Thread Tools

Display Modes

Iwatas · 07-10-2004, 07:33 PM

Thought this would wind a few folks up nicely.

From http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn11.html

Quote:

Do you remember a year ago when the Democratic National Committee was putting out press releases headlined ''President Bush Deceives The American People"?

Yawn. What's new? But last summer the Bush Lie Of The Week was all to do with Saddam trying to buy uranium from Niger. CNN and Co. replayed endlessly the critical 16 words from the president's 2003 State of the Union Address:

''The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Sixteen words that could break a presidency! Bush ''misled every one of us,'' huffed Sen. John Kerry. ''It's beginning to sound like Watergate,'' said Howard Dean. Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man the CIA sent to Africa to investigate, wrote a piece for the New York Times titled ''What I didn't find in Africa.''

Can you guess what he didn't find, dear reader? That's right, he didn't find a big package of uranium bearing the address label ''S. Hussein, Suite 27, the Saddam Hussein Centre for Armageddon Studies, Saddam Hussein Parkway, Baghdad.'' Ambassador Wilson said relax, he'd been to Niger, spent "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people,'' and there's nothing going on.

Well, on Wednesday in London, Lord Butler will publish his report into the quality of the intelligence on which rested Britain's case for going to war with Iraq. The report is said to be critical of some of Tony Blair's claims, supportive of others. And, among the latter, he says that the statements about Iraq and Niger are justified and supported by the intelligence. In other words, the British Government did learn that Saddam Hussein did seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

<snip>

Quote:

Bush didn't LIE!!!! He was right, and the CIA were wrong. That doesn't mean they LIED!!!! either. Intelligence is never 100 percent. You make a judgment, and in this instance the judgments of the British and Europeans were right, and the judgment of the principal intelligence agency of the world's hyperpower was wrong. That should be a cause of great concern -- for all Americans.

National security shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat thing. But it's become one because, for too many Americans, when it's a choice between Bush and anybody else, they'll take anybody else.

Quote:

In the Afghan war, if it's a choice between Bush and the women-enslaving gay-executing Taliban, Susan Sarandon and Co. side with the Taliban. And in the most exquisite reductio of this now universal rule, if it's a choice between Bush and the CIA, the left sides with the CIA.

There's one for the peace marches: Hey, hey, CIA/How many Bush lies did you expose today?

This isn't an anti-war movement. This is a movement in denial.

Public Defender · 07-10-2004, 07:55 PM

Here's the Bush quote:

Quote:

''The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

So where's the Tony Blair quote?

As far as I know Blair might have characterized the British intelligence differently from the way Bush did... I apologize if it sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but honestly, it was British intelligence, so it's very possible Blair knew what to say and what not to say with regard to it. Bush, on the other hand, was slipping this info past our own intelligence community, so I don't know that he was able to put as fine a point on it.

But in reality the veracity of the reports linking Saddam and Niger were never the ones that anyone should have cared too much about. If it's a lie, OK, but since we're dealing with intelligence, it's unlikely that it's either 100% true/accurate or 100% false/inaccurate/lie.

The bigger questions are - why did Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush himself swear up and down that Saddam had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and was on his way to developing a nuclear weapon and the means to deploy such weapons when the evidence supporting those claims was far from conclusive? How much was ineptitude at the CIA, FBI, and Defense Department, and how much was ideology-driven leadership and policy? How true are the claims that Bush wanted to invade Iraq since before September 11 (as claimed by Pulitzer-winning journalist, Bob Woodward) and was shopping for a good reason until WMD came along?

Iwatas · 07-10-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

The bigger questions are - why did Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush himself swear up and down that Saddam had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and was on his way to developing a nuclear weapon and the means to deploy such weapons when the evidence supporting those claims was far from conclusive?

Quite. And Bill Clinton, and the United Nations, and Jacques Chirac, and Putin, and everyone else who made the very same claim prior to 2003?! Heck, so did VP Candidate John Edwards, who said in 2002 that Saddam was an imminent and real threat to the United States!

http://www.slushfactory.com/forums/s...2220#post42220!

Quote:

Edwards on Iraq, September 12, 2002: "We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear...

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Ira

Either everyone was just being dumb, or they were extrapolating from Saddam's track record: he had had a military nuclear program (bombed by Israel in 1981), and he had used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds. And Saddam said that he had all of these things as well.

I think the most likely explanation is:

1: There were some WMD, dismantled and/or exported to Syria before the war.

2: Saddam was a brutal man. Did anyone want to be the guy who told him bad news? So all of his WMD people told him what he wanted to hear. He believed he had WMD. He told everyone he had WMD. And the CIA, the UN, etc. etc. believed what they heard.

iWatas

Pan Mengtu · 07-10-2004, 08:26 PM

That article is full of logical fallacies.

The only people who thought he had WMDs were the people who were getting their info from biased sources. Mostly Chalabi, the convicted felon who had been trying to overthrow Saddam's government.

Everyone knew Iraq was the weakest country in the region. That's why every country in the middle east, including Israel, was against the war. He had nothing.

Target · 07-10-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!

The bigger questions are - why did Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush himself swear up and down that Saddam had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and was on his way to developing a nuclear weapon and the means to deploy such weapons when the evidence supporting those claims was far from conclusive?

And why should they have had to?

I don't see why the UN condemned Iraq in 1998 instead of following through with the terms that ended Desert Storm. They might as well have sent him a note to keep up the good work. Same effect.

Here is a report from the GAO that estimates the regimes profits from the food for oil profits at about 10.1 billion. I'd have to be pretty darned naive to think that Hussein only built palaces with that money. He was contained and no threat alright. Only until the profits dried up.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes