President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Dear Bernard,

When did you become too stupid for words?

Sincerely,

Drewdad.

LINK

Drew Dad-sir: I am sure that you are aware of the meaning of Ad Hominem. If you are not sure of what it means, I will be happy to define it for you.

You replicated my post which said:

When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.

Apparently you felt that my comment was cause for an ad hominem attack.

I will repeat-

When I get a question directed to me, I will answer it.


I trust that statement does not cause any consternation. If it does, please inform me as to the reason why it does.

Thank you, sir!!!

Thanks, Tico.

Since you seem to have missed Setanta's post for the obvious question it was, Bernard, let me rephrase it: What is your source for your post 2039525?

Please provide a list of innaccuracies in the article I cited.

Thank you very much.

Even the White House admits that the words should not have been included in the State of the Union. There is no doubt that the inclusion was basically a lie, which should be an impeachable offense.

Ahh, a new category ... "Basically a Lie" --------> an impeachable offense.

(emphasis added)

I have a question foryou. Haver you considered changing your screen name to Eddie Haskell?

No, but I am toying with the idea of changing it to Redheat.

In reality, an impeacahble offense is anything the House deems it to be. Impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.

Here, Drew Dad, is why your post is filled with inaccuracies.

******************************************************
Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.

The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted?-after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department?-into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

This is the "lie" Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President's idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the President's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary?-for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true.

That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore?-and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited?-Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.




As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:

He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

And again:

The report on [Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research?-which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons?-found support in Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it?-which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.

The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,

[t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7

More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ?'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flatout lie." Yet?-the mind reels?-if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.

So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone?-The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity?-has set a new record for chutzpah.
***********************************************************


When someone makes a statement which is clearly derived from an outside source, I will follow along with the admonition about providing sources.Until then, I will follow what appears to be the prevailing practice.
And, as for the admonition that there must be sources listed for any cut and paste, I will surely do so at all times as soon as everyone else does.

Actually,according to article 2,section 4 of the constitution...

Once again, Massagato, you have failed to provide a source for your copy and paste job.

Here is the truth about Al Gores claim about the internet.
No,he did NOT claim to have "invented" the internet,but...



http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

It seems that Mysteryman laid it out for us.

The phrase, "Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" from article 2, section 4 of the Constitution is right on target. Those who would call "impeachment" ONLY a political act, apparently have not read the Constitution.

You noticed that too, did you, Setanta?

Notice how Bernard in his many incarnations always rails at people who use citations from what he considers ideologically-biased sources, and then does exactly the same thing from the other side of the spectrum when he posts (when he identifies his sources at all, that is), e.g that "suspicious deaths in the Clinton administration" bit which keeps cropping up on the right-wing-loon conspiracy sites?

Thing about the internet is, falsehoods never die. They can be disproved again and again, and somebody always fails to keep up with the debate and goes back to an old page and brings it back again as if it were new and factual.

This is quite a revelation! There are people here who think Bush is not a liar? Amazing.

Hi Giner212, WELCOME to A2K. Isn't it amazing? With all the evidence out there that Bush is a liar, they still refuse to admit it.