If he got the report and if he read it and then made those statements they were lies. Because the truth was that no consensus was reached. On top of that the people the DIA sent for the sole purpose of determining whether they were mobile WMD facilities were unanimous in stating they certainly were not. They were 100% clear on that. So if he got that report what he said was clearly not the case.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

True, if he did not read any of the reports, then he did not know he was lying.

However, IT IS HIS JOB to know what he is saying is true. I know that if I go to my boss and speak out my butt, then I get in trouble. And saying I did not bother to research the truth is not an excuse.

If George Bush was told this was a fact, he should go back and fire the person who told him. However, I personally think that he won't. Why, because I am sure Cheney or Rove told him and without them, he would not know what to do.

Agreed. I stated that earlier, in fact. He either lied or is incompetent. I'm fine either way. I am assuming he saw the report. It was high profile, not some insignificant little report they generate all the time. He obviously can't see everything. But the big stuff? He better.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

They sat on the report so that he would not be lying.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters

This is a baseless charge I wonder will the media come clean or continue lying to you by playing games.



Surprisenly CNN seems content to blow holes in this routine. I say surprisenly because usually they are more apt to go along with stories they know are garbage by simply barely mentioning them. They still afaik haven't bothered mentioning the entire Bush leaked thing was extrapolation by the NYT of a sentence that Fitzgerald has now been forced to change..thus discrediting that entire routine.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/...wmd/index.html


Another manufactured BS story.

I understand about the Bush Bashers, but do u honestly believe this guy is doing a good job? Peace.

It did not originate from MSNBC.

Washington Post:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...ry.asp?id=6468

aljazeera
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11069

AP
http://customwire.ap.org

__________________
Classic American liberal

I am not normally on the side of Dubya, but it is a bit much to think that the President would be briefed on the results of a field report on WMD labs only one or two days after it was handed over. That kind of speed only occurs when the evaluation and decision loop is absolutely critical, which by that point WMD was not. When he made the remark, Dubya was very likely not yet aware of the field report.

It would be more interesting to see who in the administration repeated the bio-lab story later, as the article seems to suggest. Instead of Head-of-State hunting, the press would be better going after some of the creatures the President has working for him.

Okay. Apot's article has a date of "May 27th, 2003" that this so-called determination was made. Right???? Well, lookie here: On June 8th, 2003, the CIA mentions these reports and says it STILL stands behind their previous position on the mobile labs.

Official: CIA holds position on Iraqi mobile labs
Reports have questioned bioweapons allegations
Sunday, June 8, 2003 Posted: 6:37 AM EDT (1037 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA stands by its assessment that complex mobile laboratories discovered in Iraq were designed and built to produce biological weapons, a senior CIA official told CNN on Saturday.

Critics of the U.S. intelligence assessment "don't have the benefit of all of the intelligence" that has been collected on the trucks, the official said.

"It is what we think it is, to the best of our knowledge," said the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name.

The New York Times reported Saturday that some bioweapons experts and analysts are not convinced that the labs were designed to make biological weapons and, the article suggested, that the U.S. "evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment."

Disarming the Iraqi regime of alleged weapons of mass destruction was one of the main goals of the United States and its allies before the war. Since President Bush declared the war over, no such weapons have been found.

Former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay told CNN on Saturday that though there was a "lack of strong evidence" that the vehicles had been used to produce deadly biological agents, "the most likely use" and "the most probable use" was to create biological weapons. He said suggestions that the mobile labs had some more benign application, such as producing agricultural chemicals, were unlikely."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/07/cia.mobile.labs/

We told you Apot: your "news" is OLD. AND it's incorrect.

Try again.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

"Kay said he was aware of a number of theories that the vehicles might have had other uses, "none of which make any logical sense."

Kay saw one of the vehicles on a recent trip to Iraq and received reports on the second.

Kay said most of the alternative uses that have been suggested "didn't pass the laugh test." "

The silliest one," Kay said, was the suggestion that they had been designed to generate hydrogen for meteorological balloons. "

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007