FB: You and I are just not going to agree on the "Bush lied" issue. You will not accept that he misspoke or otherwise screwed up, so there is nothing to discuss on that end. I am not going to accept the "Bush lied" argument until someone with more credibility and authority actually investigates the issue and finds it was so. Dead issue, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Major: I would say that 61% is a shoo-in for reelection, as it is exactly 11% more than is required to win. 2/3 of us like him, which is more than you can say about any of his competition. Let's see his numbers against John Kerry's, factoring in Ralph Nader's run?
White House backs off claim about uranium buy President made remark in State of the Union speech By Walter Pincus THE WASHINGTON POST July 8 — The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have claimed in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. THE STATEMENT was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report that raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security. ‘BALD CLAIM’ The British panel said it was unclear why the British government asserted as a “bald claim” that there was intelligence that Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium in Africa. It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush’s speech included the claim as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq. The findings by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee undercut one of the Bush administration’s main defenses for including the allegation in the president’s speech — namely that despite the CIA’s questions about the claim, British intelligence was still asserting that Iraq had indeed sought to buy uranium in Africa. Asked about the British report, the administration released a statement that, after weeks of questioning about the president’s uranium-purchase claim, effectively conceded that intelligence underlying the president’s statement was wrong. “Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq’s attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech,” a senior Bush administration official said last night in a statement authorized by the White House. The administration’s statement capped months of turmoil over the uranium episode during which senior officials have been forced to defend the president’s remarks in the face of growing reports that they were based on faulty intelligence. As part of his case against Iraq, Bush said in his State of the Union speech last Jan. 28 that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the uranium story — which centered on documents alleging Iraqi efforts to buy the material from Niger — was based on forged documents. Although the administration did not dispute the IAEA’s conclusion, it launched the war against Iraq later that month. It subsequently emerged that the CIA the previous year had dispatched a respected former senior diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson, to Niger to investigate the claim and that Wilson had reported back that officials in Niger denied the story. The administration never made Wilson’s mission public and questions have been raised over the past month over how the CIA characterized his conclusion in its classified intelligence reports inside the administration. The report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee followed weeks of hearings by the panel into two intelligence dossiers on Iraq’s weapons programs — one published in September and the other in January — that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair used to justify supporting the administration in going to war against Iraq. UPROAR IN LONDON Questions about the British government’s handling of intelligence have mirrored many of the issues being raised in the United States. But they have created a far greater political uproar in London. Parliament’s response has been notably different than that of Congress. The House and Senate intelligence panels have moved cautiously, with Democrats and Republicans divided over the necessity of full-blown public hearings into the administration’s use of pre-war intelligence. The House of Commons moved quickly to investigate the matter, with the Blair government battling accusations that it misled Parliament and members of the Labor Party in persuading them to support an unpopular war. The commission’s report issued yesterday found that Blair and his other key ministers “did not mislead” Parliament in describing the threat from Iraq’s alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But the panel did find that the Blair government mishandled intelligence material on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. The panel said it is too soon to determine whether the government’s assertions about Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs will be borne out, but added that the government’s actions “were justified by the information available at the time.” In a major political issue within Britain, the panel found that Alastair Campbell, Blair’s communications chief, “did not exert or seek to exert improper influence” in drafting the September intelligence report or a key claim in the document that “the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes if ordered to do so.” The panel did find that the 45-minute claim “did not warrant the prominence given to it” in the first pages of the dossier because it was based on “intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source.” The panel asked the Blair government to explain why it was given such a prominent position in the report. A senior administration official said yesterday that a classified version of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons programs, completed last September, contains references to intelligence reports that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from three African countries, not just Niger. The other two countries are Namibia and Gabon, according to intelligence sources. The sources said the reports about other countries have not been confirmed and that some government analysts do not consider the information reliable. A senior intelligence official said that there were reports of “possible attempts” by Iraqis or their agents to buy uranium, but that “they were all somewhat sketchy.” One Bush administration official said British and U.S. intelligence agencies got their Niger documents from the intelligence service of one country that he refused to name, but that others have identified as Italy. “We both had one source reporting through some liaison service which said, ‘Look what we found,’ ” this official said. “There were other [intelligence] reporting streams, but it may be that all streams are traced to the same source.” http://www.msnbc.com/news/935946.asp?vts=070820031250&cp1=1
1) It is certainly indicative of the way you see a connection between war support and political support. 2) Virtually all? Ok...let's see. I'm neither, and i actually supported Bush before all of this. FB has just old you he's not. Considering that over half the population is not Republican, I venture to say that, yeah, probably a lot of those not supporting the war are also not Republican...but you are the one who made the causative connection, and that would tend to indicate that that is how you see things. 3) Re: jealous...are you serious? Did you not get the inference?
1) Have not said that. Do not believe that. Try again. 2) Ok, I'll bite...what are my ulterior motives, tree? 3) You don't actually believe the crap you say, do you?
I would say that 61% is a shoo-in for reelection, as it is exactly 11% more than is required to win. 2/3 of us like him, which is more than you can say about any of his competition. You do realize that the election is not tomorrow right? The only things that have kept his popularity from not dropping month after month are disasters or wars. You can project out from that graph where his popularity will be in 14 months barring new wars or disasters, which I will assume you're not rooting for. "Shoo-in" is a ludicrous way to describe his re-election status in an election 14 months away. Let's see his numbers against John Kerry's, factoring in Ralph Nader's run? Last I heard, he was beating "unnamed Democrat" something like 51-38 or so, which was far less than Bush Sr. was at around the same time.
There were no misstatements. WMDs. Iraq, and taxes are the 3 topics he's enunciated with some degree of proficiency. He either lied or he's too stupid to figure out his staff lied to him. Or am I missing another explanation that doesn't require the planets aligning on the same day I win Powerball?
MacBeth: Please point to the overwhelming Republican crowd who take your side of things. No? OK, then, please point to any Republican crowd which could be classified as anything larger than miniscule who take your side. Still no? OK... How about a loosely defined 'moderate middle'? That's not quite as clear cut, but since Republicans are certainly in the minority, it would seem obvious that most 'moderate middle' people don't take your tack either. What does that leave? Democrats. No, I got your inference. You were calling me dishonest, which is to be expected since I called you intellectually dishonest the other day. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo. I was just talking out of my ass with that comment. Admittedly, I do it all the time. It's usually a sign that I'm just not taking the conversation seriously anymore... We had a talk about this months ago, and we established that you think that international bodies and systems should take precedence over national systems. What I said is just a less tactful way of saying what you said. If you want to clarify or change what you said, be my guest. Why are you asking that? I just answered it in the same post that you quoted. You want to see the UN and international bodies rise a notch and see the US fall a few. Why yes. Yes I do. Major: Yes. But the only data we currently have to go on is today's. True. No argument there. One look at the timeline makes that abundantly clear. But largely irrelevant, because... ... because you cannot actually project or extrapolate with any accuracy at all where he will be in 14 months. That is just not possible with political polls - never has been - all you can say is "If the election were to be held today, then..." That is all. Look, I know that it is an exaggeration to say that he is a shoo-in. Were I being precise I would say "His prospects currently look good, and his competition is going to have some serious catching up to do". Thare are a million things that could go wrong between now and Nov 2004. There are also a million things that could go right during that period. As far as comparing this to Bush, Sr campaign - I wouldn't seriously put any stock into that particular comparison if I were you, not if you want to beat the guy. Bush Sr oversaw a terrible and sharp economic downturn right before the election, as well as the riots which shattered public confidence in his abilities. We have been in recession since the latter days of the Clinton presidency, with some signs that things are improving, as well as signs that they are not - but mixed signals are not as bad as all bad or a crash. Considering that those 19 idiots probably cost our economy a trillion dollars, we are actually in pretty good shape, and more than a few people understand that. Also, there have been no riots... But as I said alot can happen in 14 months, both good and bad. I'll just leave it at "His prospects currently look good, and John Kerry is going to have some serious catching up to do". Seriously, John Kerry? C'mon. There are Democrats that everyone respects, why don't you guys get one of them to run? You can't win without stealing a few votes from the right.
The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have claimed in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. So now we have an admission from the Bush Administration that Bush made a key false statement in his State of the Union defense of the war. Treeman would argue that we have no proof that Bush knew that his statement was false. The ABC TV News a few minutes ago said that the CIA covered itself by sending their conclusion that the Niger uranium was false to the White House and all appropriate agencies over a year ago. Most telling was a June 2003 interview that ABC replayed with Condeleeza in which she claimed that the White House had no way to know it was false. She looked embarassed and stumbled while making this denial. Her lack of composure destroyed her credibility. As many have said unless Condloleeza or someone spells the beans we won't know if Bush knew or his staff deliberately left him ignorant. Either way it is troubling. The tide is indeed turning. To me it continues a disturbing trend I noted in Gulf War I. The media can come clean and report the truth after the war has been done. Last war we had such revelations as the US used doctored satellite photos to convince Saudi Arabia was threatened by Sadam.
But what you need to support your argument is evidence that Bush knew at the time that the statement was false, and everything I have seen indicates that he did not know that. Hell, he didn't even write the speech, so I have a hard time understanding how the lie could have originated with him. Has anyone here ever heard of the grapevine effect? Honestly, it seems to me that it might have been something along these lines that happened. I seriously doubt that Bush himself knew it was false, but I have to think that someone in the circle of advisors knew something wasn't right. If that is the case, then that is indeed troubling. Someone needs to get fired. Whoah, there - don't get too excited. I would take the president at his word when he says we're not leaving, so your hoped-for pullout and defeat will have to wait for a Democratic administration. Even then I wouldn't count on it... Or, being controlled by socialist twits like Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, they can attempt to distort the reality by spreading rumors, lies, and innuendo, and purposefully omitting relevant facts. Like, did you guys know that an Iraqi governing council was formed today? Probably the most significant development in the last month, yet hardly anyone is actually giving it the coverage it deserves. Oh, and we have begun to create a new Iraqi Army. Probably the second most significant event in the past month... But you won't hear that on the Communist News Network.
... because you cannot actually project or extrapolate with any accuracy at all where he will be in 14 months. That is just not possible with political polls - never has been - all you can say is "If the election were to be held today, then..." That is all. You can project out - not with a great deal of accuracy, but you can see trends. You can see that any and everytime Americans have focused on domestic events, Bush's popularity consistently drops - about 10 pts in 6 months. So barring another international incident, it's not farfetched to say Bush's job-approval will drop 10 pts in 14 months, which would put him around 50-50. His re-election chances at this point are a total crapshoot without knowing his opponent and with the economy continuing to stagnate and unemployment rising. Compared to about a year ago, fewer Americans today think that Bush: Cares about the needs of people like them Is honest and trustworthy Is a person they admire Has the personality and leadership qualities a president should have Agrees with George W. Bush on the issues that matter most to them These are not good trends for him. The only thing that has kept his popularity high is the patriotism (Iraq) / fear (9-11) factor. That's not a roadmap for success for a President unless he can keep feeding those aspects, and that can only be done with continued fear or more wars.
Major: You cannot project political polls beyond a couple of weeks with any accuracy at all. Look at the jagged edges on the graph. Each of those is a polling date. If you were to pick either one and attempt to extrapolate it beyond a couple of weeks you would end up with a wildly unrealistic figure, either positive or negative. It just can be done accurately with political polls. As for being a crapshoot - that is possible. It is also possible that he will turn out to be a shoo-in. As I said, alot can happen in 14 months - good or bad - and it is just too early to tell right now. I am aware of what the trend is: down. That is to be expected after a war, every president experienced that after their wars. Even Clinton. That is because those who would not have ordinarily have supported that president are coming down from the national war euphoria (bad word, but you know what I mean), and are drifting back to their normal ideologies. The polls are stabilizing back towards their natural states, as happens after every war. Personally, I expect Bush to come down to around 53% or so and then more or less stay there until the election. That is barring anything good or bad happening (although something will certainly happen to affect that, it always does). Doesn't sound like much, but I also think that most of the minor votes like the Greens will draw away traditional Dem voters, and Kerry will end up with a low 40s percentage. No contest there. And no more wars or disasters necessary... Just my take, of course.
The tide is turning and ........that's going to elect one of the several clowns running on the Democrat side of the ledger? Get real. Step away from the crackpipe and say no to drugs, really! The Democrats are as hopeless as Dole in the 1996 election. Granted, I'll vote libertarian again (no way I'm voting for that "conservative" Bush, who wants to give blanket amnesty to illegals, lets Ted Kennedy write the education bill, signs into law legislation [campaign finance reform] that circumvents the First Amendment and wants a prescription drug "benefit" that will buy him some votes from the gimme generation oldsters), but there is no way that a Democrat could win in 2004. Howard Dean is a radical "yankee" leftist who wouldn't get a single vote in the South or play very well to the Midwest folks either. Ditto for John (Now the media has added his middle initial F to his name so he can sound like their hero JFK. For many years he was simply Senator John Kerry, no F anywhere.) F. Kerry, who will run with his wife's Heinz fortune money. Liberman? Not a chance. Gephardt? Please, the guy's tall tales about his father and that rich friend who told him he didn't need a tax cut have not exactly endeared him to the masses. Not a snowball's chance in Hades for the Democrats to take back the White House and it is very likely they will lose even more ground in both the Senate and House. In the words of the maligned French, "Que Dommage!"
treeman, I was hoping you'd come up with someone who hadn't been pondered and discarded by me already. I wasn't especially hopeful, but I was curious about who you would consider a "good Democrat" to have for President. What about Clark? Has anyone found out anything more about him? Is he even a Democrat? Thanks for the reply. I really was curious. B-Bob, we don't want lose another senator. Not running for higher office is enough. Nadir is an egomaniac... willing to toss away the interests he claims to represent in order to bask in the limelight. People in the Green Party should consider their alternatives to another term of the current administration. Nadir is all about Nadir.
