Pincus in WP: Bush kept airing Iraq Allegation (after "knew" false)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31496-2003Aug7.html?referrer=emailarticlepg

excerpt:

"Since last month, presidential aides have said a questionable allegation, that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium for nuclear weapons, made it into President Bush's State of the Union address because of miscommunication between the CIA and Bush's staff.

But by the time the president gave the speech, on Jan. 28, that same allegation was already part of a public administration campaign to win domestic and international support for invading Iraq. In January alone, it was included in two official documents sent out by the White House and in speeches and writings by the president's four most senior national security officials..."

(more)

hahaha--they even lied about the lie!

how sad to bury the story. Pincus is doing a great job - keep this kicked for Friday morning!

:kick:

:kick:

KICK..........(bush)

kickkkk

Does just a reply help it somehow? Sorry for my ignorance.

But a good story does deserve something.

:)

By replying, the thread goes back up to the top. So the most interesting news is kept up for some while, giving more people a chance to read them (many only go trough the first page of headlines)

When will this mofu finally break and release the goddamn tidal wave?

None of this is classified--and it's damning. Apparently it comes at least in part from the Congressional investigations. We have to thank Levin and Waxman and all the others who are not letting this go. And Pincus too, of course.

But surely someone should've reported this before now? (I'm not a journalist, but I'm paying close attention. I'm rather ashamed not to have thought of this myself. Now that I read it, I remember it all very well.)

This OUGHT to make a big splash--and maybe it will, if some Congressional people get up and talk about it. But is anyone in DC this month? And, as the first poster noted, it is not on the front page. Hmmm.

apparently don't count. Those who don't know, wouldn't care.

Because part of the doctrine of PNAC, a doctrine which is the bible of the Bush administration, is that those in the know ( read: the administration and its fellow travelers in the think tanks and the Republican diehard crowd) not merely have the right to lie about important initiatives but have a responsibility to conceal their true intent from the people.

The only question we should be asking is: Would they kill innocent people in order to achieve their goals? Consider 9/11.In light of what we know about these people, do any of us even have the right to suspend our skepticism of the official line on this event?

Walter Pincus ... EVERYONES favorite grandpa ....

Sharp as a tack, and armed for bear ...

GO Waltie ! ...

Lets see, what have they given us in the last two weeks:

1) Bush says he accepts responsibility for the 16 words in SOTU.

2) Wolfowitz gives us a statement on talk radio that there was never believed to be an al-Quida / Iraq link.

3) They lied about the 16 word lie.

Lets see if anybody remembers one of the first press conferences from Gen. Tommy Franks at centcom. He stated there were 7 objectives in four distinct catagories for the war. 1) WMD 2)Regeime change 3)Terrorist and 4)secure oil fields.
Those were the four catagories and under those catagories 2 objectives fell into WMD, 3 into terroism links. I may be off a bit on that, but I am pretty sure that is how it breaks down.

If anybody gets a link to the speech I would love to have it. It was the first one I believe, he introduced Gen. Brooks and some of the British and Australian officers at the time.

With the revalations in the last 2 weeks it seems they were actually going over there for two reasons now, oil and regeime change. Does anybody remember the trip Wolfowitz took to Asia about 2 months ago, he stated that the reason WMD was used is because it was the one that everybody could agree on that would sell the war. With the recent lies exposed it leaves only two of the stated objectives. I have to ask, why the regeime change? I asked this a while back at the start of the war, was it a quid pro quo for Isreal to start negotiating with Palestine? The U.S. acting like a body guard for Isreal in the Middle East. Having a vast amount of troops already on the Syrian and Jordanian border. Something to interfere with Iranian travel across the desert. Palestine and Isreal did not start talking until the war was well underway! The U.S. has been struggling lately over there and Isreal seems to be pulling back from the peace process. It makes me wonder. The reason for the oil is pretty self explanitory.

the "vacation exclusion rule."

To wit, if the Commander -in-Chief* is on vacation, he need not answer to any important questions raised about his truthfulness or lack thereof. Sorry, he needs time to play with his putter and munch pretzels.

Please move along. Nothing to see here. Massive pattern of lies is irrelevant. And besides, only several hundred US soliders have died and around a thousand been gravely wounded and Bill Clinton had sex in the oval office.

Soros's add in NYT (and other papers) contained a large number of quotes on this and WMD.
Now that Blix, Chiraq, the world is startring to bring up the illegality of this war, little trickles are making it in our press. Chances are - they are unstoppable.
Bewtween the international pressure, Gore's speech, the candidates' stumps (well, at least some of them), "W taking responsibility for 16 of the words of SOTU" (thanks Boudelag!)- is going to remain an icon of the times along with "Bring them on" and "Darn good intelligence"
It's also up to us to keep it up in letters to the editor. The same way Gore linked the patterns in all bushco's lies, we can use the '16 words " for anything: 9.11, recession, global warming, war, Enron,elections. Heck, we should use them on Ahrnuld and all the GOP.

.

Hopefully, soon we won't have Putsch to kick around anymore.

scum bag!