Originally posted by no1marauderThe weapons inspectors were in and out of the country since the first gulf war. Being jerked around, kicked out, let back in, guided to view some sites, refused access to others... ...it was a complete farce and everyone know it.
Are you denying right before the war, the inspectors were active in Iraq and repeatedly asked for more time to finish their work? Since your memory is bad:
UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nati ...[text shortened]... ad reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron
Originally posted by leisurelyslothNo, right wingers have indicated a political interest in not accepting the truth of Wilson's information though no one actually disputes the veracity of his report regarding what the Niger official said.
Given the fact that Wilson and his wife have demonstrated a political interest in lying about this, I wouldn't give much credibility to them. In either case, that would be arguing about what is known (or believed to be known) now. The question is what was believed to be true at the time?
You keep claiming that not only did Bush believe the 16 words, but that they were, in reality, correct. They were not. And there was good reason at the time to believe they were not.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothAnother BS right wing claim. That's not what the inspectors were saying in February 2003. And they turned out to be correct.
The weapons inspectors were in and out of the country since the first gulf war. Being jerked around, kicked out, let back in, guided to view some sites, refused access to others... ...it was a complete farce and everyone know it.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it's a BS right-wing claim then why did Pres. Clinton bomb them for refusing to allow the inspections? Or is Pres. Clinton also a right-winger? 🙄
Another BS right wing claim. That's not what the inspectors were saying in February 2003. And they turned out to be correct.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothMan ... are you DSR little brother?
If it's a BS right-wing claim then why did Pres. Clinton bomb them for refusing to allow the inspections? Or is Pres. Clinton also a right-winger? 🙄
always a good idea to know your history before making comment..you know like DATES!!
Originally posted by no1marauderTwo excerpts from the factcheck.org article.
No, right wingers have indicated a political interest in not accepting the truth of Wilson's information though no one actually disputes the veracity of his report regarding what the Niger official said.
You keep claiming that not only did Bush believe the 16 words, but that they were, in reality, correct. They were not. And there was good reason at the time to believe they were not.
"Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki 'interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.' In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that 'for most analysts' Wilson's trip to Niger 'lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.'"
...
"At this point the CIA also had received 'several intelligence reports' alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that 'it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence.'"
So in reality you have Wilson's report actually lending credibility to the belief that Saddam was shopping for uranium. You have additional, unnamed information from the Brits confirming this. And later you get addtional reports that Saddam was shopping for uranium in the Congo and Somalia as well. Yes, I would say it is reasonable to assume that Saddam was trying to purchase uranium.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothWhat does what happened in 1998 have to do with: "We're talking about whether or not Bush lied about the reasons for toppling Saddam"?????????????????????????
What are you smoking? Read the article. Clinton bombed them in '98. This crap was dragging on for years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
Originally posted by leisurelyslothYour cherry picking of the article is amusing. No matter how much you drag individual sentences out of context, however, the article makes clear that no discussion of uranium sales occurred at the 1999 meeting with Niger officials and that the claims regarding the Congo and Somalia were based on fake documents. Thus, there isn't a shred of actual evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium. You would look less foolish if you just admitted this.
Two excerpts from the factcheck.org article.
"Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki 'interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.' In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that 'for most analy ...[text shortened]... uld say it is reasonable to assume that Saddam was trying to purchase uranium.
Originally posted by no1marauderI know it can be a challenge to try and follow, No1. Here's your synopsis.
What does what happened in 1998 have to do with: "We're talking about whether or not Bush lied about the reasons for toppling Saddam"?????????????????????????
We were discussing whether or not the weapons inspectors were getting anything accomplished. I was arguing that they've been jerked around since the end of the first gulf war. President Clinton's actions back this up. You, on the other hand, were trying to divert attention away from this fact and focus narrowly on the few months just prior to the second gulf war when Saddam was trying to generate sympathy by pretending to comply with the inspections.
Try and keep up.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe article says nothing of the sort and you are the one who is cherry picking sentences.
Your cherry picking of the article is amusing. No matter how much you drag individual sentences out of context, however, the article makes clear that no discussion of uranium sales occurred at the 1999 meeting with Niger officials and that the claims regarding the Congo and Somalia were based on fake documents. Thus, there isn't a shred of actual evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium. You would look less foolish if you just admitted this.
The only false statement was the one which stated that there was a SIGNED agreement between Iraq and Niger to sell uranium. That was a false claim by an Italian journalist and that is also outlined in the factcheck article. The rest of this stands.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothWhat happened before Bush was in office has no relevance to what we are discussing.
I know it can be a challenge to try and follow, No1. Here's your synopsis.
We were discussing whether or not the weapons inspectors were getting anything accomplished. I was arguing that they've been jerked around since the end of the first gulf war. President Clinton's actions back this up. You, on the other hand, were trying to divert attenti ...[text shortened]... ying to generate sympathy by pretending to comply with the inspections.
Try and keep up.
The inspectors in February 2003 were working and wanted more time to continue working. And the Iraqis were substantially complying with their obligations under the UN resolutions (which is why the UN did not authorize the war). Those are the facts.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothAre you joking or can't you read? This is getting Alice in Wonderlandish.
The article says nothing of the sort and you are the one who is cherry picking sentences.
The only false statement was the one which stated that there was a SIGNED agreement between Iraq and Niger to sell uranium. That was a false claim by an Italian journalist and that is also outlined in the factcheck article. The rest of this stands.
I repeat: The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.
And:
Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.
Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.
On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"
Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.
And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing:
Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.
That same day, 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.
So what exactly "stands"? There isn't one bit of actual evidence that Saddam sought uranium from Africa, certainly not "recently" (viewed from January 2003) or in "significant quantities". The statement in the speech was incorrect. Admit it; the Administration has.