Bush Lied? What About That 550 Metric Tons of Yellow Cake, Lefty?

[McDanger]

This is from a blog but it refernces veifiable facts.
To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his "report" to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie's denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix's commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

The subsequent mysteriously forged documents claiming evidence of an actual deal made between Zahawie and Niger were circulated well after the first British report (and may have been intended to discredit it) and have been deemed irrelevant by two independent inquiries in London. The original British report carefully said that Saddam had "sought" uranium, not that he had acquired it. The possible significance of a later return visitâ??this time by a minister from Niger to Baghdad in 2001â??has not as yet been clarified by the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movementâ??the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the missionâ??are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed "outing" was inadvertently performed by Wilson's admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one's own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the "Plamegate" farce has garnered.

[dragonrider]

McDanger, I think maybe I'll take a pass on your post from blog that "refernces veifiable facts." Seeing as those facts are not commonly known or accepted, you might have to actually provide a source that does verify them if you want anyone to take them seriously.

The facts that ARE commonly known and accepted are that the CIA and State Department advised the president that they could not support the Niger claim and that he should not state that claim publicly.

Considering how much trouble this has caused the administration, it seems like if there were actually some kind of evidence to support that claim, they would have provided it. Your blog post claims that the Bush adminstration was too incompetent and divided to provide the proof that this blogger claims to have. That seems ridiculous. The Bush adminstration is certainly incompetent and divided, but the idea that they couldn't get themselves together enough to present the same proof that this blogger claims to have seems unlikely.

[dragonrider]

Dems have known since before the first Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was awful. Bush the First did and the opposing party members of the legislature acknowledged that during his administration. Clinton knew well that he was dangerous. No one on either side of the aisle has ever disputed that. Our allies in Israel and Jordan have known this for ages, too. Again, that was never in dispute, just like the existence of this yellowcake wasn't.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

LOL......All these dem quotes from a time when Lil' Bush wasn't even in office. But hey, keep up the faith.:thumbsup:

Such hostility for a dem, I thought ya all were about keeping the peace. LMAO!!.

Have a good one!:s4:

P4B, didn't you just prove Birdgirl's point here? Didn't she say Democrats knew Hussein was dangerous?

[Psycho4Bud]

P4B, didn't you just prove Birdgirl's point here? Didn't she say Democrats knew Hussein was dangerous?

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

[thcbongman]

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

There was one republican senator and 5 republican house representatives that voted against the war. Does that mean they live in a fairy tale as well?

A spade is a spade. Everyone one of them was wrong to gauge Iraq was an imminent threat.

[dragonrider]

Originally Posted by birdgirl73
So, logically, no, it wasn't justification, at least in the eyes of the Dems.

We invaded because of WMD's....as you can see there were MANY dems that thought the same based on intelligence reports before and during Bush. Now if the left wants to spin this into the repubs going after oil...LOL, I guess they can live the fairy tail.

Have a good one!:s4:

Just because a person believed there were WMDs does not mean they were for this war. I believed there were WMDs based on what I had heard from the President, and I did not think the war was a good idea for all the reasons Bush senior, Powell and Cheney had told us in 1991. And when I found out there actually were no WMDs, I was doubly pissed off about it. And when I found out it wasn't all just a bad mistake but was actually a bunch of lies, then I was pissed livid.

How many of those who believed in the WMDs actually had access to exactly the same intelligence that Bush had, versus how many were basing their opinions on Bush's lies? Take the example of this thread, how many in congress knew that the Niger yellowcake story was false? The CIA and the State Department told Bush it was false, but did they inform congress too? I don't know, but I doubt it. You can't really hold someone accountable for decisions made based on the lies of others.

[Psycho4Bud]

How many of those who believed in the WMDs actually had access to exactly the same intelligence that Bush had, versus how many were basing their opinions on Bush's lies?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

IF your trying to imply that there was no intelligence during the Clinton years I'd have to agree with ya. If not, you can't spin the fact that these people not only agreed with Bush before he was in office but these same people were all on board when we invaded based on what they were told for YEARS.

Have a good one!:s4:

[dragonrider]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

IF your trying to imply that there was no intelligence during the Clinton years I'd have to agree with ya. If not, you can't spin the fact that these people not only agreed with Bush before he was in office but these same people were all on board when we invaded based on what they were told for YEARS.

Have a good one!:s4:

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

This long list of quotes does not indicate any of these people were for the war --- it indicates they thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous. I agreed with every one of these statements but did not agree with the war. You've listed the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and prominent members of both houses. Don't you think that if they had thought Hussein was enough of a threat to justify a war, they could have had one? Obviously they didn't think they needed a war to deal with the problem at that point.

Earlier you also listed a long list of prominent Democrats who seemed to make statements in favor of the war after Bush took office and during the runup to the war. Those are the people I am asking about. Did they have access to Bush's intelligence sources? Or were they basing their pro-war opinion on Bush's lies? I know that for a lot of regular citizens, they based their pro-war opinions on Bush's lies and felt seriously burned about it later.

[Fugitive]

BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Republican Yeas 215 Nays 6
Democratic Yeas 81 Nays 126

Itâ??s going to continue to happen as long as you have politicians in the pockets of the elite, they are not acting in the interest of your country. 9 Trillion dollars in debt, was it worth it? Obamessiah isnâ??t the answer.

Bush happens..

[YOUTUBE]7qjCy4ryPJk[/YOUTUBE]

[Psycho4Bud]

I think we are getting way off track from the original point of this thread that the yellowcake we knew about since 1991 somehow meant Bush had not lied about the Nigerian yellowcake. That's wrong --- he lied about the Nigerian yellowcake.

IF he knowingly lied to congress don't ya think he would have been up on charges? Didn't work for Clinton about a b.j., why would Bush dodge the bullet? MAYBE the information he recieved was false?

Bush said then, â??The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .â?� 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 Bushâ??s 16 words â??well founded.â?�
-A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from â??a number of intelligence reports,â?� a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
-Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bushâ??s 16 words a â??lieâ?�, 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.

This long list of quotes does not indicate any of these people were for the war --- it indicates they thought Saddam Hussein was dangerous. I agreed with every one of these statements but did not agree with the war. You've listed the President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and prominent members of both houses. Don't you think that if they had thought Hussein was enough of a threat to justify a war, they could have had one? Obviously they didn't think they needed a war to deal with the problem at that point.

Clinton was about as anxious to get involved in Iraq as he was the genocide in Rwanda. He was knee deep in impeachment hearings and they thought that dealing with reality might be perceived as a distraction on his lil' fling. As for Congress and Senate.....Bill's lil' affair was much more "news worthy" at the time for face time on the tube and finally being able to bring down a President was on all their minds.

Earlier you also listed a long list of prominent Democrats who seemed to make statements in favor of the war after Bush took office and during the runup to the war. Those are the people I am asking about. Did they have access to Bush's intelligence sources? Or were they basing their pro-war opinion on Bush's lies? I know that for a lot of regular citizens, they based their pro-war opinions on Bush's lies and felt seriously burned about it later.

We were just gettin over the shock of 9-11 and the thought of another attack was out of the question. The dems CLEARLY thought that Saddam either had or was looking to aquire WMD's and if they allowed this to go on it would NOT be forgiven by the American people if attacked. After all, the Clinton administration was the one that let Osama slip through their fingers more than once. Strike two with Saddam would have probably meant alot of their future electability.

I find it amazing that these same people all of a sudden flip-flopped on their stance, like you stated for yourself, when we didn't find a nuclear launch site. Fact is if Saddam wanted to load a scud with this material he could have. If he wanted to drop this material over Sadr City he could have. So what are the effects on humans if they inhale large quantities of this dust? Do you really think that the U.N.'s lil' lock outs could have stopped him? He loved the money...what about sales of this material to Al-Quada?

I also find it amusing that people talk of Bush going after Iraqs oil like he was putting it in a personal storage facility. We could have handled this like Russia but instead let them have open elections and the choice of who to award contracts to. This "Bush lied for Oil" is laughable to say the least.

Have a good one!:s4: