Re-check your own facts: Bush lied
The independent group factcheck.org has posted this article with the headline:
Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
However, a simple review of the facts they present and a little bit of common sense shows otherwise.
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
So if the basis for Bush's infamous 16 words was not the forged documents and that it was the CIA's conclusion at the time as well, George Tenet would've been aware of that fact, right?
CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:
Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.
Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.
Wait a second. If those 16 words were based on intelligence that the CIA agreed with, separate from the forgeries, then why is George Tenet saying they shouldn't have been included and he didn't believe it? Why didn't he just come out and 'tell the truth' and defend the Administration? Why would he lie to make the President look bad? That doesn't make any sense.
The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium.
Of course not, but it makes perfect sense when you realize that the CIA's conclusions were in fact based on the forged documents, and they've wanted to cover their asses ever since.
The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.
That's simply not true. I've conceded in the past that if Bush believed what he was saying was true, then he was not lying. However, by that same logic, if Bush was saying something that he did not have proof for, he IS lying, even if sometime down the road, it turns out that some other people happened to also believe it. That was clearly the case here, as is shown by the following report from last July.
As soon as IAEA nuclear inspectors heard State claim in December Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Niger, they asked the administration to provide "any actionable information" that would aid them in confronting Iraq and Niger with the allegation.
The information they finally received – a month-and-a-half later, and just after Bush's State of the Union speech, interestingly enough – consisted of only the Niger documents, which they easily exposed as crude forgeries.
No other additional information was provided to IAEA by the administration to support the uranium charge, according to IAEA spokesman Piet de Klerk, in a June 20 letter to the House Government Reform Committee.
Interesting. So you want us to believe that Bush was aware of the British intelligence, and that the CIA had separate conclusions that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger, but that the Bush Administration decided to withhold this information from both the IAEA and George Tenet?
Riiiiiiiight.
Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
However, a simple review of the facts they present and a little bit of common sense shows otherwise.
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
So if the basis for Bush's infamous 16 words was not the forged documents and that it was the CIA's conclusion at the time as well, George Tenet would've been aware of that fact, right?
CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:
Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.
Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.
Wait a second. If those 16 words were based on intelligence that the CIA agreed with, separate from the forgeries, then why is George Tenet saying they shouldn't have been included and he didn't believe it? Why didn't he just come out and 'tell the truth' and defend the Administration? Why would he lie to make the President look bad? That doesn't make any sense.
The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium.
Of course not, but it makes perfect sense when you realize that the CIA's conclusions were in fact based on the forged documents, and they've wanted to cover their asses ever since.
The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.
That's simply not true. I've conceded in the past that if Bush believed what he was saying was true, then he was not lying. However, by that same logic, if Bush was saying something that he did not have proof for, he IS lying, even if sometime down the road, it turns out that some other people happened to also believe it. That was clearly the case here, as is shown by the following report from last July.
As soon as IAEA nuclear inspectors heard State claim in December Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Niger, they asked the administration to provide "any actionable information" that would aid them in confronting Iraq and Niger with the allegation.
The information they finally received – a month-and-a-half later, and just after Bush's State of the Union speech, interestingly enough – consisted of only the Niger documents, which they easily exposed as crude forgeries.
No other additional information was provided to IAEA by the administration to support the uranium charge, according to IAEA spokesman Piet de Klerk, in a June 20 letter to the House Government Reform Committee.
Interesting. So you want us to believe that Bush was aware of the British intelligence, and that the CIA had separate conclusions that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger, but that the Bush Administration decided to withhold this information from both the IAEA and George Tenet?
Riiiiiiiight.
posted by thehim at 5:05 PM
<< Home