Tim Blair

I had the same thought about the now infamous Uranium.......a bunch of nothing. Except an excuse for the pansies of the world to exhort their "told you so" claims.

"To remind people: “evil tyranny” is a bad thing. Removing it is good."

Wait, wait, you're going too fast, slow down...

Hey! No fair using logic and stuff!

Never mind the uranium and chemicals that have been found. What people want to see is nice shiny loaded up rockets with "WMD - Made for USA" stamped on their nose cones. And there should be cardboard signs, written in english, pointing the way to said missiles. But then these built, tested, and fully functional wmd's would have been used as soon as the imperialist infidels set foot on Iraqi soil. So, that proves that Bush knew that there were no wmd's!
Indeed, Bush never offered any evidence of complete wmd systems, only to argue emotionally that the invasion was necessary for a number of reasons. From the unsatisfactory conclusion of gulf war 1, to the various bombings by Osama culminating in the trade centre destruction applauded and maybe supported by Saddam, to the financial support by Saddam for Hamas's suicide bombers, to Saddam's known use of chemical weopons, to Iraq's non compliance with assorted UN resolutions, Gulf war 2 was clearly inevitible.
And it's not over yet.

I'm beginning to think he lied about Osama, too.

They've had plenty of time to find him.... Where's the proof he exists?

Another cooked-up story to justify going into Afghanistan and cornering the talc market.

Could he have lied about Elvis?

Here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU address "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa."

The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium.

Which part of the SOTU address is false? and how is it the fault of Bush if it is?

If intelligence on Iraqi WMD was inaccurate, then confidence in the intelligence on Iran and North Korean nukes will erode.

This issue is hugely important, although not for the reasons that most of the loudest critics proclaim.

Isn't it obvious? Saddam threw the weapons of mass destruction overboard!

"Does anyone seriously believe that the disputed uranium claims were a primary reason for kicking Saddam out of power? And that disproving them completely undermines the coalition’s position?"

Not really, which is why the anti-war crowd are trying to "prove" that Bush et al. lied, rather than said something incorrect.

The anti-war crowd may conclude from support of the war even though no WMDs have been found so far that the war was not waged purely because of Iraq's WMDs. My response: Yes, but those additional reasons had been stated before the war.

"If intelligence on Iraqi WMD was inaccurate, then confidence in the intelligence on Iran and North Korean nukes will erode."

That's something I've been worried about too (lack of confidence on the part of others).

The SOTU by POTUS was January: Congress passed war authorization the preceding October, with no Nigerian reference. So much for lying about the Nigerian connection (supplied to the Brits by France, for that matter) to get the business started.

Andjam, thats right, Soddom threw the wmd's overboard, then he jumped overboard himself.

Note: Natasha Scott Despoja (leader of the Australian Democrats == Canada's NDP) has already accused the US (on 2JJJ) of planing to plant WMDs in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein obviously tossed the UN inspectors out in 1998 so he could unilaterally disarm in secret and then failed to cooperate with renewed inspections in order to keep his compliance with the ceasefire agreement from being discovered. It all makes perfect sense to me. At least until the drugs wear off.

The:

Bush's fraud is even worse than your post acknowledges. Didn't Mullah Omar claim that he didn't know where to locate Osama when Bush demanded he turn him over? BUSH KNEW OSAMA WASN'T IN AFGANISTAN BUT INVADED ANYWAY FOR... for.... well, not oil, excactly, but... a pipeline -- yeah that's it -- a pipeline! It really IS all about oil!

The trouble is that the sarcasm in these comments is not much sillier, if at all more silly, than the seriously meant comments of the critics of Bush and Blair.

Apropos of Tim Blair's last sentence. Lying and Cheating the public is also a bad thing Tim. That's "Lying and Cheating" just in case your eyes suddenly went glassy when you read those words the first time.

Do you remember Orwell Tim? Surely you've read Orwell. Who invented the Helicopter again? and was it Oceanea or Eurasia that we are at war with?

Rex.

Does anyone seriously believe that the disputed uranium claims were a primary reason for kicking Saddam out of power?

That's a textbook exercise in how to frame the question in order to evade the issue, because it denies the possibility that it can be BOTH a good thing that the Baathist regime was overturned, and a bad thing that the Administration told lies to scare people into supporting the war.

I think this one is a real litmus test of where folks are really coming from. If you maintain that it simply does not matter that the Adminstration lied in order to build the case for war, you're not really a conservative, you're just a barracker.

You have to ask whether there's anything that the Administration could do that would attract the criticism of these folks . . . .

1. George Orwell.
2. Oceania.
3. Helicopters.
Who said the anti-war crowd couldn't form a cohesive argument...?

<sarcasm>Ah, you bet. No need to pay attention to deceit, lies and manipulation. Integrity and character are things of the past, only so much garbage that weights down men with a divine purpose. We must all thank God that Bush has the courage and foresight to recognize that the citizens of the United States are nothing more than sheep that will drink sand (probably soon to be imported from Iraq) because he tells us to.</sarcasm>

I do not question the need for having to go into Iraq. It needed to be done and for a lot more reasons that WMD. However, there is no question that Bush's incompetence is going to make things worse before they get better. We have soldiers dying that did not need to because of poor planning and, quite frankly, ignorant thinking. What is happening in America right now is a realization that our President has, in fact, lied to the American people. No one likes being lied to. To be treated with contempt and arrogance will always cause those whom receive such treatment to strike back.
This really has nothing to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's about beliefs, values and character. When the one person that we see as the leader of the free world breaks these basic values mentioned earlier, it is a blow to our national psyche.

So, Rook, how much of a blow to our national psyche, was Bill Clinton? Beliefs? (I believe I'll doink another intern.) Values? (Winning is everything. Anything goes. Sic investigators [private and public] on our opponents.) Character? (Huh?) Clinton hit the trifecta. A bully and a coward.

Well, when a Bushbot is reduced to defending the Administration with the argument "but Clinton did it, too", shouldn't that tell him all he needs to know . . . . ?

This is indeed a conspiracy, by the Upper Niger
Chamber of Commerce. Who knew this little country
holds the key to mass nuclear proliferation. Niger
off course, is a French colony, that's why it would be easy for the DGSE to slip into the slipstream of international chatter. Now every
country and group from Al Queda to a distaff
chapter of Green Peace, will be setting up shop
there

I'll wager actual cash that within 12 months the preponderance of the public evidence shows that Iraq did indeed try to get uranium in Africa. The UK government stands by their conclusion to this day. You "Bush Lied!" people make me sick.

Gee, Dave, if hearing that a politician told a lie makes you sick, you oughta see a doctor. Maybe you're allergic to, like, oxygen or something.

Mork

Did Bush lie? please let me no or is it to hard to go beyond what fits on a placard?

Well, Gary, I guess that depends what definition of "lie" you use. I don't think that it's yet been demonstrated that he had actual, positive knowledge that anything he said on this subject was untrue at the time he said it.

But it's clear that he: (a) said things that were, in fact, untrue; (b) said things that were, in fact, untrue, and were known at the time he said them to be factually doubtful; and (c) left important assertions on the public record without correction, even after becoming aware that they were untrue.

I guess I'm prepared to use the "lie" as a shorthand expression for at least (b) and (c).

What did the President say that was untrue? Bush's speech stated that BRITISH INTELLIGENCE believed he attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. And the Brits stand by their intelligence, notwithstanding the forged Niger document.

Michael Lonie: Fair point about the uselessness of sarcasm when critiquing peacenicks. But sometimes I just can't help myself.

Sean (also known as...

Well, Mork (Clintonbot? Leftybot? Idiotbot?), without resorting to what the meaning of "is" is, let's check that logic. The above post was an attempt (gentle, I thought, considering) to warn of the problems of "pots" and "kettles," but anyway. . .

a) the things that Bush _said_ are not known, even today, to be untrue. One piece of evidence leading to the actual statement in the SOTU was false, but that, in and of itself, doesn't make the actual statement untrue.

b) see a) above, but -- a thing believed generally to be true by most and believed not to be true by someone else does not make a statement from one the first group to be a lie. If the thing is, in fact, untrue, then the knowledge of this by a second party does not make a statement by a first party a lie. It makes it a mistake.

c) see a) and b) above. Responding to Jesuitical hairsplitting by one's adversaries determined to make bricks without straw and media looking for a story is just prudent politics. The charges are as baseless as they were weeks ago.

Given the lack of an acceptable primary axiom, your syllogism fails.

Sean: that's just lame . . . you surely can't be endorsing the principle that it doesn't matter if a public official says things he knows to be untrue, as long as he fudges it by citing someone else as the source.

Of course, in this case, there was a double-fudge: I believe the actual words in the SOTU speech were "British intelligence has learned . . . ", which is a stronger claim of status of fact than, for example, "according to British intelligence".

Jorg - if you ever read things that I post on matters of policy, you will see that I am hardly left-wing. I strongly supported the war in Iraq, and still do. For what it's worth, I detest Clinton.

I just happen to believe generally in honesty in public life, and, specifically, I think that it's pretty important that our leaders tell us the truth about matters as significant as this.

I also think it's important that we hold all of our leaders accountable, including those with whom we agree.

If you were a person who got all upset at Clinton lying about sex, but are prepared to give Bush a pass on lying about national security, then I think it is you who needs the lesson about pots and kettles.

As for your attempt to define away the word "lie", well, I think you know how Clintonian that sounds. I'm sure you wouldn't buy that convoluted nonsense from a politician you didn't support, and you shouldn't try to sell it for one you do.

Interesting...
you removed my comments about the 'great game' of the 21st century and PNAC, the Project For The New American Century.
Why? Why did you remove my comments Tim?

Obviously Tim doesn't want people knowing about these things. So here goes;
EVERYONE CHECK OUT THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. JUST GO TO GOOGLE AND TYPE IT IN. IT'S ALL THERE. YOU MIGHT BE SHOCKED TO LEARN WHAT THE 'CHICKENHAWKS' HAVE IN MIND FOR THE WORLD. INCLUDING GENOTYPE SPECIFIC CHEM/BIOL WEAPONS PROGRAMS AND A LIST OF COUNTRIES TO INVADE THAT INCLUDES SYRIA, IRAN, LIBYA, N.KOREA SUDAN AND OTHERS.

LINK

LONDON (AFP) - Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended his government's claim that the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in the west African state of Niger.

What the hell are you talking about?

Jon - I'm only speculating, but do you think those "comments" might have been removed because they weren't comments at all, but an attempt to spam Tim's website to promote some other website?

tim - if you didn't remove the comments, then someone did. i put up a post at about 7.30 and it has been REMOVED!
and no, mork, no spamming. i don't know what that means, i have no web-site to advertise, etc.

This is the original document that 'CHICKENLITTLE' jon is refering to.
Youl notice that it contains nothing that 'HYSTERICALJONS' claim.

Jon - you weren't commenting on the article or previous comments, you were trying to promote "Project for the New American Century", whatever lame piece of crap that is.

Whether he removed your comment or not, I think Tim is entitled to refuse to permit his bandwith to be used for purposes unrelated to his website.

OK - I read the link - my mistake!

Actually, jon, when I moved the site over to the new server I moved the entries before you entered your ridiculous comments. But thanks for letting me know that you deliberately spammed the site with your drivel. Your IP will be checked on.

By the way, posting something in all caps is a great way to 1) get your comment ignored; and 2) annoy rather than persuade those who do bother to read what you posted.

Mork

Witch link?

Gary - both . . . but I only made one mistake!

So, now it's okay to lie as long as the lies weren't a "primary reason".

Tim, wanna explain the difference between core and non-core promises to me?

And, of course, the nukes were cited, multiple times, as a primary reason in any case:

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
CNN Late Edition
9/8/2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, Vice President
Meet The Press
3/16/2003

Source: http://www.lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx

We're talking specifically here about the disputed nuclear materials from Niger, Bon.

Oncce again, what exactly did Bush say that was untrue?

Oh, that's right -- absolutely nothing. The left is reduced to chanting "Bush Lied" over and over again, in hopes that people will start to believe it.

Ironically, this is called the Big Lie technique.

I was scanning all this stuff and wondering, "Where is Bon Scott while all this naughty Iraq chat is going on". And here he is!

Seriously, without wishing to assist the red herring kedgeree being made of the thread, Hans Blix made pretty well the exact same statement as George Bush, Bon. Most people, even the French, believed before the war and still believe, that Saddam had WMD. The only question they are still arguing about is: "Did the WMD pose an imminent threat?"

In addition, it has been accepted that neither Bush nor Blair was lying or knowingly misleading the public; they don't write the stuff, accurate or not, they have to trust their intel and national security people on the EVALUATION of risk (and speechwriters).

Can anyone remind me what the sign on President Truman's desk used to say?

Okay, you want those ones, specifically? That'd be the SOTU:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

Notice how a) he didn't say that this was just some tale the Brits were retailing; he said "learned". As in, it's true. b) He then conflated this with another piece of intelligence, as if it were all part of the same thing. Which, I guess, they were, as the aluminium tubes turned out to be a furphy as well.

Short story: Bush knew it was rubbish, but he said it anyway. He deliberately misled the US people into war.

"Saddam Hussein obviously tossed the UN inspectors out in 1998 so he could unilaterally disarm in secret and then failed to cooperate with renewed inspections in order to keep his compliance with the ceasefire agreement from being discovered. It all makes perfect sense to me. At least until the drugs wear off."

I know you meant it as sarcasm, but I wouldn't put it past Saddam. Maybe he realised his days were numbered and thought that it'd be better for it to end as a victim of the Great Satan than to be overthrown by his own people.

"and was it Oceanea or Eurasia that we are at war with?"

Um, we *are* Oceania (also known as the Anglosphere in oldspeak). Both Eastasia and Eurasia are (or was, in Eurasia's case) in the axis of doubleplusungood. And we had never been allies with Eurasia. Honest. Sold Eurasia less than 1% of its weapons imports.

"Which, I guess, they were, as the aluminium tubes turned out to be a furphy as well."

I was relieved to hear that they were merely part of an illegal missile program rather than an illegal nuclear program.

That's some impressive psychic mind reading Bon Scott!. Or is it sarcotic?

"He deliberately misled the US people into war."

Oh for god's sake, Bon, shut the fuck up. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Why don't you go back to bringing up the Stern Gang at every opportunity? Say -- I know, you could blame the removal of your buddy Saddam* on Bushitler's unholy alliance with the Zionist Entity™. Dork.

*I'm using your own Ad Hominem Technique. Is that how it's done? Or do I need to mention the Millions of Children Killed by UN Sanctions also?

Andrea - I'm surprised to see you taking instruction from Bon on ad hominem attacks. I would have expected you to be suing him for patent infringement.

Folks, the jury is still out on those Al tubes. Even the head of the UN nuclear inspection team wondered at the level of specification in those tubes. I can tell you that the level of specifications we are talking about increased the price of the tube by a factor of 10, at least. Granted Saddam seems to have had more money that was good for the world, but, he was importing these VERY expensive Al tubes at a time when his factories were producing Al missle tube casings for his missles - missle casing which don't need anything like the level of specification held by these imported tubes.

Looks to me like most of the wrangling over whether Bush told a lie or not could be settled by comparing dictionary definitions of what "lie" means.

I'm looking at an American Heritage Dictionary, and it has only one definition:

lie (n): A deliberate falsehood.

Sounds to me like the burden is twofold: prove it's a falsehood, and prove it was done knowing it was a falsehood. But then I think the problem becomes intractable, for the Left. I've seen other definitions, such as that can be found in Merriam-Webster online, but those have rather more innocent connotations than the Left has in mind.

Rabid, if you want to speak with authority on properties of aluminum, pricing and such, I suggest you spell "missile" correctly from now on.

JAPPOM. Nothing personal.

There is unconfirmed reports that the French supplied the intelligence to the Brits on "uranium from Niger". If true Bon Scott will slink away.

Mork: So, because the Niger weapons document was a forgery, that means that EVERYTHING alleged in it was a forgery?

By your reasoning, all I would need to do to prove that the Niger story was accurate was to forge a document saying it was NOT true. Once a forged document is identified as such, all assertions contained therein are automatically deemed false (whether INDEPENDANTLY verified by British Intelligence or not). I seriously doubt you would consider the existence of a forged document that concurred with your own views to be valid proof of the falsity of your views, yet your entire line of reasoning on this matter is based on this very type of Helleresque logic.

I'm sorry, Sean, but that's a really dumb analogy.

The various statements from U.S. government sources make it clear that the CIA doubted the entire story . . . not merely one piece of evidence or another.

In other words, the CIA knew what British intelligence was saying, but thought that British intelligence was wrong.

Despite the Administration knowing this, President Bush asserted that what British intelligence was saying was true.

It's really very simple, and all the bad lawyering in the can't hairsplit away that basic dishonorable fact.

Whoops! . . . "bad lawyering in the world . . . "

Actually, he didn't. He just asserted that they had learned it.

And if you're still reading what British Intelligence is saying, they're standing by their initial claim. They're saying their source was something other than the forged documents.

I know you're not going to buy that, though, because then you'd have to be wrong.