ore from Niger would have gotten Iraq not only a tiny step further in their process of building a bomb. I think the whole thing is a scam.

That question has already been answered, Koesj. No, he wasn''t lying. George Tenent says he approved the statement. George Tenant is a Clinton appointee who is not favored by Republicans. It will be Republicans that will likely seek his resignation and I believe he should resign for this and the many other blunders he''s caused. Contratry to Rat Boy''s assertion, he is not a party line ""Ollie North"".

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

Now that the discussion as to whether George Bush lied in his State of the Union Address is resolved, I''m moving the argument further. What harm was caused by the incorrect statement contained in the State of the Union Address?

I do this by asking a simple question: Was the war justified? And if not, should Saddam Hussein be brought back in power.

Mind you I anticipate that this is a ""rhetorical question"" that will be ignored and unanswered, which is my point.

This whole issue is politically partisan and it backfired. I''m just smiling.

Who says it has back-fired? Everyone thought that the Lewinsky Scandal would just blow over, but it eventually got worse and worse and killed the Clinton legacy for good. Lies don''t often fly solo, especially in Washington.

However, there have been reports that they did tell the White House.

Still waiting on proof.

Their offices knew.

And again, still waiting on proof.

Quote:
A link to this [the National Intelligence Estimate] please.

Can''t do it. It''s classified. It is referenced in Tenet''s statement. I have no doubts it exists and states exactly what he said. Too many ""unnamed sources"" and Congressmen with clearance would call him on it otherwise.

It was a text-book manipulation of public perception which literally put many people in his thrall. I''d like the American people to see this for what it truly was: the conscious manipulation of opinion by using exaggerated and faulty evidence.

What evidence? The portion of the State of the Union transcript on Iraq takes up about two pages. There is exactly one sentence referring to Saddam''s attempts to gain Uranium in Africa. Even if the British report is suspect, this doesn''t mean any of the other justifications for war don''t hold up. Actually, I assume you stipulate all of the other things in the State of the Union, since you can''t seem to find fault in them.

Did the people you were watching the speech with ooh and ah at every other sentence detailing Saddam''s WMD''s and atrocities, or just that one sentence which mentioned the Birtish government? Maybe your friends were just star struck by the idea the British were involved, kind of like 80''s housewives'' reactions to Princess Di.

I was a supporter of the war, and barely noticed the comment about the African connection. Mostly because I am not so naive as to think that regardless of how, OF COURSE Saddam was going to try to go nuclear. This was never a turning point for me, and I doubt that one sentence put the nail in the coffin as far as the public was concerned. Bush never mentioned it again, in the many times he spoke after the SOTU, and that was the period when public opion finally solidified behind the war effort.

If Iraq never had pursued nuclear weapons, then you would be right - it would be a bold-faced lie to imply that Saddam was trying to go nuclear. But remember, the existence of the rose garden centrifuge alone justifies our invasion. Saddam was under international obligation to destroy and desist from programs of WMD, not bury them until later. As far as I''m concerned, the fact that he would have tried to go nuclear in 10 years rather than 6 months doesn''t let him off the hook.

We have to start dealing with these threats in terms of years and decades, which is a much better alternative to the prior way of dealing - which is not at all.

Don''t be so defensive, Rat Boy. Senator Howard Dean thinks the war was a mistake and I don''t think he''s any less of an American. At least he has the balls to say what he means.

I think the Viet Nam war was a mistake. I think it''s justification, ""the containment of communism"", was bullsh*t, and tens of thousands of Americans died. The war was started because Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I can think of no justification for that war. Even the South Vietnamese wouldn''t give us their full support.

I supported the second war in Iraq. I think Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, who used biochemical weapons on his own people and neighboring countries. I''m not convinced that he had a change of heart and if left to his own devices would be a benevolent dictator. I think his sons were insane and far more ambitious than he was.

I did not believe first Gulf War was a success. The sanctions that resulted from that war was devastating on the Country and was the worst idea since reparations after World War I. The sanctions festered resent towards Western Countries I disagreed with George Bush 40, a Republican, when he ignored Schwartzkopf''s request to enter Baghdad. He lacked the courage to challenge the U.N.

So what does that make me?

No, I don''t think your unAmerican for your opinions. But, you''ve been going on and on more than anyone on this board about the President lied about this and that regarding Iraq, and I''m particularly curious about your general opinion about the war in Iraq. If you do not want to share it, I certainly respect that, but your silence is suspect.

And, I know your last statement was basically a ""shut up"", but I expect more from you as a liberal, to appreciate the free exchange of viewpoints.

Who says it has back-fired? Everyone thought that the Lewinsky Scandal would just blow over, but it eventually got worse and worse and killed the Clinton legacy for good. Lies don''t often fly solo, especially in Washington.

""WASHINGTON - CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet gave Congress and the White House the accountability they demanded, declaring Friday that the blame for President Bush (news - web sites)''s false allegation about an Iraqi nuclear deal rested squarely with him and his agency. ""

It''s over baby, it''s so over. The difference between this and Clinton, is that Clinton did in fact lie, which gave the Republicans the opportunity to kill his legacy, as if he ever had one to start with.

If Tenet was so disliked by the GOP, why wasn''t he let go following the inaguration? Why wasn''t he let go after 9-11? Bear in mind that Clinton appointed a former Republican congressmen to be Secretary of Defense in the 90s. Tenet may not tow the line, but he is loyal to the Administration. I just fear that Colin Powell''s head is next on the chopping block. Lord knows a lot of hawkish conservatives would love to see him gone.

Because he has a six year term that expired in 2002 and George Bush didn''t want a transition after 9/11.

It''s been fun, gotta go Everquest calling.