Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This Is How The Right Operates...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-05 08:50 PM
Original message
This Is How The Right Operates...
Below is the link that proves that Bush did not lie. Factcheck.org is the defacto site that both parties refer to when resolving just such an issue. They do their research correctly and are held to standards higher than that of News services. Bush did not lie about Niger.


http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

July 26, 2004

Modified: August 23, 2004

Summary

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger . 

Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that  US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether  Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both B

I went to factcheck.org and it's either hacked or bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-05 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fact Check is a bullshit deal. It is operated by some Walter Annenberg
(important rw reagan dickhead) front, the purpose is to confuse the issues. Don't look for the truth there, you won't find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wishlist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-05 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. State Dept memo stated that they were convinced Iraq did not seek uranium
According to the newly leaked State Dept memo involved in the Plame investigation, the State Dept official (who was aware of CIA sending Joe Wilson to Niger) did not approve of CIA sending Wilson because the State Dept was already convinced that Iraq had not been seeking uranium from Niger.

Sounds like there is deliberate misinformation designed to protect the WH both in the Senate Intelligence report conclusions and other sources mentioned in the factcheck article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayctravis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-05 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Ministry of Information.
plusgood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC