"JohnH" wrote in message
...
Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was
a true
statement. The fact that the British government had information proved to
be
inaccurate does not make Bush's statement a lie. The statement provided
erroneous information and may have led to erroneous expectations, but the
statement was not a lie.

Dick Cheney sent Joseph Wilson to Niger in 2002 to confirm the
"intelligence." Joseph Wilson returned with the firm understanding the
claims were unfounded and unsupportable.

As will come out in the news in the next few days, Cheney was instrumental
in negotiating the language into the SOTU speech in order to build a case
for war with Iraq.

Did the President know he was being deceived? Did Dick Cheney fail to brief
the President on the fraudulent nature of the intelligence? You tell me.

This misdirection by the CIA that they weren't given the information may
just have been the result of Cheney withholding it for his own purposes.
Ole Dicky Boy is in a lot of trouble and his boss is going to take a big
hit. I expect GW will claim ignorance and, you know what? The country will
believe him.

jps

Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was a
true
statement. The fact that the British government had information proved to be
inaccurate does not make Bush's statement a lie. The statement

The fact that the Bush administration believed the information to be a lie
prior to the SOTU speech cannot be overlooked!

If you said, "I have just learned that the world is flat" and I repeat "John
has learned that the world is flat, and we should therefore pursue the
following policies".....it is technically true that I haven't lied, only
endorsed a statement made by a third party- but a statement that I know is not
at all accurate. No signficant moral difference between telling a lie myself
and letting somebody else lie for me. Same standards should apply to the
president. Sorry.

On 17 Jul 2003 18:23:23 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was a
true
statement. The fact that the British government had information proved to be
inaccurate does not make Bush's statement a lie. The statement

The fact that the Bush administration believed the information to be a lie
prior to the SOTU speech cannot be overlooked!

If you said, "I have just learned that the world is flat" and I repeat "John
has learned that the world is flat, and we should therefore pursue the
following policies".....it is technically true that I haven't lied, only
endorsed a statement made by a third party- but a statement that I know is not
at all accurate. No signficant moral difference between telling a lie myself
and letting somebody else lie for me. Same standards should apply to the
president. Sorry.

Surely you have some proof that the Bush administration believed the information
to be a LIE.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:05:58 -0700, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was
a true
statement. The fact that the British government had information proved to
be
inaccurate does not make Bush's statement a lie. The statement provided
erroneous information and may have led to erroneous expectations, but the
statement was not a lie.

Dick Cheney sent Joseph Wilson to Niger in 2002 to confirm the
"intelligence." Joseph Wilson returned with the firm understanding the
claims were unfounded and unsupportable.

As will come out in the news in the next few days, Cheney was instrumental
in negotiating the language into the SOTU speech in order to build a case
for war with Iraq.

Did the President know he was being deceived? Did Dick Cheney fail to brief
the President on the fraudulent nature of the intelligence? You tell me.

This misdirection by the CIA that they weren't given the information may
just have been the result of Cheney withholding it for his own purposes.
Ole Dicky Boy is in a lot of trouble and his boss is going to take a big
hit. I expect GW will claim ignorance and, you know what? The country will
believe him.

jps

Go read the article. "When the Niger claim first arose, the CIA sent a retired
diplomat to Africa to investigate in February 2002. The diplomat, Joseph Wilson,
reported finding no credible evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger."

One could say that an 'inability to find' is somewhat different from a 'firm
understanding'. Of course, twisting words is right up y'all's alley!!!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was
a
true
statement. The fact that the British government had information proved to
be
inaccurate does not make Bush's statement a lie. The statement

The fact that the Bush administration believed the information to be a lie
prior to the SOTU speech cannot be overlooked!

If you said, "I have just learned that the world is flat" and I repeat
"John
has learned that the world is flat, and we should therefore pursue the
following policies".....it is technically true that I haven't lied, only
endorsed a statement made by a third party- but a statement that I know is
not
at all accurate. No signficant moral difference between telling a lie
myself
and letting somebody else lie for me. Same standards should apply to the
president. Sorry.




Your boy Clinton was a master at this type of *double speak*.


Really, he was.

For example.

After being asked about his alleged underhanded dealings in (place
your favorite BC snafu here),

He would respond with something like this:

"There is no evidence to support that"

Meaning,

Yea, I might have done the dastardly thing but you'll never
find any proof of it.

Should the "Same Standards" apply to ALL presidents?

db

"Ðon ßailey" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement
was
a
true
statement. The fact that the British government had information proved
to
be
inaccurate does not make Bush's statement a lie. The statement

The fact that the Bush administration believed the information to be a
lie
prior to the SOTU speech cannot be overlooked!

If you said, "I have just learned that the world is flat" and I repeat
"John
has learned that the world is flat, and we should therefore pursue the
following policies".....it is technically true that I haven't lied, only
endorsed a statement made by a third party- but a statement that I know
is
not
at all accurate. No signficant moral difference between telling a lie
myself
and letting somebody else lie for me. Same standards should apply to the
president. Sorry.




Your boy Clinton was a master at this type of *double speak*.


Really, he was.

For example.

After being asked about his alleged underhanded dealings in (place
your favorite BC snafu here),

He would respond with something like this:

"There is no evidence to support that"

Meaning,

Yea, I might have done the dastardly thing but you'll never
find any proof of it.

Should the "Same Standards" apply to ALL presidents?

db

Yes, including impeachment proceedings.

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
"jps" wrote in message news:zvBRa.27
Dick Cheney sent Joseph Wilson to Niger in 2002 to confirm the
"intelligence." Joseph Wilson returned with the firm understanding the
claims were unfounded and unsupportable.


Joseph Wilson sat in a ****in bar and asked a couple of shady
characters if they were gonna sell uranium to Iraq, they said no... He
put in his expence report and there you go.


Do you think Cheney picked a hack to investigate the situation?

Joseph Wilson is held in the highest regard by those in the diplomatic
community. He's always held his mud and knows his business. Based on
recent events, he was witnessed saying things that those close to him would
never had expected. Clearly, it's based on his frustration with this
administration and their underhanded tactics.

We are lucky to have a gentleman with as much integrity as Joseph Wilson
working on behalf of our country.

Your remarks are unpatriotic.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...
"jps" wrote in message news:zvBRa.27
Dick Cheney sent Joseph Wilson to Niger in 2002 to confirm the
"intelligence." Joseph Wilson returned with the firm understanding
the
claims were unfounded and unsupportable.


Joseph Wilson sat in a ****in bar and asked a couple of shady
characters if they were gonna sell uranium to Iraq, they said no... He
put in his expence report and there you go.


Do you think Cheney picked a hack to investigate the situation?

Joseph Wilson is held in the highest regard by those in the diplomatic
community. He's always held his mud and knows his business. Based on
recent events, he was witnessed saying things that those close to him
would
never had expected. Clearly, it's based on his frustration with this
administration and their underhanded tactics.

We are lucky to have a gentleman with as much integrity as Joseph Wilson
working on behalf of our country.

Your remarks are unpatriotic.

And one could also say that condemning the administration, calling them
liars, asking for impeachment, etc, before all of the facts are out is also
unpatriotic.

Surely you have some proof that the Bush administration believed the
information
to be a LIE.
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Would the fact that it had been pulled from previous speeches be considered an
indicator that the Bush Administration knew the information was not accurate?

What happened? Did the documents somehow get "unforged" between October and
January?

Your boy Clinton was a master at this type of *double speak*.


Really, he was.

For example.

After being asked about his alleged underhanded dealings in (place
your favorite BC snafu here),

He would respond with something like this:

"There is no evidence to support that"

Meaning,

Yea, I might have done the dastardly thing but you'll never
find any proof of it.

Should the "Same Standards" apply to ALL presidents?

db

I miss your point, I hope. Are you suggesting that because Clinton, Nixon, and
a host of previous presidents have been caught lying to the American public
that we should just expect no better and be willing to accept this conduct from
the Leader of the Free World?

Clinton failed an important moral test.
I have never condoned his lying about the Lewinski affair. He blew it,
(literally and figuratively).