Each of you asked me to name a fib. Remember, I'm using a stronger standard than "saying something one knows to be false." I'm also including statements that one passes off as true when one really isn't sure that's the case, as well as technical truths that are meant to mislead. By these standards, the "16 words" was a fib. We really didn't have enough to go on to pass off that info as true. Sure, we said "British intelligence has learned..." thus making it a technical truth. But the intent was to convey an idea that we had not adequately supported. Now, I suspect Bush himself didn't realize that was a fib, but administration officials did, and they're the ones who put it in the speech.
And regarding the aluminum tubes, there was disagreement in the intelligence community on what those tubes were for, but the administration didn't say that.
As a third example, I'd note Ari Fleisher's assertion that Iraq was an imminent threat (a reporter asked him if those words applied, and he said "absolutely").
Please bear in mind that I supported the war ANYWAY. We didn't need any of those assertions to justify this war. And I think ALL administrations are guilty of little fibs of this nature to push their agenda. Is that wrong? I'm not sure; I'm inclined to like it when they're my guys and hate it when they're not. In any event, I'm just saying we should take off the rose-colored glasses: yes, the administration lied a little -- though not fundamentally -- and we still did the right thing.
"By these standards, the "16 words" was a fib. We really didn't have enough to go on to pass off that info as true. Sure, we said "British intelligence has learned..." thus making it a technical truth. But the intent was to convey an idea that we had not adequately supported. Now, I suspect Bush himself didn't realize that was a fib, but administration officials did, and they're the ones who put it in the speech."
Actually not. There was and still is compelling evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing the purchase of yellowcake Uranium in both Niger and the Congo. The Presidents statement was both "technically" and "essentially" correct.
"And regarding the aluminum tubes, there was disagreement in the intelligence community on what those tubes were for, but the administration didn't say that."
Most people in the intelligence community believed their likely use was for nukes. The President never stated emphatically by word or inference that was there purpose.
As far as the Ari Fleischer comment I can neither confirm nor refute that it happened. If he did indeed say that then he obviously misspoke because that most certainly was NOT the administrations position. The President was quite clear in pointing out that Iraq was not presently an imminent threat and he did not want to wait to act untill they were. I don't know how he could have made that any clearer.
I really think you are stretching if those are your best examples. You are acting as if the WH was operating with perfect knowledge. They had no such thing beyond the UN resolutions, the firings at our planes in the no fly zone, Saddam's history and the opinion of every allied intelligence organization.
The point isn't that there were disputes regarding aluminum tubes, nuclear ambitions or anything else...the point was that they couldn't exclude these things with the information they had...on top of what they knew to be undisputed truth.