For those of you that have maintained that President Bush lied . Here is where you can send your apology

George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov

"The Yellowcake Con

The Wilson-Plame "scandal" was political pulp fiction.

Wall Street Journal, Thursday, July 15, 2004

So now the British government has published its own inquiry into the intelligence behind the invasion of Iraq, with equally devastating implications for the credibility of the Bush-Blair "lied" crowd. Like last week's 511-page document from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the exhaustive British study found some flawed intelligence but no evidence of "deliberate distortion." Inquiry leader Lord Butler told reporters that Prime Minister Tony Blair had "acted in good faith."

What's more, Lord Butler was not ready to dismiss Saddam Hussein as a threat merely because no large "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction have been found. The report concludes that Saddam probably intended to pursue his banned programs, including the nuclear one, if and when U.N. sanctions were lifted; that research, development and procurement continued so WMD capabilities could be sustained; and that he was pursuing the development of WMD delivery systems--missiles--of longer range than the U.N. permitted.

But the part that may prove most salient in the U.S. is that, like the Senate Intelligence findings, the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

We're awaiting apologies from former Ambassador Joe Wilson, and all those who championed him, after his July 2003 New York Times op-ed alleging that Mr. Bush had "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The news is also relevant to the question of whether any crime was committed when a still unknown Administration official told columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA employee and that's why he had been recommended for a sensitive mission to Niger. A Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating the case, with especially paralyzing effect on the office of the Vice President. In that New York Times piece, readers will recall, Mr. Wilson outed himself as the person who had been sent to Niger by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate claims that Iraq might have been seeking yellowcake ore for its weapons program. Vice President Dick Cheney had asked for the CIA's opinion on the issue after reading a Defense intelligence report.

Mr. Wilson wrote that "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." He claimed he informed the CIA of his findings upon his return, was certain reports of his debrief had circulated through appropriate channels, and that the Administration had chosen to ignore his debunking of the story.

After the Novak column appeared, Mr. Wilson charged that his wife was outed solely as punishment for his daring dissent from White House policy. To that end, he has repeatedly denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his book "The Politics of Truth." "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." A huge political uproar ensued.

But very little of what Mr. Wilson has said has turned out to be true. For starters, his wife did recommend him for that trip. The Senate report quotes from a February 12, 2002, memo from Ms. Plame: "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

This matters a lot. There's a big difference both legally and ethically between revealing an agent's identity for the revenge purpose of ruining her career, and citing nepotism (truthfully!) to explain to a puzzled reporter why an undistinguished and obviously partisan former ambassador had been sent to investigate this "crazy report" (his wife's words to the Senate). We'd argue that once her husband broke his own cover to become a partisan actor, Ms. Plame's own motives in recommending her husband deserved to become part of the public debate. She had herself become political.

Mr. Wilson also seems to have dissembled about how he concluded that there was nothing to the Iraq-Niger uranium story, serving for example as the anonymous source for a June 12, 2003, Washington Post story saying "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " There were some forged documents related to an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Trouble was, such documents had not even come to the intelligence community (never mind to Mr. Wilson's attention) by the time of his trip, and obviously hadn't been the basis of the report he'd been sent to investigate. He told the Senate he may have "mispoken"--at some length we guess--on this issue.

The Senate Intelligence Committee found, finally, that far from debunking the Iraq-Niger story, Mr. Wilson's debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Why? Because he'd reported that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him of a 1999 visit by the Iraqis to discuss "commercial relations," which the leader of the one-industry country logically interpreted as interest in uranium. Remember that Messrs. Bush and Blair only said that Iraq had "sought" or was "trying to buy" uranium, not that it had succeeded. It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible.

All of this matters because Mr. Wilson's disinformation became the vanguard of a year-long assault on Mr. Bush's credibility. The political goal was to portray the President as a "liar," regardless of the facts. Now that we know those facts, Americans can decide who the real liars are."

Why didn't we listen to the american intelligence agents that said this was fiction?

He lied knowing full well he had plausible deniability......

What Bush did was worse than lying....he used info that he KNEW was unlikely, suspect at the very least and used it to support going to war. War.................not a blowjob, WAR!!

You righty's totally have your priorities screwed up, don't you? Its ok to be less than honest when it comes war, but blowjobs man, you better be coming correct or we'll frickin impeach you.

Unbelievable!!

George Bush is a skidmark on the underwear of American history. My strong belief is that the Bush presidency is the beginning of the end of America as the pre-emeinent super power in the world.

He's the worst kind of liar. Here is another example of a Bush lie:

He's a uniter, not a divider.

Here's another example:

George Bush served honorably.

Hmmmm, I see. So after American committees do numerous investigations and find nothing to credibly substantiate Bush's claims, the Brits publish one line and that totally exonerates him.

Who'd a thunk?

Golly, remember back when Hillary tried to do her Health Care thing - the GOP thought that Great Britain was full of socialist bast**ds. Now, they are the truth and the light???

George will get my form of an apology on November 2nd. Hopefully a one-way ticket to Crawford.

Gh,

You among many said Bush out right lied and intentionally mislead Americans on the War in Iraq ( Bush lied people died). Now two bipartisan inquiries into the evidence used to justify the war have concluded that their was no deception or intent to decieve only poor or incomplete intelligence. From that all you can counter with is they did not " substantiate Bush's claims" they did subsantiate that he did not lie so did the Brits and the Italians. Even the French now say they knew Sadam was trying to buy massive ammounts of Plut up until we attacked. Typical liberal dodge.

I made this point a few months back, you guys hate Bush for reasons other than the issues. Your posts continue to prove this. Slowly and consistantly every lie you have been fed by the left and promoted as truth is being proven to be just that a lie . Yet you push it aside and move forward with your contempt.

BS. If you study his speeches prior to the invasion you should see that they are filled with subtle deception. You're intelligent enough to know what I'm talking about.

BTW, nice of the Italians to try and cover for him now since they started the whole yellow cake mess.

Don't you just hate when everyone starts using Republican tactics?

Oh, and another BTW - knowing what we do now about Iraqi's lack of nuclear capability, what would they want with yellow cake anyway? They had absolutely zero equipment to deal with it.

GH,

No one knows that for sure. Even the inspectors admit that Sadam had a very mobile and fluid WMD set up.


The best of the left Kerry and Edwards have been ducking responsibility for leading us to war on what they claim was insufficient intelligence. Even Hillary admits that given what she knows now going to war was the right thing to do. I imagine that Bill has rubbed off on her a bit but we all know he is a Moderate. Wonder what ol Howie Dean will come up with in the nextfew weeks before his speach now that his "Bush/Blair lied" Joe Wilson siad so has become a huge embarassment to the Far Left? At least he does not have to deal with the I knew it was a lie and voted for it anyhow then changed my mind and refused to fund it mess the Johns will be dealing with until fall.
Maybe they can make a movie about Wilsons lies and call it a documentary like MM does?

Jiffy 'Yellow Cake' Mix would have been much more useful to them.

rotflmfao h20!!!! That is a classic!
He is a uniter BTW...the democratic party has neve been so unified.
I like what his old college classmate Garry Trudeau said about GW's college days.

TK,

It looks to me like you're cherry picking the recent US Intelligence Report. Senatory Rockefeller was quoted on Meet the Press the President exaggerated the Intelligence,

"SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER, (D-WV): I hate to put it in those terms, but I was wrong. And I've said for a long time now that if I know now what I did not know then, I would have voted against it. I think there were two things. I think there was the question that the intelligence was flawed, profoundly flawed on all subjects, not just the weapons of mass destruction but the terrorist threat, the relationship between Saddam Hussein and perhaps 9/11, something which the vice president is still talking about, but also the fact that the highest level of the administration, they were talking so much, so constantly about the threat to the nation, grave and growing, mushroom clouds. This is moving to the homeland, the president said, just about a month before the vote. I mean, in a sense, they were exaggerating intelligence. They were ahead of the intelligence they were getting or they weren't paying attention to the intelligence they were getting and going beyond it to try to convince the American people that war was the way to go."

It seems Goharley and stlhdH20 are only interested in what the French have to say when it's something negative about America or its Commander and Chief.

H2O

"George Bush is a skidmark on the underwear of American history."

----------------------------------------------------------

Seeing that the stain stinks and is so visible, I would have to say that George Bush is a sh**mark on the underwear of American History.

Time to send this Dry Drunk back to Crawford.

Personally, I could give a crap what the french say.

Funny how american republicans, you know, the ones that are suppose to be so 'pro miltary' or 'pro-defense', are seemingly the only ones in the entire world that haven't taken to heart the sacrifices of our grandfathers.....the greatest generation.

Europeans seem to get it.

War is supposed to be the last resort.

Here's how I really feel. The war in Iraq is only as justifiable as Pearl Harbor was to the Japanese.

Well lets use your words as an example.

' Misrepresenting and embellishing is the same as....

Lieing.'

If that sthe case take what you just said.

"That was always my viewpoint. When one is sworn in after enlisting, the term DEFEND is used. Not OFFEND. Bush has turned our national defense into a national OFFENSE and that is...."


Your view point would then be a lie because congress and the courts have determined the president used his powers legally.

My point being why would you subject someone else to a much higher standard than the one you hold yourself?

Too bad the american people don't have an email address, there'd be some place for Dumbya to send HIS apologies if he could ever figure out how to run a computer.

Perhaps an email address for all the dead and crippled servicemen would be a good place to send his apologies.

How about one for all the displaced workers in this country who've lost their jobs due to Bush's ridiculously failed and inflationary economic policy?

How about an email address for every child whose life could be improved with stem cell research if Dubya's retarded, yes, I said it, RETARDED 'moral stance' prevents.

I'm sorry America......

Love,

Dumbya

The fact that the Republicans are sheltering the rest of the report .

Right the republicans are sitting on a report from a bipartisan commission. They also control the brits report. two bipartisan investigation conclude there was no attempt to manipulate data or to intentionally mislead the people of any participating country and you genius' still conclude it was all a lie. Yet you have posted no evidence from any bipartisan comissions to support your claim. Just the typical slander, blue collar conspiracy theories of the uninformed. any thoughts on who killed JFK or the Roswell UFo incedent?

Lets deal with the Kerry/Edwards voting for the war then not voting for any support for the war. They looked at the same evidence that Bush did when they cast their votes. So are they liars as well? I think they are even worse than liars. I think they did it for poll points for their campaigns at the time. Kerry for one did not want another protest vote against a war on his record going into the campaign. They wanted to cover all their bases which is refelected by their voting for the war then voting not to fund it. All designed not around a cause or not supporting a cause but for getting elected. Any vote for people like this is shameful at best.

In attempting to re-write history-- AuntyM, goharely, stlhdH20 and the rest of the "enlightened people" all conveniently leave that part out.