Article about BushCo use of words
 

Along with her mention of Seligman's learned helplessness research, this was
especially interesting:

"To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush
describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then
attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the
only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people
they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the
Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to
concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party."

If I didn't know better, I'd think this sort of approach came from the
action heroes we see in movies, video games and comic books.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

I wonder how the psychologist would analyze "...depends on what is is."

"Q" wrote in message
...
To all:

I picked up the following article in another ng, so no url. Google if
that's important to you...

-----
P-I Focus: Power of presidency resides in language as well as law

By RENANA BROOKS
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST

George W. Bush is generally regarded as a mangler of the English
language.

What is overlooked is his mastery of emotional language -- especially
negatively charged emotional language -- as a political tool. Take a
closer look at his speeches and public utterances and his political
success turns out to be no surprise. It is the predictable result of
the intentional use of language to dominate others.

Bush, like many dominant personality types, uses dependency-creating
language. He employs language of contempt and intimidation to shame
others into submission and desperate admiration.

While we tend to think of the dominator as using physical force, in
fact most dominators use verbal abuse to control others. Abusive
language has been a major theme of psychological researchers on
marital problems, such as John Gottman, and of philosophers and
theologians, such as Josef Pieper.

But little has been said about the key role it has come to play in
political discourse and in such "hot media" as talk radio and
television.

Bush uses several dominating linguistic techniques to induce surrender
to his will. The first is empty language. This term refers to broad
statements that are so abstract and mean so little that they are
virtually impossible to oppose. Empty language is the emotional
equivalent of empty calories.

Just as we seldom question the content of potato chips while enjoying
their pleasurable taste, recipients of empty language are usually
distracted from examining the content of what they are hearing.
Dominators use empty language to conceal faulty generalizations; to
ridicule viable alternatives; to attribute negative motivations to
others, thus making them appear contemptible; and to rename and
"reframe" opposing viewpoints.

Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech contained 39 examples of empty
language. He used it to reduce complex problems to images that left
the listener relieved that George W. Bush was in charge. Rather than
explaining the relationship between malpractice insurance and
skyrocketing health care costs, Bush summed up: "No one has ever been
healed by a frivolous lawsuit." The multiple fiscal and monetary
policy tools that can be used to stimulate an economy were downsized
to: "The best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money
is not to tax it away in the first place." The controversial plan to
wage another war on Iraq was simplified to: "We will
answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American
people." In an earlier study, I found that in the 2000 presidential
debates Bush used at least four times as many phrases containing empty
language as Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Senior or Gore had used in
their debates.

Another of Bush's dominant-language techniques is personalization. By
personalization I mean localizing the attention of the listener on the
speaker's personality. Bush projects himself as the only person
capable of producing results. In his post-9/11 speech to Congress he
said, "I will not forget this wound to our country or those who
inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in
waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American
people." He substitutes his determination for that of the nation's. In
the 2003 State of the Union speech he vowed, "I will defend the
freedom and security of the American people." Contrast Bush's "I will
not yield" etc. with John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can
do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

The word "you" rarely appears in Bush's speeches. Instead, there are
numerous statements referring to himself or his personal
characteristics of folksiness, confidence, righteous anger or
determination as the answer to the problems of the country. Even when
Bush uses "we," as he did many times in the State of the Union speech,
he does it in a way that focuses attention on himself. For example, he
stated: "Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people,
and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."

In the Jan. 16 New York Review of Books, Joan Didion highlighted
Bush's high degree of personalization and contempt for argumentation
in presenting his case for going to war in Iraq. As Didion writes: "
'I made up my mind,' he had said in April, 'that Saddam needs to go.'
This was one of many curious, almost petulant statements offered in
lieu of actually presenting a case. I've made up my mind, I've said in
speech after speech, I've made myself clear. The repeated statements
became their own reason."

Poll after poll demonstrates that Bush's political agenda is out of
step with most Americans' core beliefs. Yet the public, their
electoral resistance broken down by empty language and persuaded by
personalization, is susceptible to Bush's most frequently used
linguistic technique: negative framework. A negative framework is a
pessimistic image of the world. Bush creates and maintains negative
frameworks in his listeners' minds with a number of linguistic
techniques borrowed from advertising and hypnosis to
instill the image of a dark and evil world around us.

Catastrophic words and phrases are repeatedly drilled into the
listener's head until the opposition feels such a high level of
anxiety that it appears pointless to do anything other than cower.

Psychologist Martin Seligman, in his extensive studies of "learned
helplessness," showed that people's motivation to respond to outside
threats and problems is undermined by a belief that they have no
control over their environment. Learned helplessness is exacerbated by
beliefs that problems caused by negative events are permanent; and
when the underlying causes are perceived to apply to many other
events, the condition becomes pervasive and paralyzing.

Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate.
He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people
from feeling they can solve their problems. In his Sept. 20, 2001,
speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's
sense of vulnerability: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a
lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. ... I ask you to
live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have
fears tonight. ... Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a
continuing threat." (Subsequent terror alerts by the FBI, CIA and
Department of Homeland Security have maintained and expanded
this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)

Contrast this rhetoric with Franklin Roosevelt's speech delivered the
day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He said: "No matter how
long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the
American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute
victory. ... There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our
territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in
our armed forces with the unbounding determination of our people we
will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God." Roosevelt focuses on
an optimistic future rather than an ongoing threat to Americans'
personal survival.

All political leaders must define the present threats and problems
faced by the country before describing their approach to a solution,
but the ratio of negative to optimistic statements in Bush's speeches
and policy declarations is much higher, more pervasive and more
long-lasting than that of any other president.

Let's compare "crisis" speeches by Bush and Ronald Reagan, the
president with whom he most identifies himself. In Reagan's Oct. 27,
1983, televised address to the nation on the bombing of the U.S.
Marine barracks in Beirut, he used 19 images of crisis and 21 images
of optimism, evenly balancing optimistic and negative depictions. He
limited his evaluation of the problems to the past and present tense,
saying only that "with patience and firmness we can bring peace to
that strife-torn region and make our own lives more secure."

Bush's Oct. 7, 2002, major policy speech on Iraq, on the other hand,
began with 44 consecutive statements referring to the crisis and
citing a multitude of possible catastrophic repercussions. The vast
majority of these statements imply that the crisis will last into the
indeterminate future. There is also no specific plan of action. The
absence of plans is typical of a negative framework, and leaves the
listener without hope that the crisis will ever end.

Contrast this with Reagan, who, a third of the way into his
explanation of the crisis in Lebanon, asked the following: "Where do
we go from here? What can we do now to help Lebanon gain greater
stability so that our Marines can come home? Well, I believe we can
take three steps now that will make a difference."

To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush
describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then
attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he
is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to
persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the
power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even
constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial
presidency and the Republican Party.

Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win
against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However,
people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the
despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the
grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational
criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to
plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the
American electorate back in touch with their core
optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and
restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should
heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the
"national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and
the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to
fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used
positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is
the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:00:52 GMT, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

I wonder how the psychologist would analyze "...depends on what is is."

Lu,

I talked to my good friend, "Dr. I. M. Kookie", the world's greatest
psychologist. He replied thusly: "Well, constabulating the hypotenoze
of the equalatal port side coalburner, I would have to say "is is' is
doublespeak."

What I *think* he meant was that it is a sad and perhaps dangerous
time for these United States...

--
Q

PS Dr IM Kookie came from the mind ot the late, great Mike Royko.
Please see:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0196588.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...m/a130265.html

The last one has quotes *way* down at the bottom of the page.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

noah wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:00:52 GMT, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

I wonder how the psychologist would analyze "...depends on what is is."


If you are attempting to compare Clinton's non-sexual blow-job with
Bush's pre-emptive war, and Weapons of Mass Deception, I would say
that it is not a fair comparison. With Clinton, nobody got f*cked.
With Bush, we all did.

noah

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

Indeed. You are precisely on target. Clinton got blowjobs. Bush is a
blowjob.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda. The
country looses in both cases.

jps

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Well, I guess if Bush is a liar because of the "Nuclear Comment", so are
Sen. Kerry and Former President Clinton. They speechified about Saddam's
nuclear ambitions, and the attempt to purchase Yellowcake Uranium from
Africa.
Bill

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that
his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person
whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda.
The
country looses in both cases.

jps

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that
his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person
whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda.
The
country looses in both cases.

jps

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

By the time the SOTU speech was delivered, the British Government already knew
the documents were forged and had so advised Washington. The brits did *not*
believe it last January, and had not believed it for some time prior.

A lot of us just feel screwed over by the administration. Very simple. "We have
to go to war in Iraq because the SOB has thousands of tons of WMD." (apparently
not so. our position that we knew where the stuff was stashed and our
frustration that Blix wasn't finding it definitely-not just apparently- false).
"We have to go to war in Iraq because SH is on the verge of having a nuclear
arsenal at his disposal."
Once again, not true.

Why didn't Bush just say, "We have to go to war in Iraq because I feel it's in
the best long-term strategic interest of the US to control that territory and
oil and because among all the little ****ant dictators in the area, SH is
likely the worst"? Would have cost him nothing.....and just about now it is
rather obvious to most of the world that those were the *only* two reasons we
went to war in Iraq.

If the American people feel like a kid who just discovered his parents have
been lying to him about Santa Claus because they didn't think they could trust
him to understand the truth.......they are justified.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

The lie comes at the exact moment when, KNOWING FULL WELL, that the
information is fabrication and a forgery, he uses it in the State of
the Union Address, and portrays it as truth.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:04:11 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message
was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The brits believed this. So where is the lie?
Bill

By the time the SOTU speech was delivered, the British Government
already knew the documents were forged and had so advised
Washington. The brits did *not* believe it last January, and had not
believed it for some time prior.

The SOTU speech was only one speech. We tend to forget the others.
In his Oct. 7 speech, Bush outlined the Iraqi threat. While the
speech is vague enough to preclude the precise definition of a lie, a
la "what is is", *none* of the threats have been proven true.

The speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

He fu*ked us all with his quoted. 'Well, I guess I did raise taxes too
much'. Also it was not a lie about a blow job, it was a lie in a
deposition
on sexual harassment suit!
Bill

He shoulda taken the 5th and told whomever was asking the questions that
his
personal life was none of their ****ing business. His problem was pussy
footing around (so to speak).

Bush started out lying, now he's trying to pass the buck to the person
whose
arm he twisted in order to tell the lie in the first place.

They're both liars. Bush's lies have resulted in American deaths.
Clinton's lie just gave the Republicans a chance to derail his agenda.
The
country looses in both cases.

jps


The country LOSES, not LOOSES. It's important that all of us rise above the
level of that skank in the White House.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message was
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

You must be tired. Your logic if flawed. It doesn't matter who found the
supposed evidence of the uranium purchase. All that matters is that Bush
said he was adding that to his list of reasons for going to war. By doing
so, he granted truth to the flawed intelligence.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message
was
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed
this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

You must be tired. Your logic if flawed. It doesn't matter who found the
supposed evidence of the uranium purchase. All that matters is that Bush
said he was adding that to his list of reasons for going to war. By
doing
so, he granted truth to the flawed intelligence.



No flawed logic. Where is the lie? May be that the statement was not
true,
but may have been in error. And this country must be really screwed up,
if
16 words in the State of the Union Address, causes us to go to war.
Nobody
believes half the stuff in the SOTU speech anyway. About like an annual
corporate report. The fluss in the front, does not always jibe with the
numbers in the back.



How do you tell which parts of the SOTU speech NOT to believe? If you assume
we can't believe some of it, then we can't believe ANY of it, except when he
says "me and my wife is happy on being here".

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message

The country LOSES, not LOOSES. It's important that all of us rise above
the
level of that skank in the White House.

I try to maintain a minimum one word misspelling in each of my postes. Sort
of like the miswoven rugs from the east that acknowledge the constance of
human error...

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message

The country LOSES, not LOOSES. It's important that all of us rise above
the
level of that skank in the White House.

I try to maintain a minimum one word misspelling in each of my postes.
Sort
of like the miswoven rugs from the east that acknowledge the constance of
human error...



Oh...I see: So we know each one was handmade, right? :-)

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"noah" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:53:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
Actually what lie? The statement in the State of the Union Message
was
"The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The brits believed
this.
So where is the lie?
Bill

The lie comes at the exact moment when, KNOWING FULL WELL, that the
information is fabrication and a forgery, he uses it in the State of
the Union Address, and portrays it as truth.
Did "he" know full well when he gave the speech?

Bill- if he didn't, we have a big problem. If he did, we have a big
problem.

FWIW, the CIA had removed this same reference and language from an
earlier speech, because they had no faith in the sources.

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

We may have a big problem, actually we do have problems. The after war
planning sucks. But my statement is still: where is the lie? Prove he new
full well that the statement was wrong. I do not think this president is
anywhere as accomplished a liar as the previous president, so he would not
be able to keep up the facade.
Bill

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I do not think this president is
anywhere as accomplished a liar as the previous president, so he would
not
be able to keep up the facade.
Bill

He isn't. He hasn't.

"Tell them dumb squats in all the broken down trailer parks out there that
SH's
has got nukes! That will get the public beatin' the war drums!"

Bill, you don't feel just a bit raped when you're so obviously used?

There were about three-dozen drafts of the SOTU speech reviewed before GWB
was
allowed to open his mouth. The same administration had *deleted*
references to
a nuke program in Iraq in previous speeches specifically because they knew
the
intelligence was faulty

You know this for a fact? Please cite your sources.

and the Brits had already denounced the document as a
forgery!

The Brits NEVER backed away from their Sadamm/Niger/Uranium intelligence.
Blair has stated that the forged document is not the basis of the intel and
insists the intel they do have is solid.

Tell us now, with three dozen proof readings and revisions, that the
"Iraq is developing nukes" manipulative pitch was left in as an oversight.

Again, please cite your sources.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Again, please cite your sources.

Pick any mainstream newspaper, Joe. This is headline stuff, not some obscure
paragraph in an underground rag.

The best source for analyzing Bush's sales pitch of the Union is the speech
itself. Hereare a few gems from the speech, according to the version on the
President's own website. (Careful, could be a liberal conspiracy)

I like the part where the cowboy brags about the CIA hit squads we've
dispatched around the world. That ought to win us a lot of friends and support
in the international community.

Cite:

"To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al
Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September
the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who
planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al
Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's
training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al
Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been
arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it
this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends
and allies." (Applause.)


Then there are the paragraphs designed to scare us all into believing that a
biological attack was imminent:

Cite:

"As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our own
country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our people
and defend our homeland. We've intensified security at the borders and ports of
entry, posted more than 50,000 newly-trained federal screeners in airports,
begun inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox, and are
deploying the nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect
biological attack. And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field
a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles." (Applause.)

thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to
our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our
people against bioterrorism, called Project Bioshield. The budget I send you
will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and
treatments against agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. We
must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must
act before the dangers are upon us."

Then check out the following, classic, propaganda logic. The majority of people
listening to this paragraph will feel encouraged to believe that an "outlaw"
regime has nuclear weapons. Gee, wonder who Bush could have meant in Jan. 2003?

Cite:

"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing
America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for
blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons
to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

Then there's this paragraph. Bush doesn't say that "Iraq has nukes", but rather
is seeking to develop the "ultimate weapons of terror" What can a reasonable
person suppose most people thought he meant?

Cite:

"Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again,
and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and
all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of
chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our
people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility"

The second sentence in the next paragraph is particularly funny, in retrospect.
If I need to explain why, you wouldn't understand the explanation.

Cite:

"America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We
have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its
demand that Iraq disarm."

We get to see the birth of the moral argument to invade Iran, )conveniently and
incidentally located between Iraq and Afghanistan)

Cite:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a
government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and
supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as
they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all
people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own
destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.
(Applause.)

A little further into the speech, we encounter yet another implication that
Saddam Hussein has gone nuclear.

Cite:

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty
in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all
weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated
that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even
while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from
his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the
civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities."

We then encounter three curious paragraphs where Bush says, "We estimate and
theorize he could possibly have this stuff, and since we estimate and theorize
he could possibly have it and he hasn't surrendered it, he's in violation"

Cite:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons
sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill
several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no
evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to
produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject
millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for
that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to
produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not
accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed
them.

Then there's the doozy. What is Bush saying here? He says that we know that
during the 1990's (what, before the first Gulf War?) SH had a plan for a
nuclear bomb. You can get a plan for a nuclear bomb off the internet, or out of
any college nuclear physics text. So?

This paragraph, in conjunction with all the preceding references to Saddam
Hussein and nuclear weapons (or weapons of "ultimate terror") is far more than
just a slip of the lip and a careless proofread. It's part of a plot, obvious
on its face, to convice the American people that SH was a nuclear threat.

Cite:

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam
Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a
nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium
for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources
tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable
for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these
activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Yet another reference to nuclear weapons and SH, this time with an implication
that SH is ready to ship nukes into the US in crates:

Cite:

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam
Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create
deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must
recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret
communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam
Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly,
and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to
terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could
be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist
networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other
weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one
vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of
horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make
sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)"

And last but not least, yet another iplication that SH is a nuclear threat or
nearly so.

Cite:

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already
used them on whole villages --


You have to love the rw propaganda piece being shouted around right now. "Why
are you guys on the left trying to make such a big deal about a measly eight
words in a speech?"

But then again, Joe, you might not agree with my source for this information:
George W. Bush. President of the US.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Pick any mainstream newspaper, Joe. This is headline stuff, not some
obscure
paragraph in an underground rag.

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.

snip

But then again, Joe, you might not agree with my source for this
information:
George W. Bush. President of the US.

I agree with every one of GW's statements you cite, just not *your* opinions
of them.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Joe" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I do not think this president is
anywhere as accomplished a liar as the previous president, so he would
not
be able to keep up the facade.
Bill

He isn't. He hasn't.

"Tell them dumb squats in all the broken down trailer parks out there that
SH's
has got nukes! That will get the public beatin' the war drums!"

Bill, you don't feel just a bit raped when you're so obviously used?

There were about three-dozen drafts of the SOTU speech reviewed before GWB
was
allowed to open his mouth. The same administration had *deleted*
references to
a nuke program in Iraq in previous speeches specifically because they knew
the
intelligence was faulty

You know this for a fact? Please cite your sources.

Some things are just common knowledge. I know, that is a concept you
know nothing about, so I'll try to help. Do you think that the State
of the Union Address isn't proof read? It surely is. As a matter of
fact, before Dumbya ever reads aloud one word of it, it has been in
the hands of many proofreaders, intelligence people, etc.

and the Brits had already denounced the document as a
forgery!

The Brits NEVER backed away from their Sadamm/Niger/Uranium intelligence.
Blair has stated that the forged document is not the basis of the intel and
insists the intel they do have is solid.

Tell us now, with three dozen proof readings and revisions, that the
"Iraq is developing nukes" manipulative pitch was left in as an oversight.

Again, please cite your sources.

The source is the State of the Union Address.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.

snip

Posted on Sun, Jul. 13, 2003

Was 'Nigerian uranium' story known to be false more than a year before the
State of the Union?
By Robert Scheer

They may have finally found the smoking gun that nails the culprit responsible
for the Iraq war.

Unfortunately, the incriminating evidence wasn't left in one of Saddam
Hussein's palaces but rather in Vice President Cheney's office.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic Joseph C. Wilson publicly
revealed last weekend that he was the mysterious envoy whom the CIA, under
pressure from Cheney, sent to Niger to investigate a document - now known to be
a crude forgery - that allegedly showed Iraq was trying to acquire enriched
uranium that might be used to build a nuclear bomb. Wilson found no basis for
the story, and nobody else has, either.

What is startling in Wilson's account, however, is that the CIA, the State
Department, the National Security Council, and the vice president's office were
all informed that the Niger-Iraq connection was phony. No one in the chain of
command disputed that this "evidence" of Iraq's revised nuclear weapons program
was a hoax.

Yet, nearly a year after Wilson reported the facts to Cheney and the U.S.
security apparatus, Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union speech, invoked the
fraudulent Iraq-Africa uranium connection as a major justification for rushing
the nation to war: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."

What the President did not say was that the British were relying on their
intelligence white paper, which was based on the same false information that
Wilson and the U.S. ambassador to Niger had already debunked. "That information
was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the
British white paper and the President's State of the Union address," Wilson
said July 6 on Meet the Press.

Although a British Parliament report released Monday exonerated the Blair
government of deliberate distortion to justify invading Iraq, it urged the
foreign secretary to come clean as to when British officials were first told
that the Iraq-Niger allegation was based on forged documents. The report found
it "odd indeed" that the British government never came up with evidence to
support the contention.

And now, half a year after the State of the Union, the Bush administration has
said the allegation "should not have been included" in the speech.

But that administration has not told its public why it ignored the disclaimers
from its own intelligence sources. To believe that our President was not lying
to us, we must believe that this information did not find its way through
Cheney's office to the Oval Office.

In media interviews, Wilson said it was the vice president's questioning that
pushed the CIA to try to find a credible Iraqi nuclear threat after that agency
had determined there wasn't one. "I have little choice but to conclude that
some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted
to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote in acolumn in the July 6 New York
Times. "A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false
pretenses."

In a Washington Post interview, Wilson added, "It really comes down to the
administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental
justification for going to war. It begs the question: What else are they lying
about?"

Those are the carefully chosen words of a 23-year career diplomat who, as the
top U.S. official in Baghdad in 1990, was praised by former President Bush for
his role as the last American to confront Saddam face-to-face after the
dictator invaded Kuwait. In a cable to Baghdad, the President told Wilson:
"What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is
truly inspiring. Keep fighting the good fight."

As Wilson observed wryly, "I guess he didn't realize that one of these days I
would carry that fight against his son's administration."

And that fight remains the good fight. This is not some minor dispute over a
footnote to history but rather raises the possibility of one of the most
egregious misrepresentations by a U.S. administration. What could be more
cynical and impeachable than fabricating a threat of rogue nations or
terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and using that to sell a war?

''There is no greater threat that we face as a nation," Wilson told NBC, "than
the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of nonstate actors or
international terrorists. And if we've prosecuted a war for reasons other than
that, using weapons of mass destruction as cover for that, then I think we've
done a great disservice to the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat."

The world is outraged at this pattern of lies used to justify the Iraq
invasion, but the U.S. public still seems numb to the dangers of government by
deceit.

Indeed, in his column this week, William Safire, a speechwriter for Richard
Nixon, channeled the voice of his former boss to reassure Republicans that the
public easily could be conned through the next election.

Far be it for me to lecture either Safire or a reincarnated Nixon as to the
ease of deceiving the electorate, but as we learned from the Nixon disgrace,
lies have a way of unraveling, and the truth will out, even if it's after the
next election.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Robert Scheer is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

email this | print this










Shopping & Services


Find a Job, a Car,
an Apartment,
a Home, and more...























Help | Contact Us | Archives | Place an Ad | Newspaper Subscriptions
About Philly.com | About Realcities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement
| About Knight Ridder | Copyright

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


afrol News, 8 March - The documents produced by the US and UK governments
alleging a contact between the Nigerien and the Iraqi governments with the aim
of exporting uranium are considered fabrications, according to Mohamed
ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Nigerien government thus comes clean on US-UK claims.

US officials in December publicly claimed that Niger signed an agreement in
year 2000 to sell Iraq 500 metric tons of a concentrated form of uranium known
as yellowcake. The British government also presented the IAEA with "Nigerian
state documents" that were to prove Nigerien-Iraqi attempts to trade in uranium
after the UN embargo on Iraq strictly forbade this. This "documentation" has
been a key element in the US-UK quest to prove Iraq is still trying to develop
nuclear arms.

Niger supplied Iraq with yellowcake for its nuclear program in the 1980s, which
at that time was legal. During the last months, the British and American
governments have tried to prove that Niger recently agreed to resume those
shipments, illegal since 1991. US officials claim that Iraq imported uranium
from Niger even after 1998 and that more shipments were planned in 2000.



Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)

Officials from Niger have however strongly denied these claims. Niger's former
Minister of Mining and Energy told the press these charges were "lies". He
added that Niger always had cleared their uranium sales with the IAEA,
complying with their so-called "red list" that bans certain countries from
buying uranium. Also, uranium sales could not be made without the knowledge of
the French-owned company Cogema, which operates uranium mining in Niger, the
ex-Minister said.

Nigerien officials have also denied there have been made uranium shipments to
Iraq in the 1980s. The UN weapon inspectors in Iraq however have confirmed that
Niger sold concentrated uranium to Iraq on two occasions; one shipment in 1981
and a second shipment in 1982.

If Niger is found to have sold uranium to Iraq after the 1991 embargo, the
Niamey government would be found guilty of the most serious violation of the
sanction imposed on Iraq. This would further question Niger's reliability when
it comes to sell uranium to dubious recipients, such as terrorists. Niger thus
easily could be placed in the US category of "rough states".

IAEA-leader Mohamed ElBaradei now however totally cleans Niger's name and
reputation, regarding the US-UK initiative to put the country in connection
with Baghdad's alleged ongoing programmes of developing weapons of mass
destruction. Mr ElBaradei concluded the documentation presented was not
authentic. "We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations were
unfounded," he said.

The IAEA indeed casts doubts on the allegations Iraq is still trying to develop
nuclear weapons altogether. "After three months of intrusive inspections, we
have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a
nuclear weapons programme in Iraq," Mr ElBaradei yesterday told the UN Security
Council.

The case made against Iraq regarding a nuclear weapons programme more and more
seems to have been fabricated in London and Washington. The allegations first
surfaced in London, in a British government dossier of 24 September 2002.
Without naming a source country, the British document claimed Iraq had recently
bought uranium to renew its nuclear weapons programme.

On 19 December, Niger for the first time was launched as the source of new
Iraqi uranium purchases. A US State Department paper, elaborating on the
British claims, focused on Niger, the world's third largest uranium producer
after Canada and Australia, and the foremost Muslim state producing uranium.

According to IAEA officials, Western intelligence agencies had provided them
with documents consisting of correspondence between Iraqi and Nigerien
government officials. After comparing the letters with official documents of
the Niger government, however, IAEA discovered the "documents" were
falsifications produced in London and Washington. The forgery obviously had
been made in a dilettante way, with signatures, names and letterheads not
corresponding with official Nigerien state documents.

Mr ElBaradei publicly said his inspectors had concluded the documents provided
by the US and UK "were, in fact, not authentic" after scrutinising "the form,
format, contents and signatures ... of the alleged procurement-related
documentation." There were therefore no indications of "recent uranium
transactions between Iraq and the Niger."

Meanwhile, the Nigerien government can calm down again after the substantial
threat to its good reputation has been completely dismissed. Niger, the world's
second poorest country, is heavily dependent on Western aid and on its uranium
exports.

Still, the dismissal of the claims against Niger will leave an uneasy calm in
Niamey government offices. The government will ask itself why Niger's name and
reputation was being sacrificed to build a case against Iraq.

The new stories circulating about how the forged papers came into being should
sound comforting; they had been sold to an Italian intelligence agent by a con
man some time ago, with the simple aim of making easy money. The US and UK
intelligence services had of course not been involved, anonymous sources now
say. This seems a very convenient version to all parties implied.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Thursday, 26 September, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK
S Africa denies Iraq nuclear link


Britain says Iraq wanted African uranium



By Alistair Leithead
BBC, Cape Town


The South African government says categorically it has not been approached to
sell uranium to Iraq.
South Africa's deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad says his government will ask
the British Government to clarify "vague statements" made in Prime Minister
Tony Blair's Iraq dossier published this week.

Mr Pahad said his government had not been approached, but would be
investigating suggestions that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Africa's uranium production in 2001
Niger - 3,096 tonnes
Namibia - 2,239 tonnes
South Africa - 898 tonnes
Source: Uranium Information Centre
The dossier on Iraq's nuclear capability and intentions said that Iraq had
tried to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa.

South Africa is the only country on the continent which has the capacity to
enrich uranium.

Gabon, Niger and Namibia have all exported unprocessed uranium oxide.

South Africa produces the mineral, but has a domestic nuclear energy and
research programme.

Finger pointed at South Africa

The dossier published by the British Government this week said Saddam Hussein
had tried to acquire significant quantities of uranium from Africa, but did not
provide any further evidence.

Aziz Pahad said the finger had been pointed at South Africa as the only country
on the continent with the capacity to enrich uranium.



He said categorically the government had not supplied uranium to Iraq, nor had
it been approached, and he would actively be seeking clarification from Britain
on the vague statements made in the dossier.

Mr Pahad cited the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he
said showed the dossier had no substance with regard to nuclear material
acquisitions in Africa.

He said that, because of the strict regime in South Africa, it would be very
difficult for private companies within the country to be involved in uranium
trading.


WATCH/LISTEN

ON THIS STORY

Mark Gwozdecky, International Atomic Energy Agency
"One would have to beat the sanctions regime in order to do something like
this"






Full coverage


Key stories
US clerics oppose war
Saudi war warning
Iraq polio campaign
'New Europe' hits back


Analysis
Blair's political troubles
US and UK regroup
Blix tiptoes tightrope

CLICKABLE GUIDE

Global voices on Iraq

BBC WORLD SERVICE

News in Arabic

AUDIO VIDEO

Inspectors' report: Point by point

TALKING POINT

Your views on inspectors' report


See also:


24 Sep 02 | Africa
Iraq 'sought African uranium'

24 Sep 02 | Politics
Iraq weapons dossier at-a-glance

24 Sep 02 | Politics
Blair's case for the prosecution

23 Sep 02 | Panorama
On the trail of Saddam

20 Sep 02 | Business
Bangui denies Libya deal

02 Mar 01 | Correspondent
Saddam's bomb

Internet links:


BBC Focus on Africa
BBC Network Africa
Downing Street
United Nations
Africa Information site
Uranium Information Centre
Iraqi mission to the UN

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Top Africa stories now:


Ebola outbreak confirmed in Congo

Malawi minister reveals Aids trauma

Kenyan president opens parliament

DR Congo rebels go on trial

Nigerian ID scheme kicks off

Tunisian internet crackdown

Wild pigs threaten Somali peace talks

Anti-French protests in Ivory Coast


Links to more Africa stories are at the foot of the page.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


I should have used the phrase "already been informed the document was a
forgery" Sorry. BTW, they were informed that the document was a forgery by the
CIA, the same people that Bush says cleared his speech.




CIA asked No 10 to drop uranium claim
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 12/07/2003)


The CIA tried to persuade the British Government to drop a claim that Saddam
Hussein attempted to buy uranium in Africa but was told that MI6 had its own
intelligence backing up the report, it emerged yesterday.

As as the row in Washington over weapons of mass destruction deepened,
President George W Bush said his State of the Union address, which mentioned
the British claim, was vetted by the CIA. "I gave a speech to the nation that
was cleared by the intelligence service," Mr Bush said in Uganda. In the
address in January he said: "The British Government has learnt that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

According to officials who spoke to the Washington Post, the CIA attempted four
months earlier to persuade Downing Street that the claim, which the White House
stated this week was false, was dubious.

"We consulted about the [British intelligence] paper and recommended against
using that material," a senior Bush administration official told the newspaper.
It was subsequently included in an intelligence dossier released by No 10.

Although a CIA paper being compiled at the time mentioned Iraqi attempts to buy
uranium from three African countries, the agency told the British that US State
Department analysts had cast doubt on any involvement by Niger.

Downing Street has stuck by its claim there was a link between Niger and Iraqi
attempts to procure uranium, despite a letter supposedly relating to
negotiations proving a forgery. Officials said the CIA has not seen further
British intelligence material on Niger, despite its close co-operation with
MI6.

The gap between Downing Street and the White House is being exploited by Mr
Bush's Democratic opponents and Tony Blair's critics in Britain. It threatens
to complicate the Prime Minister's visit to Washington next week.

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, who did not include a reference to
uranium-buying in Africa in his presentation of Iraq evidence to the United
Nations Security Council, has been lukewarm in his defence of the inclusion of
the claim in Mr Bush's address.

The CIA leak to the Washington Post appeared to be an attempt by the agency to
distance itself from the claim. George Tenet, the CIA director, was already
under pressure to step down after the intelligence failings of September 11.

But the White House yesterday placed the CIA firmly in the decision-making
process over what was included in the State of the Union address. The CIA
cleared the speech "in its entirety", said Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national
security adviser.

"The CIA cleared on it," she said. "There was even some discussion on that
specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought. And the
speech was cleared.

"What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the
Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the
president's speech. But that's knowing what we know now."

Mr Tenet admitted last night that he had been wrong to allow Mr Bush to say
that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa. "These 16 words should never
have been included in the text written for the President. This was a mistake,"
Mr Tenet said.

The phrase "the British Government has learnt" was apparently inserted late in
the speech-writing process. Bush administration officials said this did not
indicate discomfort with the claim but was "because they were the first to say
it publicly in their September paper".

Article about BushCo use of words
 

I agree with every one of GW's statements you cite, just not *your* opinions
of them.



I can see that. Those statements are so ambivalent that they could mean
anything.
When Bush refers to "weapons of ultimate terror" he probably means slingshots
and water balloons.

When he associates the word "nuclear" repeatedly with SH, he's not trying to
manipulate anybody or anything, he's just exercising the two words for the
novelty of the experience.

Care to share *your* opinions of the same statements, or is your specialty just
sniping at the opinions of others?

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...


and the Brits had already denounced the document as a
forgery!

The Brits NEVER backed away from their Sadamm/Niger/Uranium intelligence.
Blair has stated that the forged document is not the basis of the intel
and
insists the intel they do have is solid.


Blair *HAS* to say things like that. He's under attack in the same way Bush
is here.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.

snip

Posted on Sun, Jul. 13, 2003

Was 'Nigerian uranium' story known to be false more than a year before the
State of the Union?
By Robert Scheer


snip

Sorry, I did not see where it said that the British had already denounced
the document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS.







è

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


snip

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


snip

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

I did find the following excepts interesting-

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with
dozens of
people: current government officials, former government officials, people
associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to
conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken
place.

Wow! Eight days drinking sweet mint tea talking with current and former
officials?
Now that's some solid intel!
Hopefully the CIA would not rely *solely* on this type of intel

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass
destruction
in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained
international
response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it
had an
active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research
program
- all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having
encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf
war of
1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Thursday, 26 September, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK
S Africa denies Iraq nuclear link



snip

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

Actually, you are correct.

The CIA had informed the British last fall,
just after the Brits released their "white paper" that the Nigerian documents
were forged, that they were (supposedly) signed by officials who were no longer
in power,
and that a US investigation into the matter
indicated the claim was a hoax.

I should have said the "British were already aware that the information was
bogus" rather than "the British had already backed off."

Score on this particular phrase:
"joe" 1. Gould 0.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...


I did find the following excepts interesting-

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with
dozens of
people: current government officials, former government officials,
people
associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to
conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken
place.

Wow! Eight days drinking sweet mint tea talking with current and former
officials?
Now that's some solid intel!
Hopefully the CIA would not rely *solely* on this type of intel

Call me crazy, but if local customs involved drinking sweet mint tea, I
think an effective CIA operative, ambassador or whatever would do well to
drink plenty of it, if it meant being able to talk to the right people.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Wow! Eight days drinking sweet mint tea talking with current and former
officials?
Now that's some solid intel!
Hopefully the CIA would not rely *solely* on this type of intel

Call me crazy, but if local customs involved drinking sweet mint tea, I
think an effective CIA operative, ambassador or whatever would do well to
drink plenty of it, if it meant being able to talk to the right people.



Your crazy :-)

Article about BushCo use of words
 

Bill- I never stated that GWB lied. I 'think" he did, but without
proof, I would never make that accusation. What I did say is that, as
POTUS, during war, he should be damned careful of his words. Since
the uranium issue had been disproved some time ago

The uranium issue has never been disproved, only the "forged" documents
have.

and the CIA had already struck that wording from an earlier speech, why
use it?

The US did not receive the forged documents until Oct 02.
These speeches were prior to the US receiving the "forged" documents when
intel was weaker. These documents temporarily made the case stronger for the
Niger/Saddam connection.

We all know now that the documents were forged, we just don't know (yet)
when the administration knew.
Either way, the Brits are standing strongly by the Niger/Saddam intel saying
that they never relied on just those documents.



"Bring it on." churned my stomach. Bravado. Stupid bravado. They
*are* bringing it on, at a daily cost of US life. Words aren't always
cheap.
noah

I'll agree with you on this one, there was nothing to gain by those
comments.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:09:05 +0000, Joe wrote:



I have not yet fully formed an opinion on the subject and will take
the Administration at it's word until proven otherwise. I do support
an investigation into the matter, to be done behind closed doors
with the Senate intelligence Committee.

Just curious, why not a public investigation? To me, there just
seems to be too many questions. If the investigation is not open, I
fear conspriacy theories will be rampant and no one will be
satisfied with the outcome.

There is no way to be sure of what happened, but I am highly
suspicious of Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. It seems most of
the bad intell came from there.

An interesting read:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

Article about BushCo use of words
 

"noah" wrote in message
...



Bill- I never stated that GWB lied. I 'think" he did, but without
proof, I would never make that accusation. What I did say is that, as
POTUS, during war, he should be damned careful of his words. Since
the uranium issue had been disproved some time ago, and the CIA had
already struck that wording from an earlier speech, why use it?

"Bring it on." churned my stomach. Bravado. Stupid bravado. They
*are* bringing it on, at a daily cost of US life. Words aren't always
cheap.
noah

In order to be "damned careful of his words", we'd need a president who is
capable of thinking clearly about the consequences of those words. The
current president is the same guy who, while campaigning, said that one of
his ways of relaxing was to spend an hour or two per day playing video
games. And, when asked about the kinds of things he likes to read, he said
"I read the newspapers".

Next president, please.

Article about BushCo use of words
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .



Bill- I never stated that GWB lied. I 'think" he did, but without
proof, I would never make that accusation. What I did say is that, as
POTUS, during war, he should be damned careful of his words. Since
the uranium issue had been disproved some time ago, and the CIA had
already struck that wording from an earlier speech, why use it?

"Bring it on." churned my stomach. Bravado. Stupid bravado. They
*are* bringing it on, at a daily cost of US life. Words aren't always
cheap.
noah

In order to be "damned careful of his words", we'd need a president who is
capable of thinking clearly about the consequences of those words. The
current president is the same guy who, while campaigning, said that one of
his ways of relaxing was to spend an hour or two per day playing video
games. And, when asked about the kinds of things he likes to read, he said
"I read the newspapers".

Next president, please.

At least his hand/eye coordination is better than his pronunciation!
:o)
I know it's "old news", but everytime he says "Noo-cue-lar weapons", I
shudder.

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats