<p>Yet those 16 words are a more accurate reflection of what was thought to be true at the time than any of the constant misquotes the left has been using ever since. It would appear less to be meant to mislead than represent what was honestly understood.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The best information I had was that it was an Italian in the pay of French intelligence. UN weapons inspectors agreed almost immediately that they were too crude to have been done by the US. BTW, they weren’t forgeries. They were actual documents that had been stolen from the Niger Embassy and altered. And as far as I know, Wilson still hasn’t seen them.</p>
<p>Read the whole thing. The evidence that Saddam refused to believe that the US was going to attack because he trusted the French and the Russians to stay bribed is rather amusing.</p>
<p>Had to add this. One of my favorite parts of another article:
</p>
<p>So who knows, maybe Saddam believed Bush, too.</p>
<p>The destructive self-desception of governing elites isn’t actually all that amusing to me… Here’s some more information our government actually did have about Niger, Iraq, and uranium in 2002:
</code></pre>
<p>The state department report was issued nearly a year before President Bush’s “16 words” speech in 2003. </p>
<p>If FF is right about the Brits (and I don’t know one way or the other) I guess it proves two things: (1) Tony Blair still hasn’t “gotten the memo”, and (2) they have even more shameless toadies over there than we do here.</p>
<p>We really must set a better example for the students who visit this forum. Some of us are going to fail our vocabulary skills test. Note the difference between “the sale of uranium” and “sought uranium”. The 16 words were all about Saddam’s intentions, not his capabilities.</p>
<p>BTW, the CIA and State Department are notorious in their frequent differences of opinion on things. Sadly it was Tenent who was briefing Bush, not Armitage.</p>
<p>The diametrically opposed assessements of the CIA and the State Depts’ intelligence branch were among the most emphasized findings in the Senate report…but you’d have to actually read it to find that out. It’s hard to fight the fever swamp with mere logic, but I admire you, Strick and FF, for trying.</p>
<p>Strick11 - you’re making my point about the artful drafting of the 16 words. You know and I know the message Bush was sending. It wasn’t “Saddam would really like to have nuclear weapons some day, except he really can’t right now.” The message was “Bad guys are going to come and get you, now. Be afraid. Be very afraid.” </p>
<p>A little honesty is a good thing in government. I mean real honesty - not “artfully” drafted half-truths or technical lack of outright lies while actually misleading people. As I said before - I doubt that Bush was “lying.” Aside from his usual lack of initiative in actually bothering to find out the truth, I don’t think his underlings had the motivation or integrity to tell him things he didn’t want to hear. So, technically, saying something that significantly misled the American people, at a time when the truth was pretty much available to anyone in government who was actually interested, wasn’t “lying.”</p>
<p>The net result is the same, though, and the American people have the right to treat them as such. If current polls are accurate, Bush’s non-lying “inaccuracies” are catching up to him. People don’t like being misled, even if it isn’t technically a “lie”. (Although they tend to be less ticked off if the actual performance of government is good, which is probably a bigger part of the reason from Bush’s free-fall in the polls.)</p>
<p>Given that the backdrop to the whole thing was that the UN planned to end sanctions (a move fostered by Saddam’s well bought friends on the Security Counsel), that seems like a reasonable and honest message. </p>
<p>Against the backdrop of Iran’s constant maniuplation of the West’s attempts to end Iran’s nuclear program, it’s prophetic.</p>
<p>And where you see artfully crafted, I see plain, ordinary English. Someone saying what they mean. Try reading it in the original context in the State of the Union Address.</p>
<p>It only becomes “artfully” crafted in the hands of people trying to make it something it’s not so they can make better use of the twisted version politically.</p>
The tubes weren’t for nuclear weapon production and Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was terminated in 1991 - technically (artfully?) “in the 1990’s”. In fact, the IAEA reported in 1999 that, based on the inspectors work until that time, there was no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.<br>
…and believe me, you don’t want to read the rest of Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech to see all the other whoppers in there. It is truly depressing to see how many “non lies” are all together in one place.
So if Bush was using “plain, ordinary English” what do you think he was trying to say?</p>
<p>And exactly how long had it been since Saddam forced them out of Iraq when they wrote that? Did they get their information from the Psychic Hotline?</p>
<p>BTW, according to Lawrence Wikerson, famous Administration critic, it was French Intelligence that identifed the aluminum tubes as intended for centrifuges. Seems a lot of intelligence agencies were confused about things.
<p>Given that you can rewrite any thing that Bush actually said, I’m not surprised you think there were so many whoppers in that State of the Union Address.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, that’s hard. How about, “the British have reports that Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa”? (They thought he tried to acquire it from the Congo, too, remember, so you can’t just say Niger.)</p>
<p>But turn it back on you. Can you think of any dramatically different way of saying what it obviously says, since you find the phrasing so loaded that reasonably intelligent people aren’t capable of discerning its real meaning?</p>
<p>IAEA inspectors were in Iraq from 1991 through December, 1998, and returned in 2002.<br>
I didn’t rewrite anything Bush said - I cut and pasted it from his 2003 State of the Union address.<br>
Can I think of a dramatically different way of saying what the American government knew about Iraq and nukes in 2003? How about: "We have no credible reason to believe that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program at this time, or will have the ability to put one together in the forseeable future. But I want to scare the bejeesus out of you so I’m going to make a dubious claim and lay it off on some foreigners so when the truth hits the fan my supporters can say “but he wasn’t lying”. So, here goes: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”</p>
<p>How’s that for simple, clear, and honest language?</p>
<p>Ah, you didn’t mention where the quotes came from and I didn’t realize you were off on that tangent.</p>
<p>So what’s wrong with the quote again? 1991 (if you accept that date) wasn’t in the 90s? You can only say the 90s if it goes on until 1999? Much of what Bush refers to did happen after 1991, you know. Have you read “The Bomb in My Garden”? The plans for the bomb weren’t turned over to Coalition forces until after the invasion. Saddam was keeping them for old time’s sake? I see that Johnny Depp has bought the movie rights, btw.</p>
<p>Again, in the context that sanctions are going to be lifted and what little restraint on Saddam’s ability to restart his nuclear and other programs would go away, I’m not sure what your problem is. Compared to Saddam trying to make everyone believe that he had WMDs, saying that he appeared to be trying to get them seems pretty appropriate given what was really known at the time. This is the best whopper you can identify? </p>
<p>Oh, yeah, the tubes. You didn’t comment on those aluminum tubes this time. There at best you’re relying on hindsight. If the people making them thought they were centrifuges, and I might point out that the French do know a little about nuclear weapons, why are you surprised that we took them at their word? Talking about them given what the French said, that was a whopper? </p>
<p>Sounds more like you determined that Bush lied and are going through the Address looking for things that turned out to be wrong, then conveniently forgetting some of the circumstances of the time.</p>
<p>Actually, most intelligence agencies at the time of the SotU address were of the belief that the tubes were part of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Only the DOE thought that they were probably for something else (but couldn’t rule out their use for nuclear centrifuges).
The above is a summary statement from the NIE as quoted in the Senate Intelligence Committee report. Note that despite the misgivings from DOE about the tubes, that they were supportive of the notion that Saddam was reconstituting his weapons program. The left leaps on the DOE misgivings about the tubes and tries to sell the notion that the whole thesis about the weapons program was either a deliberate lie that the administration was aware of or that they were distorting the truth. The fact is that there was a general concensus on the nuclear program. Also note that Congress was informed of the DOE misgivings about the tubes; this was not hidden under the table.</p>
<p>When I say “general concensus”, I don’t mean complete concensus. The State Dept. was the only organization that did not have this feeling. They inserted this text into the NIE:
</p>
<p>So, despite the notion that only one side was presented to Congress, you can see that opposing views were also presented. Yet, the “Bush lied, people died” folks continue to spread their lies.</p>
<p>Anyone following the translations being done of the newly released captured Iraqi documents? This one’s pretty interesting and related to the conversation here. Note the source of the translation, too.
<p>You mean they were actually trying to hide their WMD program? I’m shocked!! I thought that they were all outside flying kites before the war started.</p>
<p>Not only that, but the attempts at deceiving the UN inspectors might, well, have resulted in them being deceived. Which is to say, what they said might have been based on bad information. Which, must I say it, suggests they might, only might now, have been wrong.</p>
<p>Of course, that’s really trivia. Since Iraq clearly didn’t have WMDs, there’s be no reason to really do this. Unless you think they were hiding what they had kept as a base from which to rebuild their capability once sanctions were lifted. </p>
<p>You know, the interesting thing is that that advice is pretty much identical to the advice currently being given to US corporations: to institute a “document retention policy” - and there’s an artful phrase, since it’s actually a document destruction policy. Do you suppose that means that all US corporations are breaking the law? Or planning to break the law? Should we just prosecute them all now and confiscate their assets?</p>
<p>I understand that you guys will never give up. Three years in country, absolutely not one shred of evidence that Iraq actually had any WMD’s in 2003, or the actual capacity to create any, and you still cling to the gospel according to Bush. (Is this what Driver mean by “Bush Derangement Syndrome”? An incurable inability to recognize simple facts when they contradict what your fearless leader and his minions have preached?)</p>
<p>Strick, your “1991 is in the 1990’s” is exactly what I’m talking about with regard to “artful” language. Do you think any American, hearing Bush’s speech in January, 2003, thought he was talking about something twelve years in the past? He was misleading the American people. He wasn’t “lying” anymore than Clinton was when he said “I did not have sex with that woman” - he was just engaging in “artful” speech. (And since we were talking about the “16 words” from Bush’s 2003 SOTU speech, why do you consider the other statements on the same subject which immediately preceded and followed them a “tangent?” I don’t get that.)</p>
<p>Let me just state it plainly (although I expect both of you to continue in your trip down denial): There were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003. None. No matter how much you devoutly wish there were some, to make your heros seem less buffoonishly incompetent, they just plain weren’t there.</p>
<p>Not really, it’s closer to receiving orders to destroy documents after you get a subpoena. That’s clearly a crime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is apparenty true. But the issue isn’t whether there were WMDs in Iraq. It was whether it was reasonable for the majority of intelligence agencies around the world to believe that there were versus the unsupported claim that we knew they weren’t there and the Administration was lying. You’re blinding hindsight doesn’t support the claim anyone was lying. Far from it, all the evidence supports that they were sincere.</p>
<p>And Saddam could have avoided the invasion by coming clean. Instead he continued to obstruct weapons inspectors and bluster, right up to the point where he had to tell his commanders the truth. If anyone’s to blame for the mess, it’s Saddam. As anyone with any sense would have realized long ago.</p>
<p>“absolutely not one shred of evidence that Iraq actually had any WMD’s in 2003, or the actual capacity to create any” Kluge, there you go again, making statements that you hope the gullible will buy.
Here is what Duelfer found out:
</p>
<p>“still cling to the gospel according to Bush” Actually the administration that authored that gospel was the Clinton administration - the same administration that was so convinced of Saddam’s WMD program and threats to the region and the US that they pushed for and received a statement of Congress calling for regime change in Iraq. (I believe the vote was 99-0.) To my knowledge, they have not called for similar regime changes in any other country. Yet, now you maintain that Iraq and Saddam was really viewed as a docile little puppy until Bush came in and stirred everyone up. Sorry, I know you would like to and have tried on numerous occassions in this thread, but you can’t go back and rewrite history to your specifications. Nor can you use today’s knowledge to second quess decisions that were made based on a concensus of views 3 years ago - views that were shared by the majority of Congress, both Democrat and Republican.</p>
<p>Fundingfather - you’d do better if you just kept to what I actually do say instead of projecting some extreme statement onto me and then reacting with outrage to that. I never maintained that “Iraq and Saddam was really viewed as a docile little puppy” - why would you assert that I did? Look - I’m not a “my team vs. your team” guy. I don’t have to defend Clinton or bash Bush just because it’s some kind of game I want to win. It comes down to this: The buck stops at the top. I do believe that our intelligence services got the picture that the Bush administration wanted to receive information and advice that corresponded to the goals and policies already decided upon, and that they acted accordingly. This is not uncommon in organizations - but it’s not good. The result is that you can create a consensus which is dead wrong. Which, in this case, happened. I know you are in a defensive posture, and don’t want to admit that Bush and Cheney - ever - did anything wrong. But the fact is that the claims made in Bush’s 2003 SOTU speech were wrong. (Cheney was actually far more over the top than Bush, as you know.) </p>
<p>After six years of the Bush administration I have come to the conclusion that George W. Bush is arrogant and incompetent. I think we are paying the price for that now in Iraq, and that we and our children will continue to pay that price for years to come both here and abroad. I wish that weren’t the case. I wish all I could be ticked off about was his environmental and economic policies, which I strongly disagree with. But I wish he had been right about Iraq. I wish the Iraqis had greeted our soldiers as liberators. I wish a democratically elected non-sectarian government of national consensus had taken control. I wish Wolfowitz’s realpolitik as described by Mini hadn’t been an embarassingly juvenile fantasy, and could have actually happened. I’ll admit it - I’m a greedy American - I wish we could have gotten ahold of Iraqi oil cheap. But it’s all turned to crap, hasn’t it? </p>
<p>There’s a lesson to be learned there, for those willing to learn from history. Don’t attack the messenger who brings you news you don’t want to hear. The result will inevitably be that you don’t get news you needed to know. If we had known the truth about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD’s the Bush Administration probably would not have been able to drum up support for this ill-fated war, and we’d all be better off. As it is, we’re bogged down in a war which is expensive in money, lives, and national credibility, with no good end in sight. George Bush is the man who is responsible for that fact - there’s no passing the buck at this point.</p>