My fault. I preferred the numbered questions, with actual question marks at the end without really taking note of the slight amplification. In that form, without the additions:

1. Does the office of president make lies more grievance? [grievous?]
2. Does Bush have any responsibility in having facts in his speeches?
3. Which lie ["Clinton lied about Lewinsky and somebody in the CIA lied about Saddam's uranium acquisition"] is more significant?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


And how convenient of the British government to realize this only after the source which they were originally standing behind turned out to be fake. And what a pity that the additional "evidence" can't be verified one way or the other.


Whoa - first let's see what we mean by TRUE. At the time of the State of the Union address, Bush had one piece of "evidence" from the Brits - a piece of "evidence" which he knew - before he used it in his address - to be false. BUSH LIED.


They are both lies. But, yes - one of them is far, far worse.

The President's statement is true. Read it. Parse it.

"The British government" (subject)
"has learned" (verb)
"that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." (qualifier)

Add this to the British stance:


The information is NOT called into question just because those particular documents were forged.

You are assuming that the Brits only had ONE source of information and that information is false. Your supposition is wrong, therefore your conclusion is also wrong.

The where is the beef? Where is the proof that Iraq was looking to procure Uranium in Africa?

Based on the track record of the intel from that dossier, I would say that your faith is misplaced.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085604/

Bush is the man who said he would do things differently than "slick Willie." Bush pledged to hold himself to a higher standard, in other words.

While it is true that those sixteen words in the State of the Union address included the word "sought" instead of "bought," the difference is one letter, and could even be "heard" as bought if a person were not listening carefully. Is this coincidental?
Is anything in the State of the Union address coincidental?

The intent was clear. Bush wanted to make war on Iraq. And if I were a prosecutor, I would argue that "it goes to intent." Since I'm not an officer of any court, I'll say
it was a very carefully worded lie.

Considering the consequences, it was worse than lying about a dalliance.

I'm voting for Uraniumsky.

Billy Jeff lied about getting serviced in the oval office about a case that had been dismissed and it became "well, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

Now, my fellow sheople...errr...republicans are parsing words along the same lines. I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet my house, car, wife, kids, computer, guitar, and subscription to Sports Weekly that Bush knew the source and contents of every single word in his speech. The democrats previously tried to paint him as a dumb-a$$, so now the republicans are doing the same to get an advantage.

Even though it's beyond a stretch that his line about nukes was a big "oops", how does it line up with the other 19 other "oops's" as stated in this article?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/...sp?story=424008

So far, the only thing Bush has proved, is that Saddam is almost as bad as the top 5 (but not quite) brutal dictators in the world. Other than that, he's like 0 fer 2 years in substantiating anything else. Sloppy intelligence returns a less than perfect result. At the moment, we have not substantiated even ONE claim.

bush has been saying he only saw the speech for the first time on his way to give it. that is a lie as can be proven by these photos from WHITEHOUSE.GOV. again he lies

he was INVOLVED in writing it, and as the caption of the photo that link goes to(there ar more to the side) says he REWROTE some of it (which parts it doesn't say)

1)not 100% sure what this question means, but if it means is the president lying worse then others, then yes. the president is not authorized to lie to the american people, especially in the constitutionally required state of the union address.

2)yes, the president should make sure beyond any doubt as to the validity of info he includes in speeches, especially when that info is to take the nation to war (BTW George Tenet managed to get that reference to Saddam seeking uranium, based on the same info as the SOTU accusation, from another speech three months before WASHINGTON POST - CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct. )

3)bush's lie is the more significant of the two. nobody died as a result of clinton lying about oral sex (which has NOTHING to do with any appeasement of al-qaeda BTW) bush's lie has resulted in the deaths of 200+ (and rising) american servicemen, and thousands of iraqis, the physical scarring of thousands, (Americans and Iraqis) and likely mental scarring of tens, possibly HUNDREDS of thousands, perhaps MILLIONS more(including Iraqis) bush's lies were easily the more serious ones.

I hope I am not violating the rules, but I posteed this in a parallel thread and I think it belongs in here, too

Bush plans to take truth for long ride



I think Bush is talking himself into a lie. Saying that the CIA had doubts only after the speech seems to be an inaccurate statement. I took Tenet's apology to mean that the language of the "16 words" was changed to say that British intelligence asserted the claim of an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium in Africa because the CIA always doubted the premise of Iraq buying (or needing to buy) uranium from Africa. Instead of splitting hairs and saying that a CIA agent cleared the statement because it was truthful (it's true biritsh intelligence says that so a CIA clearance should not really be needed so go ahead an leave it in your speech if its so important to you). Tenet accepted responsibility that the speech had in fact been cleared by the CIA.

Bush's statement (made yesterday) about the CIA having doubts about the claim only subsequent to the speech is untrue.

Actually, Eeyore, that IS against the rules...

I do think it is more appropriate here, however.

I think that the AD crowd is a bit more educated and informed about current events than your run-of-the-mill man on the street. That being said, look back through the threads about going to war with Iraq. You will find that the argument was not based upon NUCLEAR WMDs (the subject of this "lie"), but upon chemical and biological WMDs.

This one blurb in the State of the Union did not push anyone into the pre-war camp. Indeed, I doubt if anything in the State of the Union changed anyone's mind. Congress had already authorized force months before this address. Congress had access to the same intelligence that the President did. Not even Tom Daschle called his bluff on this one.

Again, to reiterate, the British still back their statement to this day. They claim they have OTHER evidence beyond the forged documents that prove the African uranium connection.

So it was a bluff huh?

The SOTU was a rallying call to support military action in Iraq in the immediate future. It was listened to closely by Americans and the world. It was not a mere formality or required speech, it was designed to move public opinion.

And move it it did

Poll: Bush Gets Boost From Speech

So let's not belittle this piece of supposed evidence used to rally American support for waging war on Iraq. We can debate the merits of chemical and biological weapons as a reason for going to war in another thread.

I see supporting or opposing the war on Iraq as looking at the pile of reasons for doing so in total and deciding if that pile tips the scales in favor of war. Every added allegation helped tip the scales of public opinion and it is becoming increasingly distressing about how inaccurate many pieces in that pile were.

which we STILL have not found, even though they said they knew exactly where they were. so they lied about THAT as well (which is what I have said earlier) the trailers they found had NO traces of any bio or chem weapons. they were used as fueling station for weather)balloons(ABC: Iraqi trailers not used for WMD 'Trailers not for WMD but for weather balloons' . it's just that the lie of Iraq seeking uranium from africa (which was based upon FORGED document) is the most obvious.



UN Inspectors Say US Relied on Forged Reports of Iraq Nuclear Efforts

Rep. Henry A. Waxman; Why did Bush use forged evidence?



so why do they not show it already. perhaps it doesn't exist (yet at least) they have already used (crude) forged documents to start a war, what would stop them from making MORE forgeries, this time ones that might stand up to scrutiny a little better. they have more evidence, but no one can see it, we have to take their word for it (which has been sqaundered due to lying, not just the niger lies, but the 45 minute deployment capability and such that phony tony said) I should point out that most of the british PEOPLE don't believe tony.

bush lied, and not just about them seeking uranium, accept it!

Quite frankly, I didn't care that Clinton lied about his relationship with Monica. His sex life is his business, and he denied it to protect himself from his family, not the world, or America. Bush, on the other hand, used false information to START A WAR, TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, and this led to strained and jeopardized relationships with our allies in the world. Bush should face an impeachment hearing. His falsification deserves to face consequences. If he lied about uranium and wmds to get what he wanted, what else has he lied about, and what else will he lie about in the future?

Bill Clinton had to own up to his lie. When will George W. Bush?

Clinton's lie brought with it a lot of snickers mixed in with the finger wagging. Bush's lie wasn't the least bit funny, we will remember as we continue to foot the bill for our latest foray into the so-called war on terrorism.

I do not think it is that important to decide which liar is worse when both of them are a disgrace. Neither have the character qualities which qualify them to be the top representative of our country. It is so sad that this is the best we can do.

I think what a man does in his private life is of no concern to the citizens of this country (even if that man is the president). The lie that President Clinton told was in no way comparable to the lie that GWB has told. President Clinton's lie hurt nobody but him. GWB's lie sent numerous Americans to their deaths. Clearly GWB should be held accountable for lying to the nation when it results in the loss of American life. He can claim that he had no knowledge of what was in that State of the Union address. Even if he didn't, ignorance is really no excuse. When you are dealing with something as serious as a war, you can't just hope that your intelligence staff gives you "darn good intelligence". He should have checked with the C.I.A. to see if that information was of a credibility level required to deliver it to the American people.

Edited to remove empty quote

As this whole mess moves on, I'm of the opinion that the subsequent lies are more damaging than the original.

Nixon got it for coverup, Clinton for his infamous and stunningly arrogant grand jury hearing, and now Bush will get it for his stumbling around the issue. He initially told us to just forget this thing. It is behind us now.

So he wishes. Someone needs to take this guy aside and let him know he isn't King of America.

Meanwhile, we have a new US territory costing us $4 billion monthly to keep it from flying apart. The cost in human suffering is rising and hitting home. I guess the hawks feel that this is still a fair price to pay for a democratic (or will it be a republican?) Iraq.

But Saddam is gone! Sort of maybe. You don't hunt turkey with bombs or machine guns.

Anyway, I see the two lies as being equal in the damage they have done to the President and the office. Regarding the collateral damage to US citizens, I'm waiting for verification that other reasons for this war were legitimate. I was personally against this war to begin with, but after the commitment was made, I decided to hope for the best outcome.

My hope has been disappointed so far, and that came as no surprise. Little planning had been done with this whole thing. Bush & Co. rushed us into this, and now we see that haste indeed makes waste.

I think those who trusted Bush's administration through the selling part of the war are justified now to raise a stink. They are justified to demand answers to their questions and suspicions. They may even be justified in calling for impeachment hearings.

But none of this is going to solve the problems in Iraq. None of this is going to protect our service people stationed there. We can't pull out--Iraq's future will likely become mired in civil war with an unspeakable brutality. Or maybe not. I guess we don't know what will happen if we pull out.

Good Lord, this is reminding me so much of Vietnam. The thought processes are exactly the same. The time frame is condensed, though.

I genuinely hope that this war ends in success. My hope is based on the cost of this thing, both in human suffering and money. We tried to warn y'all that the cost might very well be too high, but most were not listening. Guess each generation has to find out the true cost of war for itself. This wisdom doesn't seem to transfer very well.

But what sold so many on the war? Was it not that Saddam was about to attack the US? And wasn't that an imminent danger? Because, you know, he had WMD and connections to terrorists, and any minute we were going to get poisoned or nuked? Dirty bombed with suitcases? We knew exactly where, what, and when!

We were whipped into a frenzy of fear. The nation went along with war. Now it is over, so Bush declared, yet not over as we can see. We can see exactly what the plan was for handling Iraq after the war.

Which amounts to fly by the seat of the Bush administration's pants. Spin and damage control.

So I hope somehow this all works out. What a mess.

President Bush did not lie. Prime Minister Blair still stands by the intel, and all Bush said was that the British had asserted that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. President Clinton nearly drove me from the Democratic party in shame. He lied to a grand jury, lied to a nation (knowing full well he was lying), and might have even lied to his family, though I'm not convinced that Hillary didn't know what was going on.

Kevin S. Bailey

This question is so ridiculous I wasn't even going to answer it. But since these lies have caused yet another death I changed my mind.

There is absolutely no comparison between lying about a personal sexual act and lying as a means to lead the American and British people into war as if they were cattle being herded to the slaughter with Bush the cowboy leading the way.

This whole situation get's more disgusting every day...but let's talk about Clinton and his blow job some more, why don't we.

WMD scientist's death rocks British government

The ironic thing about your post is that it is the ANTI-war faction in England that badgered the scientist to death. You seem to be blaming it on the PRO-war faction.

Kevin Bailey

Indeed, there is no comparison.

Clinton knowingly and arrogantly lied. Cut and dry.

Bush relied on intelligence from an ally, proofed by the CIA and White House intel folks, that MAY be false (as Blair still stands by it).

In 1998, Carl Levin made the exact same claim concerning the Iraq-Niger uranium connection during a speech on the Senate floor. So was it unreasonable to believe that British intel was correct?

So, when does the investigation of Levin start?

That would be pretty funny if the situation weren't so serious.

No one cares about Clinton cheating on Hillary...least of all the GOP that hates her gut's. The only thing they are doing is politicizing it in order to divert attention with an old tried and true story. No matter how old it is they will drag it back out and try to squeeze a little more public anger out of it if they think they can. Problem is people never were that angry to begin with.

If you put "George W. Bush" and "lies" into the Google search engine, you get 250,000 references in nine-tenths of a second.

Madtown

What surprises me is that so many people are convinced the the Administration had nothing to do with the lie.

What doesn't surprise me is the front page of the local newpaper: Pioneer Press 7/18.

The story goes on to say that "White House officials" were "Hellbent" on working the allegation into the State of the Union Address. The administration had to go into "barganing mode with the CIA to skirt around the misleading nature of the statement."

Full Story

What in the world are you going on about?? There was a question asked here for debate and folks are responding to it.

As for your claim that Bush's lie caused another death, well that's nothing but garbage. First of all you have no proof whatsoever that he lied. None. Secondly, even if the intel he relied on was false, saying he lied is wrong. Lastly, even bad intel can't be blamed for 'causing another death' as you say.

You're allowing your hatred for Bush to cloud your judgement.

You're allowing your trust in the Republican party to cloud your judgement. They LIED, and continue lying. Follow the links in my previous post.

Joseph C. Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium yellowcake in February 2002.

'Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a ''con man.'' This misinformation spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon asked the CIA to look into it.

After eight days in the Niger capital, Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was ''highly unlikely,'' though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report based on Wilson's briefing remains classified. All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post on June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report. Not until Wilson went public on July 6, however, did his finding ignite the fire storm.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wilson had taken a measured public position--viewing weapons of mass destruction as a danger but considering military action as a last resort. He has seemed much more critical since revealing his role in Niger. In the Washington Post on July 6, he talked about the Bush team ''misrepresenting the facts,'' asking: ''What else are they lying about?''

After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews.


http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-e...dt-novak14.html

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probobly a duck.

This lie is much bigger. There is no comparison between the two.

clintons lie does not kill anyone, no ones business what his sex life is, i dont care for his sex life, its a matter of his leadership, and his leadership i don't like either, but i condemn him for his leadership and not his sexlife,

bush lies whenever he opens his mouth IMO, i don't trust anything he says
his lies kill people too, if anyone thinks america is FREEING iraq, better check out some NON AMERICAN news channels or something

I've noticed a disturbing pattern of deception among the Democratic presidential candidates. It is dishonest for Democrats to obstruct and delay the removal of a genocidal terror-sponsoring regime for months, giving them plenty of time to hide their WMD, and then use the prolonged search for them to raise doubts about their existence, when we've seen the regime use them, and when Bill Clinton even made the same accusations as President Bush did years ago. It is presumptuous for Democrats to accuse President Bush of lying about the uranium evidence when they know that the British gave it to us and still claim to have further proof. And it is misleading for Democrats to be simplistically associating President Bush with the slow economic recovery when it was them who stopped the tort reforms that would have fixed the health care crisis, them who have managed to wreck the one state they still control, and them who did nothing about nearly a decade of Al Queda attacks.

This is a hoot. We have a disturbing pattern of deception by a whole lot of people in Washington D.C.. Expand your list to Presidents(the subject of this thread)Senators, Representatives and gosh darn every Democrat and Republican and you are seeing what I am seeing. Maybe you were referring to just the latest in this pattern of inconsistency, lies, and hypocrisy. Either way, this problem will never go away if people think the solution is to point fingers and say this is a problem only of one party.

Article from the Toronto Sun:
http://www.rense.com/general39/deserves.htm

'For one thing, uranium ore is no more threatening than cake mix.
To weaponize it, ore must be laboriously transformed into uranium hexafluoride gas, then separated and enriched in huge, highly visible plants, equipped with "cascades" of thousands of high-speed centrifuges.

The U.S. knew there were no such nuclear plants in Iraq. French intelligence warned it the Niger story was bogus.

Nor had Iraq any means of delivering nuclear or biowarfare weapons. In short, Iraq had zero offensive capability, and posed zero threat.

At the time, Bush's critics, including this column, dismissed as hogwash his claims Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the U.S.

We were denounced as "unpatriotic" and "friends of Saddam" in the pro-war press. '



Totally erroneous. Congress gave war powers over to the Executive shortly after 911, and gave up the right to decide if or how ANY war proceeded and had NO say in the event. It was Congress's fault, for playing the 'safe' card of not being to blame for going to war, a decision every Democrat who lost their seat in 2002 should turn in their graves for. I wish youd get your facts straight instead of all these straw man accusations on every thread.

By this assessment, the 9/11 terrorists had "zero offensive capacity".

The paradigm has shifted. "Threats" are no longer measured by rockets and bombs, but by possessing WMDs and having the demonstrated capacity for using these. Add in a defiant attitude (towards the UN, at least) and a hatred for the US and you have an "imminent" threat.

The FBI missed the clues leading up to 9/11. This time, we erred on the side of caution because even without WMDs, Saddam had to go.

The FBI didn't miss the clues, the Bush Administration chose to ignore them.


collection of articles which bring into question GB knowledge concerning 9/11

How can a person so blindly not wonder?

And Bush's lie continues to kill people.

Since the British government is still standing by it's intelligence claim......."The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

Does this not mean that according to the accusers, the British government is lying?

Anyone catch the DNC's new ad running in Madison, WI about Bush and the famous 16 words?

Funny how they left off 'The British Government has learned that'
Now which party is it that is raising cain about facts?

Um, DTOM, that phrase you quoted has 16 words if you include the British part at the beggining. 10 if you start at 'Saddam Hussein'.

I haven't seen the ads of which you speak, so I'm not sure if there is more to it than you have stated so far. Do you have any more info? (or a link to the ad would be great, but I understand the difficulty in finding such things online).

Yes, my point was that the DNC and other Bush detractors are carping everyday about the '16 words',
yet in their latest ad, they only quote 10, deliberately designed (IMHO) to put Bush in the worst possible light. Can't really blame them for that, but are they being truthful?

Link to story on DNC ad

Hindsight is 20/20.


Two weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh predicted these ads, including the leaving off of the British reference. It's sad when you can predict personal attacks coming.

The ad is misleading, to say the very least.

Why not run the ad, editting to say:
"The British government ... recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

If you can't even quote the whole sentence the man used, you are CLEARLY taking him out of context.

Artemise, you are way off on your facts. Most people who actually watch the news will verify that the Democrats maneuvered like mad to obstruct the war. It was mostly done by pressuring the president to rely on the UN, to release his evidence, and by staging protests. I was't talking about some congressional act. But you cannot deny that they used public opinion and the UN to help delay the war!! THATS not erroneous, its common knowledge.

And last time I checked, we had recovered multiple mobile bio labs, long range scuds, and unmanned planes. How do you figure that they had no offensive capability?

Also, given that their WMD were never accounted for, do you really think Iraq would've drawn the line at sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers and trying to assassinate a US President, but would never give WMD to a terrorist?!?!? What planet do you live on?!?!?

And after doing nothing about the USS Cole attack, the barracks bombing, the embassy bombings, the 1st WTC attack and after retreating from Al Queda in Somalia, after making 9/11 possible, for Democrats to STILL oppose removing a genocidal terror-sponsor who was far worse than Milosevic, Yes, the Democrats should've been condemned as anti American, or just plain dumb.

Please stop making so many false claims.

Aquapub, you haven't checked in a while, have you? Those so-called mobile bio labs were for producing hydrogen for weather balloons--that was reported a long time ago along with the fact that no germs or chemicals for warfare (unless Saddam wanted to make a blimp!) were found in either tractor trailer! Who is playing fast and loose with the facts now?

Long range Scuds? A big deal to the Israelis, maybe. But they're big boys and girls and have taken care of themselves for some time now. Scuds wouldn't make it to the United States.

Aha! Could this be what we poured billions of dollars into the invasion of Iraq to find??? I guess this would be a REAL threat to the United States if the Iraqi satellite network EXISTED!!!

Yeah, right. The Iraqis were an imminent threat to the United States.

In whose dreams?

Aquapub, it was Colin Powell who was the biggest influence on the Administration, pressuring the President to go to the UN to get their approval and a coalition before going it alone into Iraq. This was the more prudent thing to do and had the Administration not previously decided that they were going to war no matter what, and only use the UN as a farce (which many saw through), we might have had better backing and not the bloody fiasco we are in now.

Please give me some back-up on Dems maneovering to obstruct the war, because I saw very little of it and wish they had done more. To me they wimped out.

Democrats did NOT stage protests. A slew of people of all political/social/economic backrounds protested the war. Including Millions around the world who certainely cannot be accused of being Democrats. Not one anti-war organization is associated with The Democratic Party or exclusively comprised of democrats, in fact:

The largest anti-war news consolidation site on the Internet is owned by Justin Raimundo, a conservative: http://www.antiwar.com/
Americansagainstbombing: http://www.againstbombing.com/ another Conservative block
Veterans against war: http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
American Friends, Quakers
Sept 11th Families for Peaceful Tomarrows
Physicians for Peaceful Tomarrows
Not In our Name
International A.N.S.W.E.R.

And more::
In fact heres a partial list: http://www.trouble-tickets.org/links/orgs.html

Find me a Democrat Organization in the bunch.

None of the protesting obstructed the war anyway, not for one day, because it was preconcieved, way before 911.

Youre obviously another Fox News, possible Limbaugh follower.

And to tie this into the thread, the reasons for going to War are not only a worse lie, the whole thing is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American public, with more dire consequences than anything since Vietnam.

PLEASE STOP making so many blanket accusations. NO ONE here speaks for an entire party, so it makes it EXTREMELY difficult for any individual to respond to you. Please debate the actual issues presented and stop the us vs. them tactic, it does nothing to add to a constructive debate.

Well, Clinton has stepped up and defending Bush on his comments:

Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union



I think Clinton is trying to "call of the dogs" of the Democratic Party. He sees them as losing this issue and is trying to give them an out.

Maybe it's because Clinton used the same evidence in 1998

President Bush's exact words in the State of the Union address were "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This statement was then, and is now 100% accurate. It's not rocket science. True statement does not = lie. To this day the Bristish still claim their information is correct. Therefore, since Bush did not lie in his SOTUA, it's obvious that Clinton's lie was worse.

Of course. the very next line stated:


Another big 'ol fat one that has nothing to do with the British.

DR, he did buy those tubes. Their use for uranium enrichment was proven unlikely.

Bill Clinton made repeated references to Iraq's nuclear capabilities on December 16, 1998. He said last night on Larry King that they had no idea if the 4 days of bombing that he authorized at that time, specifically to target Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological programs, got rid of all of it, half of it or none of it. He said they didn't know because there was no "strong inspection program". Clinton made 3 references to Iraq's nuclear program in that speech. Not "alleged" program. Not a program that the British told us about. Their nuclear program.

Clinton had virtually the same information. He acted upon it. Bush, using the same logic, acted again 4 1/2 years later.

Deleted due to redundancy. Missed Amlord's earlier post

The thing that is so amusing about the extremely misleading DNC ad is that the subject of the ad is President Bush supposedly misleading the American public.

Clinton's the only one who lied so his lie is by default the worst.

Bush mislead the country by making the statement concerning the British documents...he knew it, his administration knew, the CIA knew it as early as September of 2002.

The fact remains that, although the statement is true, the information it contained was false, i.e. ...Yes, the British government obtained documents concerning the attempted purchase of uranium, however, everyone surrounding those documents in the administration and the CIA knew they we're fake.

Its all lies, as far as I'm concerned...if you know that evidence is false, but use it to back up an argument, it's a lie. As we are discovering in the media, the Administration pressured the CIA to allow that statement in the Address.

Thank you GoAmerica! Lets think about this for a moment...If Clinton made the same accusations in 1998, then it wasn't fabricated by Bush years later. I wish Dems could stop asserting things that are only possible if President Bush has a time machine.

Why is this thread continuing? Bush didn't lie and if he did no one has proven it. Maybe I should start a thread about Bill Clinton and why he killed Nicole Brown-Simpson.....I might not have any proof but if I believe it that should be enough.

Says who? You?

Bush had that line in his Cincinnati speech and it was removed. It worked it's way into several other speeches and it was removed. But they kept it in the SOTU speech for impact. It was not a true statement and just because it's acclaimed to the British, it doesn't make it any more true. They knew it was FALSE at least 3 months before the SOTU speech.

I'd say that qualifies as a lie regardless of who's judging it.