July 09, 2003

Bush Knew 10 Months Before STOTU

Bush, according to CIA sources, knew ten months before the state of the Union, that the Niger documents were false and used them anyway


Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.

If the White House knew, Bush knew - or, at very least, should have known.

This is the very definition of a lie: using information you know to be false to bolster an argument. If this is true, Bush lied about the danger Iraq represented.

It is bad enough that he lied, and thus thousands of people are dead. I just hope that the Bush Administration never actually does discover a genuine threat to world peace, because everyone on the planet will be very, very slow to believe them, and with our Armed forces bogged down in Iraq and spread thin in other locations, handling such a situation may be difficult for us.

If this report is true, Bush has destroyed American credibility (making the United States less safe), involved the United States in a guerrilla war in Iraq, and initiated actions that led to thousands of death. All on a lie.

Such a man is not fit to be President of the United States of America.


| Other weblogs commenting on this post
Comments

What! A politician lied! Why, that never happens!

Posted by: SayUncle

OUCH! Bush lied setting a nation free from Saddam..I'm gasping for breath! It could have been something really silly like, well, lying about an intern on her knees in the Oval office.

Posted by: Fletchman

I'm sorry, Uncle, Fletchman, but I'm afraid that I would have to side with Kevin on this one. If your president knowingly deceived the public about reasons for going to war you have to ask why. The humanitarian reasons so commonly cited today only came into effect after it became clear to the Bush administration that no one was buying the WMD threat.
If liberation was the real reason then it makes that these reasons would have been offered all along. That they were not suggests that it is bogus.
And p.s. the fact that non-Baath party members are killing US soldiers seems to suggest that there is a new (American) yolk that Iraqis wish to be free from . . .

Posted by: uniblogger

erhum...'yoke' even

Posted by: uniblogger

I wasn't disagreeing. I was using sarcasm to illustrate that we shouldn't be so surprised when politicians deceive us or lie. In fact, i encourage you to expect it. It sucks but you're dissappointed a lot less :)

Posted by: SayUncle

Bush lied, people died.

Clinton lied, a blue dress got stained.

Hmmmmm...... What is worse..........

Posted by: gttim

i'm with kevin on this one. no use saying after the fact, "oh the humanity!" because if that argument would not have rallied the public to get behind the war before the fact, then the war was not worth getting into.

(i won't go into the other "crimes against humanity" else where in the world that were/are as bad as saddam...and you know they exist, but we didn't send over 200 american youth to their deaths for those crimes).

but even worse, as kevin points out, and i thought about this morning, now bush is the president who cried wolf. next time there's a real threat, people are not going to jump on his bandwagon so quickly.

he really squandered the good will people had towards him (but, seeing what he did with the 9/ll good will, apparently this is his modus operandi).

Posted by: skippy

*cough* Retraction*cough*

Gttim: A source lied, and liberals cried.

Posted by: SayUncle

SU

Well, no. As I pointed out, there are a ton of other stories making the same point.

And, yeah, politicians lie. So I am supposed to accpet it? Yeah, my kid is going to disobey me - I should not get upset and punish him when he does?

Posted by: kevin
Post a comment