Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?

If it gets written up in papers all over the country; if it gets discussed forever on CNN; if it makes the check-out counter tabloids - then maybe, people sit up and notice a little. CI, it's not just Americans. It's just plain people. Ordinary people.

It's very difficult to get to the bottom of the statue and see those clay feet. More difficult to acknowledge they are there.

That's why why we're here, talking and arguing, and hoping there are like souls.

I have an old friend in Spain - and her rapid-fire Spanish is occasionally hard for me. But we discuss politics frequently (in both languages), and I am always amazed at the depth of her knowledge of American politics. And because of her I've learned a little about Spanish politics. But that's because we are both interested enough in the topic to discuss it.

So, for Bush's speech, it all depends on who is interested enough. I did, however, not expect it to last this long, because the WH has been able to shut out news before. Maybe this time there is enough lasting interest and questions on the part of the press to keep the public interested.

I just posted on the "slime" thread an article on the CIA now apparently squaring off against the White House on who said what when. Let's see if my mouse still remembers it and will post it here? Voila!

White House Releases Documents on Iraq Flap

By Ken Fireman and Knut Royce
Washington Bureau

July 19, 2003

Washington -- Seeking to blunt charges that it used flawed intelligence to buttress its case for war in Iraq, the White House Friday released an account of how a now-discredited assertion found its way into President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech that differed sharply from one given by the CIA.

It also released portions of a classified 2002 CIA "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraqi weapons programs that concluded Saddam Hussein was trying to revive his nuclear weapons program -- but included a sharp dissent from the State Department.

In a briefing for reporters, a senior administration official also ruled out any testimony by White House staffers at hearings being held by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The panel is attempting to determine how Bush came to assert in January that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium in Africa even though the CIA had raised serious questions about the claim months earlier and had gotten it deleted from a Bush speech in October. The White House acknowledged last week that the assertion should not have been included in the January address; documents purporting to detail an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium in the West African country of Niger were exposed in March as forgeries.

The senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, offered the most detailed account yet of how the African uranium claim made it into the January speech. The official contradicted Democratic charges that the White House had pressed to include the claim over CIA opposition and denied that the speech was rewritten to meet CIA complaints that an earlier draft was inaccurate.

The official said Bush speechwriters looking for concrete examples of Hussein's illicit weapons programs had latched onto the uranium claim because it was contained in the classified National Intelligence Estimate, as well as a public British document.

The official said the speechwriters initially had drafted a series of accusations about Iraqi weapons programs, including the African uranium charge, in the form of flat assertions. They later decided for stylistic reasons to attribute each accusation to a specific source; in the case of the uranium charge, they decided to attribute it to the British document because it was a public document, the official said. At no point did the draft ever include a reference to a specific African country, according to the official.

The proposed change was passed by Robert Joseph, an official with the White House National Security Council, to a CIA proliferations expert, Alan Foley, for review, the administration official said. Foley approved the change without any "protracted negotiation" or "a sharing of various language," said the official, who said his statement was based on Joseph's recollection of the conversation.

But Foley offered a sharply different account when he testified at a closed-door session of the Senate panel on Wednesday, according to a senior intelligence official familiar with the testimony.

Foley's recollection is that an early draft of the speech contained a reference to Niger and a specific amount of uranium that Iraq was supposedly seeking there, according to the intelligence official.

Foley expressed disquiet over that language because it might compromise intelligence-gathering methods as well as doubts about its reliability, the official said. Joseph suggested attributing the charge to the British; Foley reminded him that the CIA had urged the British not to include the accusation in their own intelligence document, but eventually signed off on the language with some reluctance, according to the intelligence official.

Told that the White House was saying Joseph and Foley discussed only attribution and not the credibility of the uranium charge, the official said: "That may be Mr. Joseph's recollection; it's not Mr. Foley's."

The excerpt of the National Intelligence Estimate released Friday concluded that Hussein's regime possessed illicit chemical and biological weapons and missiles and "if left unchecked ... will probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

It said that "in the view of most" U.S. intelligence agencies Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear program and cited attempts to obtain aluminum tubes for centrifuges, magnets, high-speed balancing machines and machine tools. The issue of African uranium was not cited as a key finding, but was mentioned later in the report with no judgment offered as to its veracity.

The estimate included a sharp dissent from the State Department's intelligence arm, which said it was unconvinced Iraq was pursuing "a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program." It questioned whether the equipment cited in the estimate was suitable for nuclear uses and called the claim of African uranium purchases "highly dubious."
http://www.nynewsday.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=nyc-uranium0719&section=%2Fnews

Don't you love when thieves fall out? It seems to be more and more widely accepted that Tenet was just sort of taking the fall - but not really. What I heard tonight (on the PBS Newshour) was that in closed panel discovery he had some interesting answers.

An interesting slant to this is that more people have emerged from the anonymous category, and are actually using their own names. Does this indicate they are no longer worried about WH retribution?

And, of course, more pointed references to the fact that the State of the Union Address involves everybody, even though so many are claiming they hadn't read source material and don't know anything about it.

The bottom line is, Bush can't have it both ways. Either he's the Commander-in-Chief who plays the biggest role in the construction of the State of the Union speech (as he billed himself, remember), or he's a weenie toadie puppet person. I happen to think he's in the former category and haven't particularly bought the puppet theory. Collaborator is the word I'd use. Chief bully on team of nasties with Cheney playing the more muscled capo who protects him (and makes trouble).

One of GWBush's famous sayings, "I'm a Uniter, not a Divider." All his speeches seem to be breaking at the seams. Maybe it's already broke. c.i.

Well, you're more charitable than I. I see Rove, and that's where I stop.

However, having it both ways does seem to be coming to an end.

And, tonight, I heard (again on the Newshour) an opinion that what is happening in Iraq will be escalating, because this was planned in advance, the looting and all the rest of it. That once Hussein understood that the Americans were coming in, he laid plans for an insurgent action. (Maybe this explains the lack of action from the Iraqi army.) The joke of course is that he had after-war plans, unlike the administration. At any rate, it becomes increasing obvious that it is not just the occasional Baathist or foreign insurgent attack - that more Iraqis in general are involved with this, and that moves, hide-outs, etc. are going according to plan.

If true, what does this say about our involvement in Iraq? Instead of it being the glorious liberation story, it may very well turn into that quagmire.

And Jessica Lynch is going home to West Virginia.

The White House says this puts to bed any doubts. I agree for once (and they only released 9 of 90 pages, without a doubt, the best pages for them - sad day for America)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?vts=071920030415




This is prima facia evidence that this administration has committed crimes against humanity and should therefore be in prison. They wanted a war and created a war for personal, political and economic gain. They are devious, egotistical mass murders - a past, current and unrepenting threat to humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mamaj -- I get chills everytime we mention Rove. It reminds me of a stage I went through --probably at about 8 or 9 -- when I discovered I had "leadership skills" in school (!!). Even better, I found I could use them to organize great felonies with a group of friends, get them to carry out the deed, leaving me in the planning office. That way I was getting them to take the risk of being discovered and punished -- and I would be left undiscovered and unscathed. I've forgotten how and when it struck me that this was a horrible thing to do and that I was asking for trouble, but every time I see Rove's name in print that nasty little time of my life comes back to me!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ...


Iraq seeking uranium ore 'meaningless,' says UK professor


London, July 15, IRNA - A British professor of theoretical physics
suggested Tuesday that the raging controversy over intelligence claims
that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore from Niger is
meaningless.
"Uranium ore contains just 0.7 percent of the fissile isotope
uranium 235 and to make nuclear weapons this fraction has to be
increased to 90 percent in an enrichment plant," Professor Norman
Dombey of Sussex University said.
"Without enrichment facilities this material is useless for
nuclear weapons," he said. "The US and the UK knew Iraq did not
possess any enrichment plants since they were all dismantled by UN
inspectors before 1995," he said.
Dombey's intervention comes amid a dispute between the UK and the
US over intelligence claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa,
with Washington admitting the allegation was false but London standing
by the claim, which it insists comes from other sources.
Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on
Monday both defended the allegation after previously denying divisions
with the US over intelligence claims.
"So what if Iraq sought the supply of uranium from Africa? Iraq
already has hundreds of tons of uranium at its disposal," the
professor said in a letter to the Guardian newspaper.
"Uranium ore is not fissile material. If it were, Niger would be a
nuclear state," he said in a letter to the Guardian newspaper in
response to Blair's claim that Iraq could be only a year of two away
from possessing nuclear weapons.
Dombey previously expressed doubts about Iraq's nuclear
capability, when he disputed claims made in the British government's
dossier on Saddam's alleged banned arms, saying that the threat was
'significantly less now than it was in 1991'.
At the time he suggested that the Niger claim was very possibly an
'intelligence sting'. Following the dispute with the CIA, he now
believed that the sting 'seems to have originated in London'.
HC/AH/AR
End

BACK

actually i am pretty sure those unfortunate words are no one's responsibility, they issued from the teleprompter on their own.

lesson to learn:

the bush administration, and bush in particular would rather be seen as not particularly competent than as liars.

based upon this, the most important thing that bush has as political capital is his "straightforwardness."

show he is lying and he falls faster than saddam's statue.

ever see a sand castle melt into the tide when its base gets washed away?

same with bush.

On NPR this afternoon, the host did a riff on Ari Fleischer's departure, comparing his last news conference (in which he had to defend Bush from charges of persistent, incremental lying) to that famous news conference -- one of his first, during the final two months of the campaign -- in which he started that ball rolling about Gore's "incremental lies." That was interesting to remember because, in fact, it was potent medicine for Bush and lost Gore quite a few votes. And of course, it was a lie! Another case in which Bush accuses others of what he is most guilty of -- see for example "revisionist history."

I believe even more strongly that a "liar" campaign against Bush would pay big political dividends for the opposition.

I'm sure that many others here have had the experience I'm about to describe, but it's a first for me.

I haven't clicked on this thread for one reason or another, and instead of coming in at the end as I usually do, I started at the very beginning and began reading. (I don't usually do this because of limited online time, more so the past several weeks.)

I noticed a familiar pattern:

As criticism for the Administration's follies and their efforts to conceal them is discussed, the forum's few right-leaning thinkers weigh in at first with attempts to counter the criticism or offer explanations. (Sofia's rationalization that Bush didn't lie because it wasn't his lie is an example).

Once their arguments are shown to be lacking, then the righties simply digress the discussion. (The numerous posts about blatham's avatar's genitalia, and the drift to the Clenis, are exhibits A & B.)

Then they disappear altogether.

I'm very sorry there aren't more of you here to help Dubya and Dick and Rummy and Condi and Ari and all the rest. Perhaps you can recruit some from the other websites you frequent? Free Republic.com? Rush Limbaugh.com? Abuzz?

In the meantime, Howard Dean has asked sixteen questions that he'd like Bush to answer.

Would any of the conservatives on the board like to take a shot at them? I posted them in the thread entitled "Democratic Party Contenders" but if you don't mind giving a click to Howie, you can read them at his website, which is here.

What I think? I think you should start a new thread with that list and PM the conservatives who are not robots (there are a few) and request a response. Honestly. Offer plenty of time for them to google around for answers.

What I wanna see? The availability of plain, easy to read bumper stickers, each with one of those questions, or perhaps in the form of a sign for the back window of the car -- easily changeable.

What oughta happen? Plenty of people, in shifts, in Crawford and DC, going wherever the idjit happens to be, holding signs with, yes, those questions. Dogged, unrelenting pursuit, until the media get the idea that those questions must be answered by the idjit and take up the cause themselves.

Man, I like Dean.

I doubt seriously this is the first time you've encountered this phenomena, PDid, if you can look at it objectively. Usually, when you're the one doing it, its hard to see.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=257776#257776

For instance, here is my beloved Gay Republicans thread, wherein many of your liberal buds decided they would be happier discussing motor vehicle styles of the Canadian Mounted Police. Don't be too hard on them, though. They were just having fun. I didn't want to be an ass, so of course, I didn't complain.

I said what I had to say about this, for now. I am following the story.

All threads digress. For it only to have sinister meaning when I, or conservatives do it is quite a stretch. I said as much as I felt like saying and left. It has been known to happen.

You said--
I'm very sorry there aren't more of you here to help Dubya and Dick and Rummy and Condi and Ari and all the rest. Perhaps you can recruit some from the other websites you frequent? Free Republic.com? Rush Limbaugh.com? Abuzz?
-------------
This is a personal remark, ijnflammatory, and a gross assumption on your part. I have never frequented any of those sites. Since I am notably mentioned in your complaints on this thread, I was compelled to respond.

You misunderstood, dear Sofie.

The beginning at the beginning of a lengthy thread was what was new to me, not the familiar pattern of losers digressing.

I extended what I thought was a cordial invitation to the right-wing. I regret that you took it so badly.

Before you leave, would you care to respond any of Howard Dean's questions?

I must say that I revisited your thread, Sofia, and while I found an interesting digression on stem cells, I found no discussion of blatham's avatar's penis, or even Bill Clinton's for that matter.

Your thread being perhaps (albeit only slightly) a more appropriate digression to that level than this thread.

In any event, I did re-read a couple of my posts, most notably Betty Bower's comical "Is President Bush a Homo?"

Thanks for that.

Please don't characterize blatham, Tartar, Walter and others as losers. They have some very appealing qualities, and I learned a great deal about those tiny cars.

Your invitation--
I'm very sorry there aren't more of you here to help Dubya and Dick and Rummy and Condi and Ari and all the rest. Perhaps you can recruit some from the other websites you frequent? Free Republic.com? Rush Limbaugh.com? Abuzz?
--was notably lacking in cordiality.

Yes the Betty/Bush/Homo link was appreciated beyond description. I am disappointed blatham's penis didn't make the cut. But, with links like yours, competition was....stiff.

Well, that's a cute collection of dick jokes, but I don't think any phallus reference comes close to an answer to one of Howie's questions... :wink:

You know the real answer PD, isn't that enough? It is for me.