I'm Curious As To What Certain People's Response Will Be

[SlowwHand]

[Alex]

[Alex]

[Alex]

.

[Cruddy]

My reaction to the news HMG received duff info from Nigeria?

No surprise whatsoever.

The fact Bush was dumb enough to rely on duff info from Nigeria?

No surprise whatsoever.

The fact some people are using this as a political football?

See above.

[Provost Harrison]

With the title of this thread, I thought you were coming out SlowwHand

[Alex]

@ Provost

[Sava]

With the title of this thread, I thought you were coming out SlowwHand

I didn't realize he hadn't already....

[lord of the mark]

jon kerry, in an interview yesterday (?) was highly critical of the admins position on Iraq, its failure to prepare adequately for the occupation, to reach out to allies, etc.

Yet he avoided the WMD "scandal". maybe he knows, or suspects, something we dont.

we have a centrifuge found. Then hardly discussed. Mobile weapons production vans found. A number of apparent finds during the war - then "no certainty theyre not peaceful chems" Lots of iraqis in US custody. etc. Chem weapons suits all over in Iraq.
Maybe - just maybe - the admin is holding back its evidence of WMD till it has all its ducks in a row - partly to be sure - but partly in a deliberate attempt to trap its adversaries.

Far-fetched, i suppose, but theres too much that doesnt hang together if Saddam didnt have the weapons after 1998. Why keep undergoing sanctions, by refusing inspections, if he didnt have them? why not be more actively cooperative with the inspectors in 2002/2003? Why not document the destruction of the WMD?

[SlowwHand]

While you commies are trying to help each other pull yor heads out, here's another.

ONE LAST TIME AND THAT'S IT

Barring the revelation of a signed memo by Bush saying "Hey, let's fool the fuking country!", this will be my last word on the whole Nigerian document thing. The latest story is this. The headline reads "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False." So you'd expect some heavy sht, right? Instead, you have this:
Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.

Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.

CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.

The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.
So it's not that the CIA said that the claim wasn't true--it's that they claimed that the CIA didn't have enough evidence to support the claim. So what you're left with is the Administration making a decision to rely on the word of British intelligence. In other words, they relied on a long-term ally and friend, whose military has conducted many joint operations with us and with whom intelligence is shared on a regular basis. The British still claim that their intelligence is correct. So the headline of this article is just completely inaccurate. But not only that, there is no indication that Mr. Bush himself had any knowledge of this discussion. In other words, the evidence that Bush lied? ZERO.

Heaven knows I'm no Bush supporter, but if this is the best the Democrats can do, then they're going to keep losing for a long, long time. This was one sentence in one speech, people! The Bush Administration's case for going into Iraq was a lot more than this statement. Hell, I wouldn't even have remembered Bush had said it if it hadn't sparked so much brouhaha. This was not a vital part of Bush's case. It was hardly part of it at all.

Look, Bush is vulnerable on a lot of issues related to national security: overextension of troops, Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, ties to the Saudis, a pathetic Homeland Secuirty effort, the apparent willingness to go ahead and let N. Korea have nukes, and more. And what are the Democrats doing? Focusing their attention on this non-issue, and a little bit on the continuing conflict in Iraq (ie criticizing without offering any credible alternative--and "send in more troops" is not a credible alternative). But what the Democrats certainly are not offering is a credible foreign policy, particularly as regards terrorism. Instead, they offer petty, sniping bull****.

Surely, the opposition party can do better than this. But instead, they're so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they're not accomplishing ****, nor are they offering any constructive alternative to his policies.

I will say this: as it stands, Bush will not get my vote. And also as it stands, neither will any of the Democratic nominees. What a depressing election this is going to be.

UPDATE: CBS changed the title of the headline. Now it reads "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious"--a claim still not upheld by the content of the article. And here's a sentence that wasn't there when I read this last night:
The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice.
In other words, Bush didn't know that the "Iraq info was dubious."

[Az]

Holy f***...

[Sava]

The CIA let Cheney know the info was false...

[SlowwHand]

:whimper,sniff:

[Q Classic]

sloww... headlines are headlines. they are meant to sell newspapers.

if they'd actually put in something like "bush's statement on uranium based on british intelligence contrary to american intelligence", not only would it be too long to fit on one or two lines, but it wouldn't be incindenary enough to sell papers.

all the news outlets are guilty of it. i don't see what the problem is. if you can read through it, anyway.

[Sava]

:whimper,sniff:

too bad I wasn't around in 1998-2000, I'm sure Sloww was b1tching and moaning about Clinton and his lies...

hyposcrisy