Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll

[Phaedrus]

Interesting sidebar here ... in yesterday's New York Times there was an open letter printed, authored by Joseph Wilson, who was the actual person sent to Africa to look into the claims about Saddam trying to buy nuclear material. According to Wilson,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so forth.

Wilson does leave margin for error and doubt in his letter, but it is sad that stuff like this never comes out until after the fact. I do not believe that responsibility for the lies and exaggerations about Iraq's threat levels lie squarely on Bush's shoulders, as he can only act based on whatever information is provided to him by the State Department and intelligence community. But for anyone to claim that there is 'no evidence' of such lies and exaggerations is just a bad imitation of an ostrich.


Phaedrus

 

[DannyMay]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:
Where did Bush2 lie and fabricate evidence?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You must be from Flori-duh.

 

[WildBill]

A better question is, say he stretched the truth, what would you propose to do??? Do the people that are raving mad about this want Dick Cheney to be their President? Come on, that is why I call it a "non-issue". Yeah sure its good to know if our leader lied, but I try to live in reality. If you think its a character issue and don't like what has come out of Washington then fine, vote him out in 2004. I just think very few will judge him on this issue and hence I think its just wasting effort and time to get all emotional about this. History can't be rewritten so I say we all move on.

 

[chonce]

Wow. Its not a big deal if our leader, lied to the enitire country/world?

I am at a loss for words.

 

[WildBill]

World leader and 100% honest are not compatible. If a major world leader always left all his cards on the table and told everything straight, he would get others running circles around him. Witness Saddam and the UN. The UN tried to play nice, fair, and honest and Saddam didn't. Who was winning that battle??? Or how about Harry Truman, was he supposed to tell the Japanese "hey guys we only got two atomic bombs and we used them both" or "hey Japs, we broke your code and know all your secret transmissions, just thought we'd let you know". Come on, Presidents of all major nations are forced to bluff at times. Was W bluffing here? I don't know, I think that question is still unsolved, but as for your comment I think its safe to say you aren't world leader material if you are shocked, stunned, or terribly upset by all this because its HIGHLY unlikely this was a "lie". Stretching the truth or being a little aggressive with it maybe, but a flat out lie I don't think you can say that for a fact. After all no one in the world doubts Saddam had WMD at some point nor is there much doubt he desired to have an arsenal of them to go with a nuclear bomb or two.

 

[Phaedrus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>World leader and 100% honest are not compatible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a good point, WildBill ... but imho all the more reson to scrap all of these alleged 'leaders' in their entirety. Idealists like the FSP try to "change the system from within," never being able to come to terms with the fact that one cannot change a system which is inherently corrupt. The only thing the bureacracies of the world today produce is demand for more bureacracy.


Phaedrus

 

[kayaman+]

It's wierd that when a republican lies is supposed to be no big deal,"I think its just wasting effort and time to get all emotional about this", but when a democrat lies it is.

Reagan lied about trafficing arms and participating illegaly in the civil war in Nicaragua, but some how he's a "hero".

Bush2 tries to trick the U.N. into supporting his invasion of a practically defenseless country with forged documents, but some how he's some great "liberator".

Clinton lies about a hummer, gets crucified by the republicans that embarrass our nation by impeaching for the second time in all of our history over a bj.

 

[WildBill]

Yeah Kaya Man, the forged documents worked really well. Come on the guy tried to make a case for something he wasn't going to get support for so forget about it. Do you have proof he intentionally lied about them? I don't think that is necessarily known. Someone could have lied or maybe they were just misled themselves by this, but considering he has hundreds of people supporting him he can't be expected to factually hunt down everything. Once again this isn't a case of a completely made up conspiracy, its one bad piece of evidence, and in the end it made no difference. That document didn't convince anyone and didn't change the course of the actions.

This whole thing is why partisan politics pisses me off. I am not a full supporter of either party, but all of us are hostage to this. I would say 80% of the country would just as soon move on from this. Until they prove the whole thing was a big whopping conspiracy most of us aren't going to care. Why? Because its done with, its over, there are other things to worry about and second guessing is going to accomplish little. Both sides are guilty of this endless backbiting and partisanship and at some point when will it stop? The whole impeachment thing was stupid, but so is this. This isn't a party issue, its an issue of effective government and on that issue both sides SUCK! At some point people need to just tell these clowns on both sides of the aisle to let things go and move on with your lives. Not every little thing needs to be made into political issues with repercussions in the next election. Start doing things for the people, not for your own career aspirations. Simple enough?

 

[kayaman+]

"Simple enough?"

Your view is what I would say is simplistic here.

You make light of the fact that lies and fabrications were used to justify a military strike, in other words to kill people. Your attitude is amazing to me.

 

[radiofreecostarica]

Going to war on faulty or forged evidence is a high crime against the constitution and could be grounds for impeachment.

 

[WildBill]

Like I say, go ahead and impeach the guy, I dare all those high and mighty Democrats to do it. And then watch as people flip you the bird at the polls. Whether you like the guy or not, do people really think spending the next 5 years reviewing the runup to the war is going to accomplish anything. Like most other things these days its partisan politics and I think most people are sick of that. Unless Bush comes on TV and tells the American public he flat out lied and new completely to the contrary there were absolutely no WMD in Iraq, most people are just going to say lets go on with life. Since that is an utter impossibilty I say lets get on with life. I am not a big fan of W, he doesn't exactly make me a happy camper, but there are better things the media and the members of the "other" party could be doing than harping on this point when the war is finished and there are other things to do. Be more vigilant if you choose, next time Bush makes a point force him to be more forthcoming with proof if you insist, but stop wasting our time with this line of thinking because the facts are still that no very little changed due to the Powell presentations to the UN and further there is little doubt that Saddam had WMD before and would quite obviously want to keep having it in the future.

 

[outandup]

The sad part is that Bush apologized when their was nothing to apologize for. Bush didn't lie.
If he did I'd be the first to say it. The clown that supposedely uncovered this lie admitted 6 months ago on national TV that he believes saddam was agressively seeking material to build NUKES. Bush said based on British intel blah blah....
if the intel was wrong that's not a lie if he was told it was accurate when he said it.
end of story.

 

[kayaman+]

So Bush2 didn't approve of the bogus evidence presented to the U.N. to rally support for the strike on Iraq?