We all know that it was recently announced that President Bush used some faulty information in his State of the Union address that said that Saddam Hussein was attempting to buy uranium in Africa. Well, it seems right now that the intelligence community had deemed the information wrong in October. Democrats, especially liberals, would love to tell you that Bush knew that the report was wrong but used in anyways while Republicans and conservatives will tell you that it was George Tenet or some speechwriter. What do you guys think happend? And how does this affect the President's credibility?
How has the uranium thing hurt Bush's credibility?
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
H
Heretic
Guest
I don't think it really will mean anything. The only people that really seem to care are those who were attacking Bush for anything and everything before....much like those who constantly attacked Clinton for the Lewinski affair...didn't hurt him much either.
Who knows what happened, it could have been British intelligence that created the fake documents to foster support for going into Iraq, it could have been a clandestine plant by any one of numerous others seeking to damage the President, or it could have actually been an Iraqi plan to acquire the "yellow cake" and be able to deny the accusation if discovered by proving the documents to be forgeries. As to credibility, I would say zero impact, except for those that already hate Bush and they will make this out to be the worst act ever by a President.
I agree, it won't hurt Bush one bit. The media has nothing better to report on which is why this has so much attention. It will all be forgotten about in a few weeks. Bush did the right thing in all regards with Iraq. I don't know about the rest of you SOMD'ers, but I sleep a little bit better at night. Bush is making the world a safer place one ruthless leader at a time.
And what about George Tenet - what a man of character to stand up and take the heat for the president.
And what about George Tenet - what a man of character to stand up and take the heat for the president.
I don't think that President Bush knew about this...it is apparent that his staff and advisers do everything for him. Tenet, who it seems knew that the uranium report was bogus, could have vetoed the speech's usage of the report and Bush's only part of the speech was to deliver it. The only thing that could convince me that Bush deliberately misled the American people is if Tenet or several other high ranking, credible witnesses come out and say that he told the president the report was false prior to the speech. If that occurs, then well I think that the House of Representatives should look into the possibility of impeachment.
That being said, it looks like while we here may not think that the report's falseness should downplay the President's credibility, apparently it is with the general public. Newsweek ran a poll from July 9-11 that shows the President's job approval ratings slipping to 55% and his disapproval rating increasing nine points while a Washington Post/ABC News poll shows the same. This could be the downfall of the president's reelection so I'm gonna stay tuned in.
That being said, it looks like while we here may not think that the report's falseness should downplay the President's credibility, apparently it is with the general public. Newsweek ran a poll from July 9-11 that shows the President's job approval ratings slipping to 55% and his disapproval rating increasing nine points while a Washington Post/ABC News poll shows the same. This could be the downfall of the president's reelection so I'm gonna stay tuned in.
You are so freaking funny. Having a staff that actually does what they are hired to do is an issue for you. Give me a break. Tenet hasn’t said that Iraq did not attempt to acquire uranium from Africa, only that the initial reports lacked validity, which according to some has been verified by alternative sources. Also don’t hold your breath waiting for someone to come forward to say the President lied, because he hasn’t, unlike someone else we all know.
Dems, you haven’t figured it out yet, have you. The only poll that makes a hill of beans is the one taken the first Tuesday in November every four years when we vote. So go ahead, stay tuned all you want, as of yet the Democratic party hasn’t had one of the fellows running make a clear leap in front of the others (mostly because they are all regurgitating the same attack Bush message). To me it looks like it will be another four years with GW in the Whitehouse as none of the candidates offered up look any better then what we have now.
H
Heretic
Guest
For what its worth Tenent isnt really one of Bush's staff, he is in a fairly non political position (thank god) and was actually appointed to that position by.......Bill Clinton.
The president no matter who it is has a million decisions a day to make and has a grand ole 10-20 seconds to think about them having to trust his advisors and staff. Making a speach, even the state of the union address, doesn't rank up there in importance unless its election time.
The president no matter who it is has a million decisions a day to make and has a grand ole 10-20 seconds to think about them having to trust his advisors and staff. Making a speach, even the state of the union address, doesn't rank up there in importance unless its election time.
Ken, I didn't say that I have a problem with Bush having his staff doing his work for him...hell I am thankful because all of us know that our president isn't an intellectual heavyweight. I am saying that it is his staff's fault not his.
Ken, I think that polls are good barometers of how things are going right now. And right now the polls are against President Bush. Another Newsweek poll shows that only 47% of people desire another term for Bush while 46% desire someone else. It's gonna be competitive and my bet is that history here will repeat itself (no candidate to ever win the White House without the popular vote could win reelection).
Ken, I think that polls are good barometers of how things are going right now. And right now the polls are against President Bush. Another Newsweek poll shows that only 47% of people desire another term for Bush while 46% desire someone else. It's gonna be competitive and my bet is that history here will repeat itself (no candidate to ever win the White House without the popular vote could win reelection).
H
Heretic
Guest
Like Michael Douglas said in "The American President"
"Heck my ratings drop 5 points if Wisconson doesn't go to the Rose Bowl"
Get together more than 5 people and no matter what you do your bound to #### someone off (learned that at work) so Imagine 265 million.
"Heck my ratings drop 5 points if Wisconson doesn't go to the Rose Bowl"
Get together more than 5 people and no matter what you do your bound to #### someone off (learned that at work) so Imagine 265 million.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
According to the latest news, this information originated with the French, who passed it along to the British. Be that as it may, the point is that what Bush said is correct. He did not say "We say" or the "US thinks"... he said that British Intelligence reports... and they were reporting that information. The Democrats should be very, very, familiar with how easy it is to repeat information that you believe to be correct and find out later that it's all a lie. 
SmallTown
Football season!
Some would ask how you define safe?
Front page of usatoday has 6 "latest headlines". Three of which are:
One U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, 6 wounded
Terror suspect escapes: Held responsible for Bali bombings.
Bomb hits Indonesian Parliament No one injured in blast.
A quick look at fox news:
Al Qaeda Claims Responsibility for Attacks in Iraq
Rumsfeld: Expect More Anti-U.S. Attacks in Iraq
Tape: Al Qaeda Wing Targets U.S.
Alleged faction claims responsibility for attacking U.S. troops in Iraq on Arab TV
SmallTown
Football season!
I love this quote the best:
"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."
At least we know why they couldn't explain the activity!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I think the Democrats might be rushing off the WMD cliff again on this issue. The British are still maintaining that this allegation is correct. The "forged documents" that initially led people to feel this allegation was bogus apparently related to another issue.
The current word is that the British received word from the French, who control the Uranium mines in question, that Iraq had tried to get the materials. I have no doubts that people representing Iraq would have made contact with these French companies since France will sell just about anything to anybody. Just how extensive the effort was, or how high up the food chain the representatives were, is open to debate. But I would not be too quick to say this info is a lie. Neither the British or the French are discounting the report.
The current word is that the British received word from the French, who control the Uranium mines in question, that Iraq had tried to get the materials. I have no doubts that people representing Iraq would have made contact with these French companies since France will sell just about anything to anybody. Just how extensive the effort was, or how high up the food chain the representatives were, is open to debate. But I would not be too quick to say this info is a lie. Neither the British or the French are discounting the report.
SmallTown
Football season!
Re: Let's look at it from another perspective..
on 9-10-01, nobody had a second thought about terrorism here. It always happened "over there"
Latest report is saying al-qaeda trained 120,000 people. Since this is a big unknown, a good chance this is a very conservative estimate. We have no idea just how many are out there.
Originally posted by penncam
How many attacks, since 9/11 have occured in the U.S.?- vs the number of alleged and confirmed Al Qaeda terrorist agents rounded up within our borders?
on 9-10-01, nobody had a second thought about terrorism here. It always happened "over there"
Latest report is saying al-qaeda trained 120,000 people. Since this is a big unknown, a good chance this is a very conservative estimate. We have no idea just how many are out there.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I feel very safe at home. I'm not worried about the Al Qaeda boogie man any more than I am of all the other boogiemen out there.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Good point Smalltown, but it seems that after 9/11 a lot of people began attributing a lot of unfounded behaviors to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that have no foundation in reality. They tried to make Al Qaeda out to be an invading army, which attack and reattack, instead of the terrorist group they are. Terrorists send messages, they don't conquer territories. Al Qaeda got its message out on 9/11, and now they're paying the price for said message. All this panic about attacks is a lot of panic and paranoia run amuck.
I still say that the biggest indicator that the Al Qaeda boogie man is a lot of hooey is the lack of attacks during the invasion of Afghanistan and in Iraq. Not one news show failed to point out how a major terrorist attack in the US would destabilize the Bush administration and cause the US to rethink attacking Middle Eastern/Islamic countries. Talk of this subject was everywhere. On top of this, there is nothing more valuable to a terrorist group than a country where they can plan and operate with impunity. If there was ever a time to attack targets within the US it was when we invaded Afghanistan, and yet not a single attack was made. That tells me all that I need to know.
I still say that the biggest indicator that the Al Qaeda boogie man is a lot of hooey is the lack of attacks during the invasion of Afghanistan and in Iraq. Not one news show failed to point out how a major terrorist attack in the US would destabilize the Bush administration and cause the US to rethink attacking Middle Eastern/Islamic countries. Talk of this subject was everywhere. On top of this, there is nothing more valuable to a terrorist group than a country where they can plan and operate with impunity. If there was ever a time to attack targets within the US it was when we invaded Afghanistan, and yet not a single attack was made. That tells me all that I need to know.
SmallTown
Football season!
The terrorists also like to get the most bang for the buck. What was so special about 9-11? Nothing. No big political movements, no open warnings abotu threats, no big invasions. They like to operate when attention is low. Sure, I think we have made strides (the anal probe I received while going to the musuem of natural history this weekend wasn't too bad) but that doesn't mean we are free and clear.