Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The British intelligence does not depend on this.
|
This is true as far as it goes, but we don't know what the British intelligence does depend on.
Quote:
|
Assuming the British turn out to be right, I think what this proves is that the CIA is entirely incompetent.
|
Assuming our conclusions, we find out that we were right all the time! Funny that.
The British say they have sources suggesting that Iraqis went to Niger in 1999 to try to buy uranium. Not that they did buy it, or that it was even possible to get uranium out of flooded or French-controlled mines -- that this was their aim. We will never know if this "turns out to be right" because they're not sharing their sources. But if you assume that it is correct, and you look at why CIA said this stuff shouldn't go into Bush's speech in Cincinnati, you don't conclude that the CIA is incompetent. If you disagree, please explain.
Quote:
|
You keep repeating that, but assuming the Brits are correct, I'm not sure how you can continue to do so.
|
"Correct" about what? That their sources said the Iraqis were trying, or that it was true? The latter is what matters now. We now control Iraq. We know their nuclear program was defunct. We have zero reason to believe there was any reason for Iraq to be trying to obtain uranium from Niger in 1999. Even if the 16 words in the State of the Union address were literally true, they are transparently irrelevant to any continuing justification for war.
Quote:
|
I'm not. I think it is now clear to everyone save, perhaps, the City of SF, that he did not lie. Why I'm concerned about is what actually happened with Saddam. Was he or was he not attempting to get nuclear material? The Brits say yes. The FT backs this up and says other European intelligence agencies also stand by this story. We shall see.
|
I don't think the Brits are really adhering to the story that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium. They're just standing by their sources. What do you think Iraq was going to do with the uranium? Their nuclear program was defunct.
But that's not about Bush's state of mind. Do you really think that Bush knew any of this? He doubtless wanted his speechwriters to write him something that made the case for war. To this end, they tossed in the claim about Niger uranium, even though the CIA had told the White House to take it out of the Cincinnati speech. Did the speechwriters not know about its omission from the earlier speech? If so, that's Condi Rice's fault. If they knew, why were they so intent on putting it in the State of the Union? When they were told that the CIA thought the British intel was bad, why did they insist on including it as something the "British learned" instead of omitting it?
If I no longer think Bush was lying about this, it's because I'm convinced that he didn't care enough about the details to learn. But he still must take responsibility for presiding over an administration that cared more about scaring people into war than getting the facts right.
