Guantanamo may shut, Republicans split

[dcentity2000]

Where was the lie/fib in the State of the Union?

Werl, I dunno what a State of the Union actually is so I can't comment. I was referring to his lie/fib/bending the truth over Iraq, taking his political career as a whole you might say.



Rich::

 

[jrydberg]

Fair enough. I was merely addressing the issue brought up regarding Bush's statement at the State of the Union address prior to the war.

 

[dcentity2000]

Fair enough. I was merely addressing the issue brought up regarding Bush's statement at the State of the Union address prior to the war.

Ah. Of this, along with countless other things, I know nothing.



Rich::

 

[Professor Mouse]

Fair enough. I was merely addressing the issue brought up regarding Bush's statement at the State of the Union address prior to the war.

The statement that Iraq was seeking to purchase yellowcake from Niger was a lie under any normal definition. At the time Bush made this statement, the CIA had determined through Ambassador Joe Wilson and other sources that that there was no way for Iraq to obtain any yellowcake from Iraq. The CIA had caused Bush to take this same charge out of another speech a couple of months before the SOTU because such statement was known to be false. In order not to be fraudulent and misleading Bush would have needed to qualify his sixteen words statement about Iraq and yellowcake from Niger with the fact that the CIA had investigated this claim and knew that it was false.

 

[jrydberg]

Except that it wasn't false at all.

 

[Charade]

You seem to be awfully alone in defending Bu$h.....where are all your buddies?

Right here.

No need to jump ship. Just tired of the same ol same ol crap. Plus nobody likes to argue with mean nasty people. It's pretty pointless.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Except that it wasn't false at all.

You are wrong. Bush's lies about yellowcake from Niger was false under any normal definition of falsehood. By your standard, Ken Lay would still be running Enron. One can not make a statement that he knows is misleading. The Niger yellowcake statement by Bush was misleading and a falsehood.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Back to the topic. This is a great piece on why Guantanamo needs to be shut down. Guantanamo/It's hurting the U.S. cause

As more than 500 prisoners languish indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay and new accounts of torture find their way to the press, the Bush administration has found itself increasingly on the defensive -- to the extent of parsing why the prison should not be called a "gulag" and explaining that the prisoners are "bad people ... terrorists for the most part."

On the defensive is exactly where the administration belongs, because no one has succeeded in justifying the flouting of core U.S. values, laws and the Constitution -- in the name of protecting them.....

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., worried on CNN Sunday that the United States is "losing the image war around the world," in part because of Guantanamo. "It's identifiable with, for right or wrong, a part of America that people in the world believe is a power, an empire that pushes people around," he said.

In other words, Hagel recognizes that what we're doing at Guantanamo is counterproductive. Cheney can try to explain that bad people deserve to be held without trial and interrogated with whatever means are being used, and some may accept that reasoning. But under what reasoning would the United States government continue to justify behavior that is hurting the image of the nation worldwide and, presumably, is serving as a recruitment tool for new terrorists?

The view from abroad was well captured by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times of London: "Guantanamo, and secret facilities elsewhere, were established to put suspects beyond the reach of the U.S. constitution. The dispatch (known as rendition) of alleged terrorists to regimes practiced in torture and the clandestine activities of the CIA have the same purpose. In the eyes of much of the rest of the world the effect has been to rob the U.S. of the moral high ground, to demean its democracy and to undermine its mission of spreading freedom.

"I have heard American friends say such draconian measures are proportionate to the threat. But I am not sure they appreciate how badly America's standing and influence has been tarnished."

It's time to appreciate it. America has damaged both its standing and its effectiveness in the war on terror. There is only one remedy: Acknowledge that we're better than that, and demonstrate it.

Guantanamo Bay has hurt America's image across the world. Now, America is identified as a country that tortures detainees and is no better than the countries we use to accuse of human rights violations. I agree with Senator Hagel, the US is losing the PR battle and our image has been diminished.

 

[jrydberg]

You are wrong. Bush's lies about yellowcake from Niger was false under any normal definition of falsehood. By your standard, Ken Lay would still be running Enron. One can not make a statement that he knows is misleading. The Niger yellowcake statement by Bush was misleading and a falsehood.

Nope, as indicated by the Butler Report, the claims that Saddam had tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger (among others) had considerable basis in fact and were "well founded." Not a falsehood at all.

 

[Lebjwb]

Right here.

No need to jump ship. Just tired of the same ol same ol crap. Plus nobody likes to argue with mean nasty people. It's pretty pointless.

Especially when us mean nasty types keep proving you wrong.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Back to the topic. This is a great piece on why Guantanamo needs to be shut down. Guantanamo/It's hurting the U.S. cause Guantanamo Bay has hurt America's image across the world. Now, America is identified as a country that tortures detainees and is no better than the countries we use to accuse of human rights violations. I agree with Senator Hagel, the US is losing the PR battle and our image has been diminished.

Do you really think it's a "gulag?" So if we move the detainees somewhere else, then our enemies will suddenly like us? I think terrorist and our enemies understand toughness better than these mamby-pamby image worries. Most of these Guantanamo critics in the world weren't really supporting our cause in the first place.

I love it how the media and the left stresses any mistake or misstep (actual or alleged) with its Vietnam bias and then says, hey the US is losing the PR battle.

We're supposedly no better than other countries that torture their enemies. Please. If I was going to be "tortured," a US detention camp would be my first choice. OH the humanity.

 

[Teejay32]

The Niger yellowcake statement by Bush was misleading and a falsehood.

Thou protesteth too much. We've been over that like 9 times already.

This from your quote: "In the eyes of much of the rest of the world the effect has been to rob the U.S. of the moral high ground, to demean its democracy and to undermine its mission of spreading freedom. "

One day we're an amoral, materialistic society, the next we're a beacon of hope, tomorrow we'll be arrogant ignoramuses...the world is like that toward the US. It's crazy to base security decisions on how well the rest of the world views them. Act in your own interests.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Thou protesteth too much. We've been over that like 9 times already.

This from your quote: "In the eyes of much of the rest of the world the effect has been to rob the U.S. of the moral high ground, to demean its democracy and to undermine its mission of spreading freedom. "

One day we're an amoral, materialistic society, the next we're a beacon of hope, tomorrow we'll be arrogant ignoramuses...the world is like that toward the US. It's crazy to base security decisions on how well the rest of the world views them. Act in your own interests.

Amen and well said.

I really wonder how many countries truly grieved for us on 911.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Nope, as indicated by the Butler Report, the claims that Saddam had tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger (among others) had considerable basis in fact and were "well founded." Not a falsehood at all.

You are again wrong. The CIA and the US govt had determined that the Brittish claims about Niger and African yellowcake were without merit. The fact that the Brits made the statements is meaningless since the CIA had determined the statements to be false. Lets look at Tenet's press release on this matter. STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET

In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq’s significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began “vigorously trying to procure” more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.” The Estimate also states: “We do not know the status of this arrangement.” With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.” Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: “Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

The fact that the brits believed something that we had determined to be false and unreliable means that Bush's SOTU lie was just that a lie.

BTW, only an idiot would have believed the brits conclusion. The facts are that Niger could never had sold that much yellowcake to Iraq. Niger Uranium: Still a False Claim

So, as far as concrete evidence is concerned, the claim appears shaky at best, hardly the stuff that should make up presidential decisions. But could Iraqi interest have been converted into an actual deal? Three memos from officials on the ground said no-reports from the U.S. Ambassador to Niger Barbaro Owens-Kirkpatrick, Marine Corps General Carleton Fulford and Ambassador Wilson all concluded a deal was highly unlikely. Here is why:

Niger has two uranium mines, both owned by a French multi-national consortium (COGEMA) that receives all of Niger's ore for processing. With annual yellowcake production around 2,900 tons, Niger has the third-highest uranium production in the world behind Canada and Australia. Almost all of this yellowcake is exported to France, Japan, and Spain (the countries that make up the COGEMA consortium).

To obtain 500 tons of yellowcake as outlined in the NIE, Iraq would have had to: 1) import one-sixth of the uranium that Niger produces in an entire year, and 2) hide these imports from the consortium that tightly controls the mines and pre-sells the uranium to its members before it is even mined. These are not trivial matters. Even on a much smaller scale, French, international or U.S. authorities would certainly have detected such activity-especially after Niger signed a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA in June 2002.

The numbers tell us that Iraq's alleged interest in Niger uranium - even if true - never represented an immediate or significant threat to the United States. Simple math and common sense confirm that the claim should never have appeared in administration statements as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapon program.

Bush's niger claim in the SOTU was false and misleading. The facts simply do not support such claim and as Tenet noted it was wrong to make the claim. Tenet took the heat for this lie but it was still a lie.

Look, Bush lied and thousands have died.

 

[ThAnswr]

Well, of course I've done a poor job of defending the "fact" that Bush is a liar -- it's not a fact and I'm not defending it

If you honestly believe being so biased attracts people to your cause, more power to ya. Honestly, I think you seriously damage the credibility of your cause.

First of all, it isn't a question of attracting people to a cause. You either believe deliberately making a misleading statement is a lie or you don't believe it's a lie. I call it a lie and you choose not to.

As far as attracting people to a cause, you either like the direction the country is going or you don't. What I don't understand is how a president can lose so much support 7 months after an election and there not be any great reason why. There's been no great event that radically changed things. Is it that folks are waking up or expected something different from Bush? Reality check: Bush hasn't changed one damned bit. He's the same sack of crap he was in November and the same sack of crap he was 4 years before that.

 

[jrydberg]

BTW, only an idiot would have believed the brits conclusion. The facts are that Niger could never had sold that much yellowcake to Iraq.

Your violation of the terms of service nothwithstanding, you persist in avoiding the issue. The issue is not whether Niger sold Saddam uranium. As clearly stated in both the State of the Union and the Butler Report, Saddam *attempted* to acquire uranium from Africa.

Reading the text of Tenet's statement, there is nothing in there that concludes the British were wrong. Rather, it states several times that the findings were inconclusive and that they should've had more proof before including that in the State of the Union -- fair enough, but he's not saying the statement is false.

Tenet's statement was made about a year prior to the Butler Report. Butler's investigation of those claims appears to have been fairly thorough.

Butler's investigation concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that they reached a deal or delivered any uranium but there was considerable evidence that Saddam sought such a deal -- and that the British government never claimed they reached a deal or delivered uranium.

Despite your attempts to prove me wrong, the facts keep getting in the way.

 

[ThAnswr]

Your violation of the terms of service nothwithstanding, you persist in avoiding the issue. The issue is not whether Niger sold Saddam uranium. As clearly stated in both the State of the Union and the Butler Report, Saddam *attempted* to acquire uranium from Africa.

Reading the text of Tenet's statement, there is nothing in there that concludes the British were wrong. Rather, it states several times that the findings were inconclusive and that they should've had more proof before including that in the State of the Union -- fair enough, but he's not saying the statement is false.

Tenet's statement was made about a year prior to the Butler Report. Butler's investigation of those claims appears to have been fairly thorough.

Butler's investigation concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that they reached a deal or delivered any uranium but there was considerable evidence that Saddam sought such a deal -- and that the British government never claimed they reached a deal or delivered uranium.

Despite your attempts to prove me wrong, the facts keep getting in the way.

The facts are our government concluded the statement did not have enough proof to be included in a SOTU address as a proven fact. The fact that Bush quoted British intelligence should tell you something. Now, you can argue semantics until you're blue in the face and at this point it must be navy blue, but the fact is it shouldn't have been there.

However, what this does point out is what those on my side of the political aisle have been saying since the beginning. The Bush administration takes a "maybe" fact and make it a definite. It's only when you examine the "fact" you find there are many different opinions. This has been done regarding terrorist statistics, WMD's, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, etc. They take the half truth, create a full truth, and the Bush water carriers and apologists run with it.

 

[DisDuck]

Since the 'yellowcake' and SOTU speech have come into the discussion. Several month's after the SOTU and the Wilson findings the White House did issue a statement saying that the 16 words were in the original draft of the speech and should have been removed. Just do a google on those 16 words and you will find the WH restraction. So it seems that someone knew that using 'yellowcake' as a reason was not supportable yet either did not tell the President or the President knew about the inconclusive evidence but still left it in the speech or wanted to present these 16 words as true facts not supposition. No matter which reason you choose for inclusion someone either dropped the ball or was incompetent or lied. Make your choice.

Now has anyone in the Bush Administration ever been held accountable for making false, misleading or bravado statements. NO. It seems that deception is the watch word in this administration.

 

[jrydberg]

Since the 'yellowcake' and SOTU speech have come into the discussion. Several month's after the SOTU and the Wilson findings the White House did issue a statement saying that the 16 words were in the original draft of the speech and should have been removed. Just do a google on those 16 words and you will find the WH restraction. So it seems that someone knew that using 'yellowcake' as a reason was not supportable yet either did not tell the President or the President knew about the inconclusive evidence but still left it in the speech or wanted to present these 16 words as true facts not supposition. No matter which reason you choose for inclusion someone either dropped the ball or was incompetent or lied. Make your choice.

Now has anyone in the Bush Administration ever been held accountable for making false, misleading or bravado statements. NO. It seems that deception is the watch word in this administration.

The fundamental point that seems to be left out all the time is that those 16 words were true facts, not supposition. Yes, the CIA and others said the words shouldn't have been included because their evidence was inconclusive on the matter. Certainly the standard for making assertions in a State of the Union address should be very high. I'm not arguing the point that it probably was unwise to include it in there. But to claim it is a false statement is incorrect -- and thus, how can it be a lie?

I'm not arguing semantics. There was no maybe about the statement made -- the British government made the claim and stood by it the whole time. It was an accurate and truthful statement.

Ironic that the standard for "proving" Bush to be a liar is so lax when the very complaint against him is that his standards were lax.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Despite your attempts to prove me wrong, the facts keep getting in the way.

You are using a wrong and inadequate definition of a lie that is blinding you to the facts. The US govt, i.e. the CIA had determined that Brittish claims were wrong. The facts show that Brittish claims were impossible, i.e. there was no way for Saddam to get yellowcake from Niger. Despite the fact that the US govt. knew that these charges were false and that there was no basis for the claims, Bush used the Brittish claims in the SOTU. That was wrong becuase it was false and misleading.

A statement can be litterally true and still actionable under the law. Ask Bernie Ebbers and Ken Lay about the law here. Legally, when one makes a statement of opinion such as Bush did in the SOTU, that person is also representing that (a) there is a reasonable basis for such opinion and (b) such person does not know that the statement is false. Bush's use of the Niger yellowcake claim in the SOTU fails both tests in that (a) there was no reasonable basis for the statement as determined by the US intelligence community and (b) the US govt knew that the charges were false.

As Disduck has pointed out, the Bush administration has acknowledge that it was wrong to use the Niger yellowcake charge in the SOTU and G. Tenet has clearly stated that such use was a mistake. The reason for this is that the statement was false and misleading (a lie under the law and all applicable legal standards). Unfortunatetly for Ken Lay and Skilling, your definition of lie has no basis in the law and will not be used at their trials.