Posted on 7/18/2004, 6:32:47 AM by ambrose
Reports appear to back Bush on uranium quest
By Richard W. Stevenson and David Johnston, The New York Times News Service
July 18, 2004
WASHINGTON - Were those infamous 16 words correct after all?
It has been a year and a half since President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he suggested in a single sentence that Iraq might have been trying to acquire uranium in Africa for its nuclear weapons program.
Advertisement
And it has been a year since the White House and the CIA acknowledged that the evidence behind that assertion was flawed, opening Bush to criticism about the credibility and reliability of the intelligence he used to justify toppling Saddam Hussein.
But now two new reports seem to corroborate Bush's assertion when, on Jan. 28, 2003, he told the nation and the world, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
One report was released Wednesday by a British commission reviewing the intelligence used by Prime Minister Tony Blair in making the case for war. The report stood by the British intelligence assessments that were the foundation for Bush's statement. Though it did not explain in any detail how or why it judged the intelligence to be sound, the report concluded that the assertions by Bush and Blair about Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium were "well founded."
The other report came from the Senate Intelligence Committee. It generally found extensive problems with the prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq's weapons programs and documented a long chain of problems in the way the intelligence agencies dealt with suspicions about Iraq's interest in acquiring uranium. But it also contained some information that tend ed to bolster the view that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger and possibly one or two other African nations.
Neither report, however, found evidence that Iraq had actually bought any uranium from Niger.
They're going to wait until it is too late for the Rats to nominate anyone else.
Remember what Rush says about liberals and their political attacks. "It's not the nature of the evidence, its the seriousness of the charge".
The Liberal Media...
"...seem to..."
"...appear to..."
... continue trying to obfuscate the truth.
One reason Saddam was so dangerous was he had so much money floating around
Are you sure this was in the Commie Appeal?
Truth Bump !
That's what liberals say when they're accusing conservatives..."It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge."
That was virutally an exact quote from some NOW hag during the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Think of a Conservative. Then take away reason and accountability.
I trust you will deliver, courtesy of the U.S. of A. Here are his orders:
1. One country for each of two fallen towers.AfghanistanIraq
2. The centre of radical Islamic Evil for the Pentagon.
Iran
3. For the heroes of Flight 93, he has something even better planned. Top Secret
Now, get to work!
Is this front page anywhere today? Is it above the fold?
"Neither report, however, found evidence that Iraq had actually bought any uranium from Niger."
In this sentence, we find the theme of the new spin. Gee Dubya never said Saddam succeeded, only that he tried. Look for the Bush-haters to focus on the lack of evidence that Saddam was successful to discredit Bush.
Look what they try to dismiss or ignore. Saddam Hussein, one of the worst tyrants in history and a person who actually used chemical weapons on his own people and his enemies and who was also seeking to make a nuclear bomb, was determined to have been trying to obtain nuclear materials illegally. It's so galling to have lib organs try to sweep this fact under the rug. One of the reasons we had to defeat Hitler was because we thought he had an advanced nuclear bomb program. He didn't, but we were still justified in developing our own and fighting him to try to stop him from using one...which he surely would have. The same reasoning applies to Hussein. Except of course for the Slimes and other lib rags.
And that is good news. Changing the spin is how the Left acknowledges defeat. The open question, Does America notice? That remains to be seen in November.
Weak in what sense?
To prove the statement "Bush's 16 words were correct", the evidence is now very, very strong.
You seem to think that we're trying to prove some other statement. What statement would that be, exactly?
North Korea already has them and is testing ICBM designs with an avowed intention of selling nuclear weapons to anti-American countries. Pakistan has shamelessly proliferated nuclear weapons expertise.
Neither of which has anything to do with whether the 16 words were correct one way or the other (which is the issue at hand).
The sparseness of evidence against Saddam doesn't seem very significant in the face of the other nuclear threats from long-time enemies about to go nuclear
So in your view the statement "Saddam sought uranium from Africa" is not very significant. Well fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, that has nothing to do with whether it was true or false!
We're discussing here the fact that it's been proven true. The reason is that for over a year Joe Wilson acted as if he had proven it false, causing a stupid "Bush lied" controversy. We are trying to put that controversy to bed.
By chiming in with this "not significant compared to NK/Paki" stuff, you demonstrate only that you misinterpret what the issue here is.
The threat from Iran to Israel and from North Korea to South Korea and from Pakistan to India and the proliferation threats posed by all of them makes this desperate scrabbling to indict Saddam for trying to nuke it up seem a little bizarre.
There's no "desperate scabbling to indict Saddam" for anything. There's effort to prove that Bush did not Lie about something. Again, that's because for over a year, people have been claiming that Bush Lied about that thing.
Whether or not the 16 words were "significant" is an entirely different matter from whether they were TRUE. The issue on the table right now is that they have been proven true. Maybe once that's been established we can proceed to a discussion of whether they were significant - but to do so without even once acknowledging "yes they were true" shows either poor understanding of the controversy, or an attempt to change the subject.
Regarding its "significance", a few words. I think you also misunderstand the 16 words when you characterize them as an effort to "indict Saddam for trying to nuke it up".
What the 16 words demonstrated was intent. Saddam intended to rebuild a nuclear program - that's what his seeking uranium proved. This wasn't a statement that he would have nukes tomorrow. It was a statement that he was, in no sense, "deterred" from trying to get them.
Moreover, you are analyzing this one single issue in isolation, as if it was the sole rationale for war (or something). "The 16 words were insignificant" says you. Well, maybe so, in isolation & by themselves. However, they were not in isolation. They were part of a long, multiply-supported, overlapping case for war against Saddam.
So dismiss the 16 words if you want (the case for war never did rest on them). But at least admit they were TRUE for crying out loud!
And Bush never said that Iraq had bought uranium - he said they "sought to acquire".
Course, the liberals have brainwashed the sheeples into believing that he said Iraq bought uranium, ergo BUSH LIED!!!!!!
No one has ever claimed otherwise. Can you explain why you would bring this up? Neither did either report find any evidence that there is life on Mars.
Just forget the 16 words. Eveyone else has already.
Evidently they have not. Not until Joe Wilson has been discredited. The only reason he gained public stature in the first place was the pretense that he had debunked the 16 words. He had not and we now have evidence to that effect. He therefore deserves a very public excoriation.
They're irrelevant to the next election.
So? You brought up the next election not I.
Besides, anyone who cared that much about the sixteen words has made up their minds long ago.
That need not stop anyone from pointing out that those who were wrong, were wrong.
In the end, the failure to provide a strong and irrefutable connection will prove to be unimportant.
What "failure"? There is a strong and irrefutable case that Saddam sought uranium from Africa, just as Bush had claimed. Once again you seem to have some other issue in mind, I'm just not sure what.
This is not to say the accusations against Saddam were without merit. Merely that a strong link is not established and that it is unlikely that one ever will.
Again, the fact that Saddam sought uranium from Africa HAS been established. I'm not sure what you're talking about but it's a different subject, presumably.
And it's too soon to fight a battle for the historical view of these actions and their effectiveness in furthering longterm American foreign policy goals (free trade economics, the spread of democracy, etc.).
Perhaps, but who was doing that?
It's NOT too soon to fight a battle over the discrediting of Joe Wilson, which is something I'd like to see happen sooner rather than later.
[16 words true] You return repeatedly to this as though it is the central issue from either a foreign policy or elections standpoint.
NO!!! It's not "the central issue from either a foreign policy or elections standpoint". It's the central issue with regard to this news piece and those like them, centered around the mini scandal drummed up by Joe Wilson, whose credibility has been shattered - which needs to be repeated. Often.
But I wasn't talking about ANYTHING "from a foreign policy or elections standpoint", those are words you've put in my mouth.
I just don't see it as making a difference now one way or the other.
It makes a difference vis a vis the credibility and public reputation of Joe Wilson, as well as the public perception of Bush's oh so "infamous" "16 words". Which is all that I'm trying to focus on. You seem to want everyone to focus on something else but that's an extra condition you're imposing on this issue for no good reason.
However important this issue is to you and a few others here, I don't see such a broad interest.
Um... no offense but so what? If you're not interested in this article, and the ramifications of this article with respect to the issue raised by this article (=the credibility of Joe Wilson and the veracity of the "16 words"), then why did you post below this article?
It's almost as if I were to post below an article about Britney Spears and keep complaining that "I just don't see how this matters from either a foreign policy or elections standpoint".
To be significant, it has to make a difference in the upcoming elections or in how foreign policy is conducted.
To be significant to the election or foreign policy, you should say.
Regardless of election politics or foreign policy, however, I'd still like to see Joe Wilson's reputation receive a very embarrassing and public drubbing.
IF THAT'S OK WITH YOU.
That is what this affair is about.
What I resent is this sequence of events:
1. Bush says the "16 words"
2. Prompted by Joe Wilson, a very public debate about their truth takes place
3. It becomes conventional wisdom that the "16 words" were false
4. Evidence surfaces, even from Joe Wilson, that the "16 words" were true, after all
6. People like you say "even if it's true, it doesn't matter"
What the hell ever happened to 5. People admit the the damn 16 words were true!!
If their truth is so irrelevant, then why did anyone EVER discuss the "16 words" being true or false in the first place? I'd have been content never to have heard about this one stupid sentence of Bush's State of the Union address. It certainly was not my idea to have a public controversy over it. But now that there has been, I'd like some people on the other side to admit they were wrong, and I'd like the moron who started the damn thing to get his just desserts.
(If that's ok with you.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.