Replies

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

None of the "information" about nuclular weapons in Bush's SOU address was true. Everything he said was either outright false or intentionally misleading. There were no nucular weapons, as proved by the fact that seals left by the U.N. inspectors still remained when U.S. troops invaded Iraq later in 2003. Bush and Cheney allusions in 2002 and 2003 speeches to a "mushroom cloud" originating from an Iraqi weapon were mere red meat for willing dupes, with absolutely no factual basis. If Iraq had ever obtained a nuclear fraction plant its size would have exceeded 2 football fields so that it could have been easily spotted by U.N. inspectors and "removed" by an Israeli missile.

Sorry darlin', your beef is with the CIA, not Bush, per the link I provided earlier:

In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

< snip>

Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

Now, if you want to get into the whole story of how the CIA set Bush up on this, we can go there too.

"Sought" not "Got". The Times is trying to make a contradiction where there is none. Same worthless crap.

The SOTU never said Iraq had nuclear weapons. It implied they were trying to restart their program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

That's what all the intelligence agencies were saying. Every word in the SOTU is reviewed by the intelligence agencies and they signed off on its contents. How is it "intentionally misleading" for the President to tell us what the intelligence agencies have told him?

The argument that the President lied is absurd on its face and in its details. For him to literally lie, he had to know that Iraq had gotten rid of its WMD. All the intelligence agencies including our, Russia's, France's, Germany's and Britain's said he still had them. For the President to have lied, he would have had to know all these intelligence estimates were wrong. How would he know that? Was he meeting Tariq Aziz in a parking garage at 3AM? Then, knowing the WMD were gone, he would have still used them as a primary causus belli. He would be simultaneously smarter than the whole world and dumber than a post. Reductio ad absurdam.

In the details there have been multiple investigations into the intelligence failures. David Kay's, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Iraq Survey Group, and the Blue Ribbon Panel. All four found serious flaws with the intelligence gathering and analysis processes. All four looked for evidence of political pressure on the analysts and found none. One analyst found that the pressure to justify his conclusions improved his work rather than hurt it. Even that notion is absurd on its face. How much pressure do you need to apply to get someone to say the same thing they've been saying all along.

If Iraq had ever obtained a nuclear fraction plant its size would have exceeded 2 football fields so that it could have been easily spotted by U.N. inspectors and "removed" by an Israeli missile.

Sorry again, dear, you fumbled the ball again...

June 6 [2005]: In the desert west of Baghdad, Marines discover an underground bunker the size of six football fields, with living spaces and bathrooms.

The story is here , along with video of the bunker.