Alright Degan, it's clear we're never going to agree about Clinton and his perjury. You are never going to convince me that he wasn't lying through his teeth. I am never going to make you understand that lying does, in fact, damage one's credibility. So let's leave that one as any further argument over it will be beating a dead horse.
And as to your little "ahem"...
I said prove that Bush
lied - that he knew Saddam had no WMDs, but stated that he did, and used this as a
casus belli. That article you quoted
does not do that. Let's took a look at the quotes you highlighted:
But recent revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the United Nations, in Congress and elsewhere make clear that the weakness of the claim in the State of the Union speech was known and accepted by a wide circle of intelligence and diplomatic personnel scrutinizing information on Iraqi weapons programs months before the speech.
"Everyone knew" the letters purporting to prove Iraq's effort to acquire uranium in Niger "were not good," said one senior administration decision-maker who otherwise supported the president's decision to go to war in Iraq. "The White House response has been baffling. This is relatively inconsequential. Why don't they tell the truth?"
Not the use of the word "weakness", not "falseness", "untruth", or any such word that indicates definite knowledge of untruth. Note also the phrase "were not good", instead of a phrase like "known to be false", or "revealed as untrue", or any such phrase that again would imply certain knowledge of the untruth of the claim, as opposed to mere uncertainty or unreliability.
And as to the next highlighted quote:
For instance, on Friday the White House briefer said that the only statement CIA Director George J. Tenet had successfully persuaded deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to take out of the president's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati was a reference to "over 500 tons of uranium." He said that was removed because it was "single-sourced" intelligence.
But yesterday, a senior administration official with knowledge of the Tenet-Hadley conversation disputed the White House version. "The line he asked to take out wasn't about 500 tons of uranium or a single source. It was about Africa and uranium," the official said. Even the broader assertion about Africa "wasn't firm enough. It was shaky."
Tenet objected to putting too much weight on "single-sourced" intelligence because it is not corroborated. How do you go from "not corroborated" to "known to be false"? And the administration official quoted used to words "wasn't firm enough", and "shaky", not "wasn't true" or "false". Considering something to be of dubious credibility and positively knowing it to be false are not the same thing.
Moving right along:
In February 2002, the CIA dispatched former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, a 23-year career diplomat with postings in Africa and Iraq, to check out those reports. He returned unconvinced, and the CIA cabled his doubts around the intelligence community and to the National Security Council on March 9, 2002. While not definitive, Wilson's assessment fit with the skepticism already existing on the subject. Wilson's report was "not memorable" because it confirmed previously held doubts, said several U.S. officials.
Doubts. Not knowledge of untruth, just doubts.
In September 2002, the story of Iraq's interest in uranium from Africa was first made public in a British government dossier on Iraq's weapons program. Tenet and top aides, who appeared days later before two congressional committees, were asked about the British claim.
Tenet told lawmakers that there were reports of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium but that there were doubts about the reports' accuracy. Not a week later, the CIA circulated a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. Neither allegation -- that Iraq sought uranium in Africa or Niger -- made it into the document's "key judgments" section, according to portions of the NIE made public Friday.
There's that word "doubts" again. This does not indicate that CIA knew the report was inaccurate, they merely doubted it.
On page 25, however, the NIE stated that a foreign government had reported that Niger "planned to send several tons of pure uranium (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. . . . We do not know the status of this arrangement." On the same page, it cites reports indicating Iraq's approaches to Somalia and Congo. "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources," the NIE stated.
They couldn't confirm the report. But disprove it either. This does not indicate certain knowledge of the report's inaccuracy.
On page 84, the State Department's intelligence bureau, in a dissenting analysis, said "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are . . . highly dubious." No references to Iraq seeking yellowcake from Niger, Congo, Somalia or anywhere else appeared in the NIE that was publicly released on Oct. 4.
Again, highly dubious indicates doubt and uncertainty, not certain knowledge of the report's inaccuracy.
Moving along:
Days after the Italian journalist Burba handed the documents to the U.S. Embassy in Rome on Oct. 11, intelligence officials had nearly completely discounted their substance, which mirrored the reports Wilson and others had discounted eight months earlier. In fact, when the State Department's intelligence branch distributed the documents on Oct. 16 to the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it included a caveat that the claims were of "dubious authenticity."
This indicates a high level of doubt in the report. It does not indicates that Bush or anyone who advised him knew it to be false.
I asked for proof that Bush deliberately lied - proof that he made a claim while
knowing that Saddam had no WMDs, which was the claim that was made. You haven't provided
any. Nowhere in any of those quotes will you find words to the effect that Iraq was
known to possess no WMDs, but Bush, as alleged, led us into war claiming that he did despite his
knowledge that Saddam had none. What you have provided is proof that he knew the reports about yellowcake and aluminum tubes were dubious, but
not that he knew they were untrue. You have not proven that he lied. It is, of course, possible that he did, and all the peole quoted were careful enough with their choice of words not to betray their certainty. However, it is equally possible that Bush
genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, and
did make efforts to advance a nuclear program, but was clever enough in hiding them that we just didn't have any good hard evidence, and that Bush also believed that after we defeated Saddam and had access to Iraqi documents, captured Iraqi personnel, etc. we would discover where he had been hiding these things.
Does this mean Bush was not completely forthcoming? Yes. Does this mean that Bush led us into a war on very dubious grounds? Yes, it does. Does this mean that Bush lied? It
may. Or it may mean allowed himself to believe that Saddam had WMDs even though we little hard evidence for it, and he acted on this belief. If that is the case, you may question his judgement, but you
have not proven that he lied.
And the interesting thing is that you demand proof beyond any reasonable doubt about Clinton's lies, but you are entirely ready to condemn Bush even though all reasonable doubt has not been eliminated.
The man got on TV and brazenly lied through his fucking teeth to the people who elected him president. He has no goddamn credibility. You would have to be an idiot to trust his word. Apparently you do, so I guess you are.
