<p>FF - If Bush had said in the SOTU that “Most of our intelligence agencies believe that Iraq is probably seeking uranium from Africa, but they’re not sure enough to commit to that statement at this point” - or anything with an equivalent level of confidence - that would have been an honest statement. But in fact the language of the speech was presented so as to give the impression of far more than a tentative belief that something “probably” was happening. This is an example of the type of “We know…” and “There is no doubt…” and "We know for a fact…"statements made by administration representatives that I referenced earlier in this thread as evidence of “lying” regarding the degree of certainty or confidence the government had in the claims it was making. If you’ve even tried to keep up that is the point I’ve been making all along.</p>
<p>Let’s go back to the original statement I made which so enraged you:
Here’s the formal written statement of George Tenet, then Director of the CIA, a few months after the SOTU address:
Where’s the pony there?</p>
<p>You insist that the “the consensus of the IC was that the nuclear program was being reconstituted” but we know that State never bought into any part of the Niger uranium story. Neither State nor the DOE fell for the “aluminum tubes” fantasy (which also made its way into the SOTU speech in equally carefully weasled wording.) And of course, the fact that as soon as the forged documents were exposed as phony, the CIA’s official position became
… which suggests that the basis for the CIA’s support of the nuclear program reconstitution delusion was a set of forged documents and nothing else of substance. </p>
<p>No rhetoric, no spin. No after-the-fact careerist ass-covering in “interviews.” Just the formal written statements of actual members of the “Intelligence Community.” </p>
<p>I don’t believe that Bush & Co. knew or believed that the nuclear claims were bogus - and it’s not part of my concern with the whole question of whether or not the Bush Administration “lied” about Iraq prior to the war. What I do believe that unless they are all totally incompetent they had to be aware that the IC had serious reservations - as George Tenet clearly outlined in statement quoted above - about the reliability of those claims, to the point where the CIA and the State Department repeatedly recommended deleting them from speech after speech because they lacked confidence in the evidence which supposedly supported them. Even if Stephen Hadley personally actually “forgot” that he had been repeatedly cautioned against having the Adminstration make that claim by the CIA Director, it’s the kind of detail I expect that some executive-level person in a competent organization would remember.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, The real problem you have with my posts is that in fact I approach this subject in exactly the same way I approached the Duke prosecution - dispassionately and without bias. I read the statements made by people with a critical eye. I weigh the crcumstances, motivations, and formality of their statements, and check the evidence they cite when possible. I’m not a knee-jerk proponent or opponent of any position; I don’t care if “my team” supports it or not. Your inability to see that is something for your mirror. Your need to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being blinded by “bitterness” or an overwhelming hatred of George Bush is your issue, not mine. I don’t “hate” or “love” George Bush or any other political figure, and recoil at the thought of having my emotions involved in any way with political debate. I’m not a politics junkie - I’m just an interested, concerned, and reasonably well informed American. (But not that well-informed. I ran across a couple of references to “Fitzmas” recently and had to google it to find out what it was. Anyone who actually had a contemporaneous awareness of the concept of “Fitzmas” needs to get out more, in my opinion.) You should try to honestly assess whether you can say the same.</p>