Edwards Lied!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Edwards Lied!
179
Sat, 07-10-2004 - 6:04pm
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."--John Edwards, "CNN Late Edition," Feb. 24, 2002

He is the person who called Iraq an "imminent" threat. Not Bush



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Mon, 07-12-2004 - 11:57pm


General Clark came forward to tell the world that the only intelligence Bush really cared about was intelligence that would justify war. I believe Clark, I also believe that even though Bush may not be intelligent he is sneaky and he managed to get what he wanted. He wanted war with Iraq, both for the oil and because they'd attempted to kill his "daddy".

Now everyone else has to pay the price.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:01am


Well, if ya don't want the answer, don't ask the question! ;)

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:04am


Do you mean General Wesley Clark, friend of the Clintons and former presidential hopeful,or Richard Clarke, the man whose taped conversations directly contradicted the statements he made in his book, the man who was in charge of counter-terrorism while we were attacked three times by al quaeda and while they plotted 9/11?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:14am


Yes, that guy. Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11, he used 9-11 to implement an action he was willing to take before the faulty intelligence even appeared on the horizon.

BTW, everyone's busy trying to place blame for the war in Iraq because most people now recognize it for the huge mistake it was. All except Bush, who even today said it was the right thing to do. Get the man outta the white house!


Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 9:37am
Guess what? New evidence by Europeans to support Saddam DID buy uranium from Niger!!!!

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html

Jul 9, 2004

Senate Report Offers Backing for Claim Iraq Sought Uranium in Africa

By Matt Kelley

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate report criticizing false CIA claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the same time provides support for an assertion the White House repudiated: that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

White House officials said last year it was a mistake for President Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union message, to refer to British reports that Saddam Hussein's government tried to buy uranium. The White House said the evidence for that claim was too shaky to have been included in such an important speech, and CIA Director George Tenet took the blame for failing to have the reference removed.

A Friday report from the Senate Intelligence Committee offers new details supporting the claim.

French and British intelligence separately told the United States about possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger, the report said. The report from France is significant not only because Paris opposed the Iraq war but also because Niger is a former French colony and French companies control uranium production there.

Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat the CIA sent to investigate the Niger story, also found evidence of Iraqi contacts with Nigerien officials, the report said.

Wilson told the committee that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki reported meeting with Iraqi officials in 1999. Mayaki said a businessman helped set up the meeting, saying the Iraqis were interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger - which Mayaki interpreted as an overture to buy uranium, Wilson said.

Mayaki told Wilson he met with the Iraqis but steered the discussion away from commercial activity because he did not want to deal with a country under United Nations sanctions.

All of that information came to Washington long before an Italian journalist gave U.S. officials copies of documents purporting to show an agreement from Niger to sell uranium to Baghdad. Those documents have been determined to be forgeries.

Even before the forged documents surfaced, U.S. analysts cast doubt on the Niger story, the Senate report said. State Department analysts thought the uranium story was farfetched because such a deal would be detected easily and Iraq already had some 500 tons of lightly processed uranium "yellowcake."

Some CIA analysts shared that view, the report said.

The CIA also made only "halfhearted" attempts to investigate a West African businessman's claim that Nigerien uranium bound for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in the nearby African nation of Benin, the report said. The CIA never contacted the businessman, even though the U.S. Navy gave the CIA his phone number, the report said.








iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 9:52am
No, he did not see what the President see. I've done my research on this, and they WERE NOT provided with the sources, and hence had no choice but to either TRUST the President and go along with war, or NOT TRUST the President when they were being told that this would be at a great risk to americans.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 9:53am
No they DID NOT! I'll try to get the reference, but I saw it with my own eyes. They were provided the information but not the sources of the intelligence. Information is as good as the source..
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 10:06am
At the risk of repeating myself.. There is a difference between having information provided by the President, without the sources, and having ALL information.

Whether the 'populatity' of the decision played a role, I would not know. Politicians are politicians, and if their constituants want something, that's usually what Politicians support. Isn't that the point of democracy - to have someone who represents what you want?

The american public firmly believed (based on surveys) that Iraq was indeed a threat, and ALSO believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (whether or not that was actually said is another topic).

Should politicians have gone against their constituants? Should they have not believed that the unknown sources were solid? Who made the case to the american public for the war? The government, not the senators. Once that case was made, the public wanted it.

Mind you, I am not excusing politicians who supported the war. I think they should have INSISTED to get the sources and obtained information from other countries (like those who did not support the war, in order to figure out why they didn't). However saying that Edwards 'lied' is a leap. From my perspective, all those who voted for the war made a mistake. I'm not even saying that Bush lied about it, either. I don't know. Maybe the case was ALSO made to him in a way that overstated the threat, and glossed over the quality of the sources. However there is evidence that he was clearly 'out to get Saddam' to start with.

Ok, end of tirade..

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 10:12am
That's the way it works for everyone. What's the expression in business, 'the buck stops here'? We've seen quite a few CEO's being fired and/or even jailed when something goes terribly wrong. Why? Because the people on top are ultimately responsible. They have access to all information, and they can't blame their boss for doing something wrong. Whether Bush and Cheney are to blame or the CIA, who knows at this point?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 10:38am

You are inncorrect. Perhaps you are thinking of the entire Congress, but the Intelligence Committees are not restricted from any intelligence. Who would restrict them? The president doesn't have any power to and neither does the 14 intelligence agencies that they fund. Congress itself has limited

Renee ~~~

Pages