President Defends Allegations On Iraq

[chrisesq]

Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Ok, that's a nice explanation...oops, what about this


Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

and this

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement. At first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the statement was simply wrong because it "was based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger."

and there is so much more.

Read the whole thing. Nice to see the press doing their job again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56336-2003Jul14.html?nav=hptop_tb

[ClintonTyree]

1. "Oh what..........

a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve". That's an old adage that has stuck with me throughout my years. The cover-up is always worse than the original infraction. In order to lie, you have to have an excellent memory, something this administration sorely lacks. I too am happy the press has lifted itself from it's self imposed journalistic coma and have begun what should be the undoing of the Bush cabal.

[Old and In the Way]

2. True, but

this is the Mother of All Lies.

Without it, there is no reason to declare war on Iraq.

And what of the Iraqis = 9/11 terrorists? Where's the evidence there? And just who did manufacture the forgery? And at who's request?

Ultimately, you have to go back to August of 2002 and think about why we had to have the war.....we had a mid-term coming up and what was most important (ABSOLUTELY THE #1 MOST IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE) was maintaining control of the House and Senate. They ran on the Iraq War because they needed to maintain majorities in the House and Senate....why?

Because they let 9/11 happen.


It's all connected as far as I'm concerned.

[jab105]

3. I'm finally beginning to think that....

this thing might actually have legs...

After Cheney's energy forum, Enron scandal, 9-11 investigation that wasn't....bogus reasons for tax cuts after tax cuts, Patriot Act...I can go on and on.......

But, I'm finally beginning to think that something might come out of this, I truly dont think that the media leans left or right, the media leans towards what sells, as for Clinton, sex sells...unfortunately (and I hate to sound this vulgar), I apologize...but death sells...and this "Iraqgate" mess, it just might bring him down!!

[primavera]

4. I love the smell of revisionist history in the morning!

"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."

And who is it again, Mr. Pretzeldent, who's revising history?

[Beetwasher]

5. BUSTED BUSTED BUSTED!!!

This was being pointed out on DU yesterday, about not letting inspectors in. And the little fuck said it sitting right next to Kofi Anan!!

The article is DAMNING! They admin. is all over the place and the article makes this clear. Their flopping around like a fish out of water and on acid...

[bluedog]

6. right

damn I knew I heard that right when the little prick said it....

[MaineDem]

8. Me too

I had second thoughts that I had really heard that. What an idiotic statement for him to make!!! BUSH was the one who wanted to stop the inspectors.

My head is about to explode. :grr:

[paper chase guy]

9. you gotta wonder...

if kofi just went ahead and let him say it to make him dig his hole even deeper :) I'm sure he did.

[Rose Siding]

7. This is big...

Too many times in the past, the press has explained to themselves and to us what Bush meant when he said something stupid.

If they are really ready to pull away the fig leaf they gave him, (beginning in the debates!) he will finally look like the manipulative baffoon that he is.

Today's press conference may be interesting.

edit to add- Welcome to DU, chrisesq :hi:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Kick

DTH

[Mountainman]

11. Is Bush admitting that he is a sock puppet?

The charge that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Africa was based mainly on documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded this March were forged. Before an October 2002 speech by Bush, the CIA succeeded in removing a reference to an Iraq-Niger connection because of doubts about the intelligence.

I guess he doesn't get to discuss his speeches with the writers before hand. If he didn't know that the reference was removed, he must just read what his keepers give him.

"Here Mr. President. Here is what you’re supposed to say today."

"Gee thanks Uncle Dick, this job gets easier and easier every day. Can I take the next month off?"

[skip fox]

12. And don't miss what DU captioning has done with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=23032&mesg_id=23032&page=

[Bragi]

13. Perfectly logical

Amidst a painful outbreak of fire in his pants, no man should be expected to remember things like the minute sequencing of past events, let alone the exact agreed-upon instant at which he no longer knew that something false was now true.

Or was it something that was that previously true was now false?

Nevermind.

- B :toast:

[grasswire]

14. the nuclear codes....

.....should NOT be in this man's hands.

[TahitiNut]

15. The Secret Service should have orders ...

... to (censored) him if he even reaches for the 'football.' :puke:

[Skip Intro]

16. Am I reading this right?

"Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Am I reading this right?

He seems to be trying to tell us two things:

1) CIA expressed doubts AFTER the SOTU.

-----Haven't he and his staff already said the doubts were expressed prior to the speech? Maybe he means the CIA only expressed doubts to HIM after the speech. Yet that would still be prior to the war.

2) War was necessary because SH wouldn't allow inspectors in.

-----Weren't the inspectors already in Iraq, and begging for more time to complete thier work, but were forced to leave in order to avoid being bombed?

Is there any way these statements could make sense now? I mean, I'm used to being lied to by these goons, but such blatant statements, contradicting his own people, I feel like I must be missing something here.

Or is this really as pathetic as it seems?

[skip fox]

17. Don't miss what DU's own hard-working CAPTIONers did with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=23032&mesg_id=23032&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=22437&mesg_id=22437&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=23252&mesg_id=23252&page=

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=21157&mesg_id=21157&page=2