Replies to post #215712 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[extelecom]

Look, You don't know what data was used at the time, so don't waste mine and yours time... You know full well Howard Dean, John Kerry and Al Gore would be running up and down the halls holding hands if they had any factual proof.

I see you provide no links to your info. site.

[MLD38]

TO Bullwinkle: FactCheck answer

In your post, you quoted..."The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003


Bullwinkle, you then state: ..."Not True. The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible."...

Here is information regarding 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.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html


Starts off with a 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 British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying."...


See the link for the Analysis along with links to various material supporting FactChecks Summary, etc..

[goodluck]

Bullwinkle, just read Frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold" and tell others to read it as well (not that BushBackers read anything but their own Bibles and the words of their Rovian Leaders, but nevermind). It tries to lay out what we know about what people knew, when they knew it, and what they were purporting publicly. It's a complicated story, so wingnuts and morons won't be able to follow it, but it's the best we can do for now.