Worse than Watergate?

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by Nash
That's a pretty interesting dynamic to this thing... the difference between what the fallout is in Britain as compared to the US.

Will Blair take a huge hit, while Bush gets a pass for the very same thing? Will the opposite happen? How much will the folks involved be taking their cues from what happens across the pond? Might be interesting...

Absolutely HUGE hit, all his opponents have to say when he puts a point across is say " You can't believe a word he says" and everyone nods in agreement.

Also taking on the BBC is about the stupidest thing anyone has ever done, especially as it's seen as a tactic to divert attention away from the fact that no Scud's, Nuclear Programmes or WMD's have been found yet. Can't think of the USA equivalent - bit like attacking the US Army would be the closest.

The whole Uranium from Africa thing is great too - CIA, the facts were wrong, we didn't tell the President - it's our fault, oh and we did tell the British Gov, who told the President but didn't tell him that we told them that they were wrong. The British Gov now says that they are actually right, the CIA is wrong and Prez was right...but they can't tell you how they know they're right because it's a secret!!

Noticed that Mr Blair isn't going to be getting his medal that Congress wanted to award him on his visit.

Just remember when you guys see him on TV that he's not called Phony Tony back home for nothing. Voted most hated man in Britain for a reason.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by mietla
So was OJ Simpsom. It's the Jury baby. Select enough morons who are not going to convict no matter what and you get away with anything.

Did you really think that this F* Senate is going to convict Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd?

I dont really see a reason to convict Clinton, the over hyped media show around the thing was surely enough, for something that little.

IMO it shouldn't been even brought to the court or anywhere for that matter.


However, with Bush it's another thing, considering all the laws hes violated....

For this freedom fighter president, it surely amazes how hes willingly violating the human rights without anyone doing anything for it, while US has been said to fight for the freedom and other blahblah ever since its independency.
..and thats only one thing hes violated.

terrorists or not (obviously some have not been!), I hate the double stantards by Bush.
I cannot stand hypocrits.

[lazs2]

seems the people making the biggest deal out of this aren't even from the U.S.

someday nash you will have to tell me why you are so interested in the U.S. and why you have such a lefty bent.  Are you an academic or a cripple with lots of time and on a government disability income of some sort?
lazs

[Maniac]

seems the people making the biggest deal out of this aren't even from the U.S.

Priceless!

[Nash]

"seems the people making the biggest deal out of this aren't even from the U.S."

Funny nobody's pointed this out: It's one thing for the Prez to lie to y'all to get you to support his war - whatever the real motives actuallly were, absent a WMD threat.... But he also served up completely bogus information to compell countries like mine to also send our boys to war. For what, again? It aint just about you. And it's pretty disgusting.

Hehe lazs.... a lefty bent indicates an academic or a cripple on government disability money. Pretty funny.

[lazs2]

so you are not?
lazs

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Nash
That's a pretty interesting dynamic to this thing... the difference between what the fallout is in Britain as compared to the US.

Will Blair take a huge hit, while Bush gets a pass for the very same thing? Will the opposite happen? How much will the folks involved be taking their cues from what happens across the pond? Might be interesting...

I just read an AP piece (sorry, don't have the link anymore) that says the UKs stand behind its intel re: Iraq buying yellow cake from Niger.  The story said that the UK didn't give the U.S. all of the backup the intelligence was based on.

So, yes, this is an interesting dynamic.  The U.S. is now officially discounting the intel, the U.K. is again insisting it was genuine.

Geez, if the U.S. and the U.K. intel and diplomatic services can't get it straight, I guess I'll have to get my information from all the international affairs geniuses that cruise this BBS.

And so it goes!:D

[Nash]

lol no, I am neither of those.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Pongo
20 lies

too bad the Democrats could never get elected by showing the US public how stupid and dangerous they are.

You have to dig all the way to New Zealand to make your case....cmon....really.

[Rude]

However, with Bush it's another thing, considering all the laws hes violated....

Cite the laws of which you speak.

[Syzygyone]

Here's the full story about the UK still backing it's claim about Iraq and Yellowcake:

British foreign secretary still defends Iraq uranium charge

Jordan Times

Sunday, July 13, 2003

 LONDON (AP) — Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended Britain's publication of a disputed charge that Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa, writing in a letter released Saturday that the CIA expressed doubts about the allegation but did not say why. Straw said in the letter to the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs that Britain was unaware until recently that a US envoy went to Niger to investigate the claim and found it could not be substantiated.

Britain made the accusation in a September dossier about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Foreign Office says it still believes the charge was true, although one of the documents suggesting Saddam Hussein's regime sought uranium in Niger has since been exposed as a forgery.

The accusation is now the subject of angry questions about how it ended up in US President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in January. The White House has said the charge was false and Bush said Friday that the CIA had reviewed his address and did not raise any alarms.

Straw, in the letter dated Friday and released by the Foreign Office Saturday, said Britain had based its charge in part on intelligence it did not share with the United States.

He said the CIA had expressed reservations about the uranium claim.

"However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US ... A judgement was therefore made to retain it." The letter did not say why Britain declined to share the information with its ally, but Straw wrote that he had explained the reasons privately to the parliamentary committee.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said Britain still believes the disputed allegation is correct.

"We stand by what we said," she said on condition of anonymity. "We think there's no reason to doubt the accuracy ... of the intelligence on which this dossier is based." She added that the intelligence "drew on additional evidence other than documents." Straw wrote that until press reports revealed US envoy Joseph Wilson's early 2002 visit to Niger to investigate the uranium claim, Britain had been unaware of his trip. He said American officials have since confirmed they did not tell Britain of the visit.

Wilson's report, Straw wrote, "does indeed describe the denials of Niger government officials in early 2002 that a contract had been concluded for the sale of yellowcake to Iraq." Yellowcake is a lightly processed form of uranium.

But Straw argued that part of Wilson's report bolstered the British claim. Wilson, he wrote, noted that an Iraqi delegation had in 1999 "sought the expansion of trade links with Niger — and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake." "Uranium is Niger's main export," Straw continued. "In other words, this element of Ambassador Wilson's report supports the statement in the government's dossier." Bush attributed the allegation to Britain in his State of the Union speech.

On Friday, the White House blamed the CIA for allowing the charge to be included in the address. CIA Director George Tenet later took responsibility, saying the statement "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed." Also Saturday, a newspaper charged that the British dossier drew heavily on information culled from the Internet and other public sources even though it claimed to rely mainly on intelligence.

The vehemently anti-war Independent newspaper said many of the September document's allegations were similar to those in a January 2001 paper by then-US Defence Secretary William Cohen, Senate testimony by Tenet, an unclassified CIA report to the American Congress and a report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.

The newspaper said the uranium claim did not appear to come from any of the public documents.

 

Straw Defends Iraq Uranium Charge
Beth Gardiner • Associated Press
 
Arab News

LONDON, 13 July 2003 — Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday defended Britain’s publication of a disputed charge that Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa, saying the CIA expressed doubts about the allegation but did not say why.

Straw, in a letter to the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, said Britain was unaware until recently that a US envoy went to Niger to investigate the claim and found it could not be substantiated.

Britain made the accusation in a September dossier about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The Foreign Office says it still believes the charge was true, although one of the documents suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime sought uranium in Niger has been exposed as fake.

The accusation is the subject of angry questions about how it ended up in President Bush’s State of the Union speech in January. The White House says the charge was false, and Bush said Friday the CIA had reviewed his address and did not raise any alarms.

Straw, in the letter dated Friday and released by the Foreign Office yesterday, said Britain based its charge in part on intelligence it did not share with the United States.

He said the CIA had expressed reservations about the uranium claim. “However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier’s statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US ... A judgment was therefore made to retain it.”

The letter did not say why Britain declined to share its information with its ally, but Straw wrote that he had explained the reasons privately to the Parliamentary committee.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said Britain still believes the disputed allegation is correct.

“We stand by what we said,” she said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We think there’s no reason to doubt the accuracy ... of the intelligence on which this dossier is based.”

She added that the intelligence “drew on additional evidence other than documents.”

Straw wrote that until press reports revealed US envoy Joseph Wilson’s early 2002 visit to Niger, Britain had been unaware of his trip. He said American officials have since confirmed they did not tell Britain of the visit.

Wilson’s report, Straw wrote, “does indeed describe the denials of Niger government officials in early 2002 that a contract had been concluded for the sale of yellowcake to Iraq.”

Yellowcake is a lightly processed form of uranium.

But Straw argued that part of Wilson’s report bolstered the British claim. Wilson, he wrote, noted that an Iraqi delegation had in 1999 “sought the expansion of trade links with Niger -- and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake.”

“Uranium is Niger’s main export,” Straw continued. “In other words, this element of Ambassador Wilson’s report supports the statement in the government’s dossier.”

Bush attributed the allegation to Britain in his State of the Union speech.

On Friday, the White House blamed the CIA for allowing the charge to be included in the address. CIA director George Tenet later took responsibility.

Also yesterday, The Independent charged that the British dossier drew heavily on information culled from the Internet and other public sources — though it claimed to rely mainly on intelligence.
 

[Dowding]

Yes, but Jack Straw is a banana.

[john9001]

it was the british intel that said saddam was trying to buy uranium from Africa , not the CIA or Bush , and the british still say it is true.
the uranium was not the only reason for the war,it's just the latest liberal whine, what ever happened to "no blood for oil"?

[Dowding]

Remind us john, what was the other reason for the war? And the liberation of the Iraqi people doesn't count - that was never a casus belli.

[midnight Target]

We are concerned over the wording of some reports about possible uranium purchases?

Does anyone else think this is way bigger spin than that politician par excellance' Clinton ever devised?

Go back and read the transcript of the UN speech by Powell. Iraq war freakin swimming in anthrax and small pox and mustard gas and nuclear dirty bombs.... OUR security was in danger!

Was it????????