waterdog

Bush's State Of The Union Speech Redeemed

Recommended Posts

So, it turns out that the whole ruckus over the State of the Union speech was manufactured, democrats were lying (not Bush), and Saddam was trying to by uranium from Niger.

Praytell, why hasn't the media been covering this story on the front page for a week?

I'll tell you why, they don't have time for it. They are too busy covering the latest manufactured set of lies (Michael Moore, et. al, etc etc).

The hypocrisy and short-sidedness of the left is enough to drive a sane man clinically crackers.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn11.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about that 9/11 movie was the video footage of Bush nevr shown on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The good thing about that 9/11 movie was the video footage of Bush nevr shown on TV.

Osama's behavior in victory was moving and charismatic, from known accounts. If only Mr. Moore had included footage of bin Laden et al happily having tea while watching network coverage of 911, he would have given his chosen cause of equal-opportunity propaganda an even bigger push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The good thing about that 9/11 movie was the video footage of Bush nevr shown on TV.

Osama's behavior in victory was moving and charismatic, from known accounts. If only Mr. Moore had included footage of bin Laden et al happily having tea while watching network coverage of 911, he would have given his chosen cause of equal-opportunity propaganda an even bigger push.

That would have been good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would have been good.

But for whom would it have been good?

I have not seen Farenheit 9/11, but from friends' reviews, I ask them all the same question: "Does the movie provide you with any methodical ways to solving corruption and scandal." And the response to this question is always: No.

So as I have said before, in the photo-journalist thread of images from Chernobyl; found here: link to Chernobyl Thread digging up dirt on someone is pretty easy, but solving an escalating problem is not.

What do hollywood film-producers know about politics anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3894403.stm

Analysis: Devil in the detail

...Uranium: Here the report stands by the SIS report that Iraq had indeed sought uranium from Niger. It adds in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well. It even says that the inclusion of the statement in President Bush's State of the Union address was "well founded," a finding which is at variance with that of the CIA.

Mobile biological labs: Some aspects of the intelligence are "now unsafe" it says. It accepts that vehicles found during and since the war were not even the vehicles to which the source was pointing.

Perhaps surprisingly, though perhaps not, the Butler team does not even rule out the possibility of WMD being found even now "hidden in the sand".

"It would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence does not exist or will never be found," it states.

If there's anything we can learn from this, it's that intelligence work is the province of seasoned professionals, and that even they can be surprised by unfolding events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it turns out that the whole ruckus over the State of the Union speech was manufactured, democrats were lying (not Bush), and Saddam was trying to by uranium from Niger.

Amazing. Nothing is mentioned about the documents proven to be false.

The damn chimp is a liar.

Bring back the democrats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazing. Nothing is mentioned about the documents proven to be false.

The damn chimp is a liar.

?

If anything, it was the Nigerian uranium naysayer who was caught providing misleading and even deceit statements.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html

Wilson contradictions leave Democrat senators speechless

...For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth...

...The committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report ''did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.'' As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.'' In fact, the intelligence community agreed that ''Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.''

''While there was no dispute with the underlying facts,'' Chairman Roberts wrote separately, ''my Democrat colleagues refused to allow'' two conclusions in the report. The first conclusion merely said that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion. The second conclusion is devastating: ''Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.''

The normally mild Roberts is harsh in his condemnation: ''Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. . . . [N]ot only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.'' Roberts called it ''important'' for the committee to declare much of what Wilson said ''had no basis in fact.'' In response, Democrats were silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just discovered that this tired old issue has finally been put to rest by the UK Butler Commission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894093.stm

Uranium claim: 'Well-founded'

Pre-war assessments that Iraq sought uranium from Niger were "well-founded on intelligence", the Butler report has concluded.

The controversial claims were first made in a dossier compiled by the British intelligence services on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, made public in September 2002.

Nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency, had subsequently said some documents supporting the uranium claim were forgeries.

But Lord Butler said the government had intelligence from "several different sources".

"The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it," the report said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If new info backs up bush's statements from years ago, yeah, makes bush feel good, but it does not change that fact that he knew then that the info was not reliable, and still cited it as credible. How do you know the new info, which again comes from Bush's administraion, is credible? You don't. Everybody seemss to forget, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, etc, are all part of the executive branch, which Bush heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If new info backs up bush's statements from years ago, yeah, makes bush feel good, but it does not change that fact that he knew then that the info was not reliable, and still cited it as credible.  How do you know the new info, which again comes from Bush's administraion, is credible?  You don't.  Everybody seemss to forget, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, etc, are all part of the executive branch, which Bush heads.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126124,00.html

Bush's Uranium Claim Gets Some Support

...A British report concluded that Bush's statement and a similar one by Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) were "well-founded." In his speech, Bush had attributed the uranium claim to the British government.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report found inadequate evidence that deposed Iraqi President Saddam had been rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. It cited various reports, however, that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Thus, although Bush cited only British evidence that was determined to have been inconclusive, other intelligence files clearly contained other inconclusive evidence of the truth of the claim...

...Bush, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, used the uranium intelligence to help make the case that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," he said.

That claim came under scrutiny after the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that documents purportedly showing Iraq buying uranium from Niger were fake. After Wilson's op-ed appeared, the White House said including the 16 words in the State of the Union was a mistake because the assertion was not well enough corroborated to merit mention in a State of the Union speech. The British have maintain consistently that their intelligence was not based on the forged documents.

But the Senate committee disclosed other intelligence suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium.

The committee cited separate reports received from foreign intelligence services on Oct. 15, 2001, and Feb. 5, 2002, and March 25, 2002. The State Department doubted the accuracy of the reports, but the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency had more confidence in them.

Though Wilson reported to U.S. officials there was "nothing to the story" that Niger sold uranium to Iraq, the CIA and DIA were intrigued by one element of his trip. Wilson had said a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, mentioned a visit from an Iraqi delegation in 1999 that expressed interest in expanding commercial ties with Niger, the world's third largest producer of mined uranium. Mayaki believed this meant they were interested in buying uranium.

The British inquiry said it was generally accepted that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999, and there was intelligence from several sources that the visit was to acquire uranium. "Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," the report said.

The Senate committee also described various reports about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from French, British and unidentified foreign governments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do hollywood film-producers know about politics anyway.

Michael Moore isn't just a film producer - he originally was a political activist for many years, and was heavily involved in Ralph Nader's campaigns. It was during his work with Nader (remember "Unsafe at Any Speed" - Nader's book?) that Moore conceieved of the file "Roger and Me", his critique of General Motors and it's chairman Roger (his last name escapes me right now). "Roger and Me" was a critical success, highlighting the practices American auto companies use to shift jobs overseas, combat unions, and still produce questionalble vehicles. It describes in detail the decimation of Detriot and it's environs (where Moore hails from).

During the filming, Ralph Nader found out about his plan for the movie, was upset at Moore treading on his turf, and fired him from his campaign staff - so Mr. Moore ended up a full-time writer and filmmaker by default, having lost his day job working for Nader.

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News? Has a Bush in power of it.

I would have believed you had your stance on the issue not been disproven.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.

[/quote[

Out the door 2k4!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qawsedrftgzxcvb:

Your pathetic attempt to defend falsehood is truly embarrassing. The article from CNN that you link is from MARCH, over four months ago.... The truth has been revealed since MARCH. You either accept it, or you continue in your ignorance. I wonder, is it even possible for you to identify the truth and then accept it? Or is it beyond your capacity?

Give it up man. Joe Wilson lied, the democrats lied, they obfuscated, they twisted the truth with great skill-- they care only for political power and for the destruction of George Bush, a great president who will be lionized with the passage of time. Great men are generally not known in their own day, in their own life-time. They are ridiculed and criticized by small fleas who bite at their ankles in mad desperation. George Bush is such a man. History will reveal the wisdom of his decisions, much as it has done for Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill.

Here is an article from July 15th you might want to read:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html

"For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qawsedrftgzxcvb:

Your pathetic attempt to defend falsehood is truly embarrassing. The article from CNN that you link is from MARCH, over four months ago.... The truth has been revealed since MARCH. You either accept it, or you continue in your ignorance. I wonder, is it even possible for you to identify the truth and then accept it? Or is it beyond your capacity?

Give it up man. Joe Wilson lied, the democrats lied, they obfuscated, they twisted the truth with great skill-- they care only for political power and for the destruction of George Bush, a great president who will be lionized with the passage of time. Great men are generally not known in their own day, in their own life-time. They are ridiculed and criticized by small fleas who bite at their ankles in mad desperation.  George Bush is such a man. History will reveal the wisdom of his decisions, much as it has done for Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill.

Here is an article from July 15th you might want to read:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html

"For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth."

WTF is so great about a tax cut for the richest 5%, trillions of dollars of additional deficits that my grandchildren will be paying off, stagnant wages, and an international community that derides us?

GET IT STRAIGHT - ALL CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS EXPERTS KNOW THAT GOVERNMENT DEBT CROWDS OUT PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN FUTURE GROWTH. TAKE F*CKING ECON 102 (AND 324, AND 410, ETC.) AND GET IT RIGHT.

Oh, that's right, you don't have children, let alone worrying about your grandchildren to be...

Future Shock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Wilson lied, the democrats lied, they obfuscated, they twisted the truth with great skill

They are ALL liars. As for the tax cut you have to pay it back with intrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If new info backs up bush's statements from years ago, yeah, makes bush feel good, but it does not change that fact that he knew then that the info was not reliable, and still cited it as credible.  How do you know the new info, which again comes from Bush's administraion, is credible?  You don't.  Everybody seemss to forget, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, etc, are all part of the executive branch, which Bush heads.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126124,00.html

Bush's Uranium Claim Gets Some Support

...A British report concluded that Bush's statement and a similar one by Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) were "well-founded." In his speech, Bush had attributed the uranium claim to the British government.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report found inadequate evidence that deposed Iraqi President Saddam had been rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. It cited various reports, however, that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Thus, although Bush cited only British evidence that was determined to have been inconclusive, other intelligence files clearly contained other inconclusive evidence of the truth of the claim...

...Bush, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, used the uranium intelligence to help make the case that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," he said.

That claim came under scrutiny after the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that documents purportedly showing Iraq buying uranium from Niger were fake. After Wilson's op-ed appeared, the White House said including the 16 words in the State of the Union was a mistake because the assertion was not well enough corroborated to merit mention in a State of the Union speech. The British have maintain consistently that their intelligence was not based on the forged documents.

But the Senate committee disclosed other intelligence suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium.

The committee cited separate reports received from foreign intelligence services on Oct. 15, 2001, and Feb. 5, 2002, and March 25, 2002. The State Department doubted the accuracy of the reports, but the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency had more confidence in them.

Though Wilson reported to U.S. officials there was "nothing to the story" that Niger sold uranium to Iraq, the CIA and DIA were intrigued by one element of his trip. Wilson had said a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, mentioned a visit from an Iraqi delegation in 1999 that expressed interest in expanding commercial ties with Niger, the world's third largest producer of mined uranium. Mayaki believed this meant they were interested in buying uranium.

The British inquiry said it was generally accepted that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999, and there was intelligence from several sources that the visit was to acquire uranium. "Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," the report said.

The Senate committee also described various reports about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from French, British and unidentified foreign governments...

backs up everything I said. thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now