"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB equivocated:

Remember, the key statement in Bush's speech was "the British Government
has
learned...". Since MI6 *still* stands by their original intelligence,
then
Bush's statement is 100% accurate.

Depends on your definition of "is". Really.

Do you see some sort of major moral difference between simply making a
false
statement and repeating a statement (known to you and your advisors to be
false) made by somebody else to achieve the same effect?

You can weasel around and say, "But Bush himself was not informed! He's
too
stupid to follow intelligence briefings from the CIA!

Bush *was* informed. Tenet already said it was his fault the line wasn't
pulled from the speech. The CIA reviewed the speech beforehand and didn't
have him pull it.


His staff and cabinet
were able to hide the facts from him!" Fine. If so, should such a man be
POTUS? And even so, the SOTU speech is a speech outlining the positions
of the
Bush Administration, was written by the Administration, and Bush is
ultimately
responsible for the actions and activities of his underlings.

Where the moral high ground now? You Bush fans ought to be ashamed to
defend
this bald faced manipulation.

Hogwash.

FACT: MI6 said Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

FACT: Tenet and the CIA couldn't confirm nor deny that report.

FACT: Bush stated "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

FACT: Even today, MI6 says their original assessment was accurate.

So where's the lie? Where's the "manipulation"? Hmmmmm?