Bush was right!!!

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Remember all the heat Bush was taking about the "lie" in his state of the union speech concerning Saddam seeking uranium from Niger? It looks like the Butler report that was released yesterday vindicates Bush. Here is a quote from the report:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. was well-founded.

Here is a link to the full report:http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

The Butler report has been front-page news since yesterday, so why is the above conclusion being ignored by the media? The so-called "lie" in the state of the union was covered endlessly.

 

[las3888]

Thanks for bringing this to everybody's attention since the media won't bother.

 

[Doug123]

If you give a monkey a typewriter, he'll eventually write the great American novel too.

 

[AspiringCindy]

Originally posted by Funkyzeit mit Bruno

The Butler report has been front-page news since yesterday, so why is the above conclusion being ignored by the media? The so-called "lie" in the state of the union was covered endlessly.

Come on!!! Everyone knows that the Media is Liberal!

 

[goudaman40]

Thanks for linking the article!

 

[wvrevy]

This kills me

The brits have always claimed that their intelligence on this was accurate. It's our own intelligence service that said that it was incorrect and uncoaberated.

But why bother to tell the whole story when you can spin it into "Bush was right" (But I can certainly see how you'd be shocked by that happening...If it ever does, I know it will certainly come as a surprise )

 

[faithinkarma]

so now all of a sudden we are going to go with the Brits assessment rather than that of the American senate committee?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Funkyzeit mit Bruno,

At least people responded to your post. I posted this news yesterday, with a breakdown on the major points & link to the actual report. I had alot of people look at the post, but nobody responded. I had hope the liberals would have apologized for accusing the President of lying, concerning the connection of Iraq/Niger. Oh well, at least he was vindicated.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
This kills me

The brits have always claimed that their intelligence on this was accurate. It's our own intelligence service that said that it was incorrect and uncoaberated.

But why bother to tell the whole story when you can spin it into "Bush was right" (But I can certainly see how you'd be shocked by that happening...If it ever does, I know it will certainly come as a surprise )

Face it, you were wrong. You challenged the people to provide proof of the connection and the proof was provided. Or did you forget the challenge you submitted? If so, I can post the link

This is typical

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Face it, you were wrong. You challenged the people to provide proof of the connection and the proof was provided. Or did you forget the challenge you submitted? If so, I can post the link

This is typical

I wasn't wrong..you just can't seem to get it through your head that 5 articles quoting the same source isn't the same as 5 independant articles coming to the same conclusion. I quit responding to you because you sent insulting PM's that looked like a 12 year old wrote them.

And you've proven nothing but that the brits still believe in the intel, which nobody has ever disputed. The FACT is that our own services disproved their intel...but now they supposedly have something more credible ?

 

[acepepper]

This is just a fraction of the Butler Report. On the whole it was very critical of the intelligence used by Britain and the US as a case for war. Much the same as the US Senate committee was. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/15/1089694491852.html?oneclick=true

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Funkyzeit mit Bruno,

At least people responded to your post. I posted this news yesterday, with a breakdown on the major points & link to the actual report. I had alot of people look at the post, but nobody responded. I had hope the liberals would have apologized for accusing the President of lying, concerning the connection of Iraq/Niger. Oh well, at least he was vindicated.

I did not see your post yesterday. Assuming this bears out in the American investigation, I will absolutely apologize. In fact I will do so now. I apologize.

Now perhaps you would like to saunter on over to the thread on the Bush flip flops and respond?

 

[acepepper]

These are Butler's Main findings in brief.

Weapons stocks: Iraq "did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, nor developed plans for using them".

The September 2002 dossier "went to, although not beyond, the outer limits of intelligence available". The Government's desire for a document it could use to advocate its policy "put a strain" on the Joint Intelligence Committee as it sought to maintain "normal standards of neutral and objective assessment".

Forty-five-minute warning: The dossier should not have said Saddam Hussein could fire some biological and chemical weapons at just 45 minutes' notice without stating precisely what it referred to. Its use led to suspicions it was included because of its "eye-catching character".

Sources of intelligence: Validation of intelligence sources since the war has cast doubt on a large number of those sources.

Future use of intelligence: Limitations of intelligence must be fully explained and clearer dividing lines drawn between intelligence assessment and advocates of government policy.

Government machine: The government had no intention of misleading parliament or public, Lord Butler said, but he did highlight the "informality" of the Government's procedures. He noted the tendency to centre power in Tony Blair's Downing Street office rather than in his whole cabinet.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Oh, what the heck, I'll post the postings/replies concerning this issue:

Originally posted by Douglas Dubh
Actually, that "yellow cake" scenario has been verified. Iraqi and Nigerian officials did meet; Iraqi agents did try to buy yellow cake in Africa.

Originally posted by wvrevy
Care to back that up with a national news story stating this ?

Originally posted by wvrevy
Again, care (ANYONE) to prove the statement that the yellow-cake story has been verified ? Put up or shut up.

I posted that the Financial Times published a story of the Iraq/Niger yellow cake issue. You responded with,

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, c'mon...The Financial Times is the best you can do ? After the huge blow-up surrounding this story, you don't think it would have been covered by every major news outlet in the country ?

After your comment I found additional articles from three separate papers, but again you refused the information because all the articles referenced the Financial Times.

If anyone would like to read the complete thread on this issue you can follow this link, it starts on page 9.

Iraq/Niger Link

 

[jrydberg]

Our own intelligence has not, to my knowledge, disproven their intel on this. They found no evidence that any such transaction was attempted. That's not proving anything either way. It leads one to believe that nothing occurred, but it certainly is not proof of that.

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by wvrevy

And you've proven nothing but that the brits still believe in the intel, which nobody has ever disputed. The FACT is that our own services disproved their intel...but now they supposedly have something more credible ?

Our own services disproved their intel? How did you come to that conclusion? Is that an interpretion of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report? I'd love to see any information you have on this.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I wasn't wrong

Yes you were! You made a challenge to provide proof and the proof was given.

You understand how the news business works, don't you? Just in case --- someone breaks a story and other news groups pick up the story and references the original story. Actually, it looks like the Financial Times scooped everyone. They were right, even before the British inquiry was released.

There you go again --- it's okay for you to throw insults on this board and in PM's, but if somebody responds the same way as you did it's wrong.

And you've proven nothing but that the brits still believe in the intel, which nobody has ever disputed. [/B]

You disputed the information/intel --- go back and read your posts or look at my post above.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by Doug123
If you give a monkey a typewriter, he'll eventually write the great American novel too.

I like it!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Now perhaps you would like to saunter on over to the thread on the Bush flip flops and respond?

Couldn't find the thread. Can you post the thread title or link?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Our own intelligence has not, to my knowledge, disproven their intel on this. They found no evidence that any such transaction was attempted. That's not proving anything either way. It leads one to believe that nothing occurred, but it certainly is not proof of that.

Our intelligence services discovered that the belief about the "yellow cake" was based largely on forged documents.

See the link below for more detail.

MSN Story on the yellow cake

BTW...I wasn't the only one saying that the president shouldn't have used that intel due to it's spurious nature...So was the former director of the CIA (but I'm sure the "Financial Times" knows more than he does ) George Tenet said that "those 16 words" should not have appeared in the president's speech, since the intel was deemed "highly dubious"...This straight from the NY Times (which, again, pales in comparison to that bastion of journalism, the London Financial Times )