If the Prez lies in the State of the Union, is it a crime?

[Sava]

"There will be those who try to rewrite history." - Bushie.

C'mon Tass... thank Bush for telling us about the people under him lying.

[PLATO]

Is anybody but me worried that Cheney may be editing Bush's information?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, as far as the specific piece of news concerned, the supposed Iraqi attempt to aquire Uranium from Niger, which the president mentioned specificly in his state of the Union even after intel passed along to Cheney info that the documents that claim were based on were false, Powell did NOT include that claim in his presentation to the UN: so as far as Niger uranium is concerned, Powell never made that claim in public: Bush was more than willing to though, which just perpetuates my much gretaer respect for Powell than Bush.

Not quite:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said The United States was not involved in any way in faking documents that showed an alleged attempt by Iraq to obtain uranium from the African nation of Niger.


"Our agency received it in good faith, not participating... in any way in any falsification activities," Powell told lawmakers, in an apparent reference to the Central Intelligence Agency.


"It was information that was made available to the (UN weapons) inspectors, it didn't come from the United States, it came from other sources," he said. "It was provided in good faith."

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,175393-1-9,00.html

(Of course, there's always the possibility that he wasn't informed that it was unreliable intelligence. And, of course, one could claim that simply knowing it was false and passing it on was not "participating in falsification activities" - although I would disagree with that).

[Boris Godunov]

If this guy informed Cheney that the info was bogus in 2002, and yet Bush still cited it as factual in 2003, we at least know he was lying to us. Where's the moral outrage?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Is anybody but me worried that Cheney may be editing Bush's information?

Aye, there's the rub. If you say he isn't, then you'd have to believe Bush knew the uranium claim was bogus yet cited it anyway, therefore making him a liar.

But if you think Cheney didn't tell Bush and is editing what the Prez says by keeping him ill-informed, it supports the view that Cheney is the real power and Bush is just a hapless mouthpiece for whatever agenda is put in front of him.

Dilemma, dilemma!

[Imran Siddiqui]

er... what about choice C?

Cheney is the real head of DoD and Central Intelligence and Rumsfeld is just a hapless mouthpiece.

It would be really silly, Boris, to assume that any President gets ALL the information from his subordinantes. It is always filtered down to him. Usually the Chief of Staff does it. I always wonder that when people point to Cheney why they always forget about Karl Rove... perhaps he is just that good at his job.

[Sava]

Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney... they all need to be at the end of a rope.

[Boris Godunov]

Imran, you're being dense... Bush specifically mentioned the uranium claim in his SoU address. This was after VP Cheney had receieved a direct report confirming the claim was bogus. Now, do you honestly think Cheney would not have seen/had input on the SoU address? He would have gone over every word of it with Bush, along with a dozen other advisors. He would therefore have had to let the President make what he knew was a false claim in the address to support the war aims. That's the best case you can hope for, which shows Bush is being manipulated by his VP.

You can try to weasel it all you like, but the fact is either that Cheney knew it was wrong and let Bush say it anyway, or Bush knew it was wrong and lied. Which would you prefer?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the best case you can hope for, which shows Bush is being manipulated by his VP.

You can try to weasel it all you like, but the fact is either that Cheney knew it was wrong and let Bush say it anyway, or Bush knew it was wrong and lied. Which would you prefer?

You forget ANOTHER option. The guy saying he sent the report to Cheney was full of **** and covering his ass and never sent anything to Cheney. Secondly, can he directly send things to Cheney, or does it have to go through some chains of command?

As for Bush being manipulated by his VP , this is simple White House politics... EVERYONE with access, in EVERY ADMINSTRATION, manipulates the President! There are those who are responsible for giving the President information. To say they don't slant that information is being way too idealistic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You forget ANOTHER option. The guy saying he sent the report to Cheney was full of **** and covering his ass and never sent anything to Cheney. Secondly, can he directly send things to Cheney, or does it have to go through some chains of command?

Ah yes, the fallback line for Bush sycophants. Everyone else is lying, not the administration! Considering the number of intelligence operatives coming forward, you'd think the entire CIA was manned by inveterate liars. You don't believe them, but you believe the politicians. Some priorities! I have a feeling you could be faced with irrefutable evidence Bush lied and you'd still try to claim it was someone else's fault.

As for Bush being manipulated by his VP , this is simple White House politics... EVERYONE with access, in EVERY ADMINSTRATION, manipulates the President! There are those who are responsible for giving the President information. To say they don't slant that information is being way too idealistic.

Jockeying for the President's ear and trying to influence him is one thing, but getting him to tell a known lie in a SoU address to build support for a war in which people will die is quite another. At any rate, this is just another attempt at diversion by saying "look at everyone else!" rather than addressing the issue at hand.

[Edan]

for a war in which people will die

As opposed to those fluffy cuddly wars of the 18 and a halfth century.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering the number of intelligence operatives coming forward, you'd think the entire CIA was manned by inveterate liars.

Because people don't try to save their asses when they are being blamed .

Secondly, it seems patently absurd that a regular old CIA agent can just send something to the Vice-President directly, without going through other levels of communication. Come on!

Thirdly, why would Cheney or Bush report something they knew to be discredited, when the next day the CIA agent or someone else in the office could leak the information to the media which could find it was a big lie? Really, do you really think that any administration would take such a chance?

Jockeying for the President's ear and trying to influence him is one thing, but getting him to tell a known lie in a SoU address to build support for a war in which people will die is quite another. At any rate, this is just another attempt at diversion by saying "look at everyone else!" rather than addressing the issue at hand.

Why, because you still fall under the eronneous position that if Cheney didn't tell him then that means Bush is just a mouthpiece? Please .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because people don't try to save their asses when they are being blamed .

You mean like...the administration now trying to backpedal about WoMD being the justification for the war, and Rumsfeld lame claims that they saw the reports through a "prism of 9/11?" Just who is doing the ass-saving here?

Secondly, it seems patently absurd that a regular old CIA agent can just send something to the Vice-President directly, without going through other levels of communication. Come on!

You didn't read the article, did you? He wasn't a "regular old CIA agent," but a former ambassador who was sent there by the CIA to evaluate the claims. His reports were forwarded through the chain of command, which the CIA gave to Cheney.

Thirdly, why would Cheney or Bush report something they knew to be discredited, when the next day the CIA agent or someone else in the office could leak the information to the media which could find it was a big lie? Really, do you really think that any administration would take such a chance?

Gee, could it be because, at the time, they were floundering for justification with the American public, and were desperate to formulate a case, even if bogus? Considering what they knew of the American public's attention span, and that they could just claim (as they are) that they didn't know about the reports and gullible people like you would follow along, maybe they were being...shrewd?

Once the troops were committed to combat, they knew they could get away with a "little white lie," since Americans would be hesitant to decry the administration while we were still engaged.

Why, because you still fall under the eronneous position that if Cheney didn't tell him then that means Bush is just a mouthpiece? Please .

Erroneous? We're not talking about Cheney just "oops!" not telling the President. Cheney would have known Bush was going to mention the uranium in the SoU but would let him say the lie anyway to Congress and the American people. That goes well beyond any believable error of omission, unless you think Cheney is truly inept.