Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why do people still insist that Pres. Bush's "16 words" in his State of The Union Address were a lie?
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.
But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."
Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.
Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.
Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.
Amazing. You can't argue with the facts according to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report so you say I've lost touch with reality.
Another admitted that he didn't even read the information, yet I've already made up my mind.
scipro3001:
Obviously you haven't read the Butler Report. I refer you to page 156 paragraph 45:
"The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."
"The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this."
NEITHER DID BUSH IN HIS STU.
"The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time it's assesment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."
15 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Nope they weren't.
- Anonymous5 years ago
i'm with all of you. I had to take medicine just to maintain from throwing up and from breaking the television. yet he's like gazing a convention injury. Gotta see it to hearken to each and every of the jokes after. Monkey,human or an alien? possibly concepts lifeless. a minimum of while Tony Blair speaks you recognize the guy has intelligence.
- Constipated CON.Lv 71 decade ago
The bar for every day Joe's and Jane's you would have to agree is not the same for the president of the U.S.
If we should happen to Miss-speak certainly the ramifications are not as dire as those for, arguably the most powerful man in the world.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
golfer7 --- is correct that the CIA had informed the Administration that the statement was not factual.
In any case, your argument is clearly one of desperation. It goes beyond what the meaning of “is” is. You want people to believe that politicians like those in the Bush Administration (who more than any group use words to manipulate emotions and feelings) maintain the strictest and most objective definitions of the words they use. Even you must realize the absurdity of that position.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CristalLv 51 decade ago
I have issues with the fact that he didn't get credible people to fact check, and that goes for him and the British.
Ask anyone who has been watching that area of the world, or who is knowledgeable about Islam, and they could have told you that there as no way that Saddam was in league with Al Queda.
Look at history, look up about the social issues in Iraq under Saddam.. then compare that to the social issues in Afganistan.
THEN explain to me how these two groups would plan anything together.
My other issue is the fact that BUSH didn't let the UN do their job. We "trusted" faulty intelligence who said that Iraq "may" be seeking uranium. Well lets bomb everybody then.. just in case they "might" decide to seek nuclear weapons.
We didn't give Iraq a chance to prove their innocence, we assumed their guilt and then asked them to prove their guilt to us. So since they didn't have anything, what do they do?
Us: give us your WMD's or we'll invade
Iraq: we don't have WMD's (which happens to be the truth)
What could Iraq do?
Sure, we gave them a way out.. they could avoid getting invaded by giving us things they didn't have.
That makes alot of sense
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Because the US Inteliigence (CIA) found that Saddam had not sought uranium--and told the White Huse BEFORE the speech. Bush lied--which is what he usually does.
And the right-wing apologists can post BS from now till doomsday and spin like tops for the next hundred years if they want to.
bush lied. Simple as that. People still insist on that for a reason the right-wing doesn't seem to grasp to well: a lie is a lie is a lie.
- golfer7Lv 51 decade ago
you've done a thorough job of cherry picking the "facts." But the facts make it overwhelmingly obvious that Bush, or people beneath him, knew the words could not be supported by the available intelligence. (Could be that Bush didn't know-I suspect he has never been very good at soliciting facts and truth from his subordinates-in which case he was not lying, just lazy.)
The fact that the CIA successfully got Bush's speechwriters to take the words out of the Cincinnati speech given months earlier is itself evidence that the key people knew they were not appropriate.
- michrLv 71 decade ago
thank you for proving the fact that bush is not a liar
he just does not know the truth
he does not think for himself
he has great conviction
the fact that he does not know the truth but believes he knows best about everything is what makes him such a danger to us and the world. bush never lied he just made a point to never know the truth.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Because it wasn't the truth. That's not no intended as sarcasm. IT WASN'T TRUE. And, at best, when he used those words he did so knowing they weren't facts. What he actually knew and when only he knows, and, he won't talk.
For every one but a politician or a lawyer it's not a great leap to going from saying something that isn't true to lying.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
so many words to justify 16, when you have to work that hard you could probably believe anything
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Bush had already removed those words from a previous speech because they were not true. He put them back in when he needed the impact to push for war even though he knew they were false.
Sorry but I didn't take time to read your novel as it is pretty clear you've made up your mind. But a short post was warranted.