Exclusive: Bush Used British 45 Minutes Claim

[Nottingham]

Exclusive: Bush Used British 45 Minutes Claim

Exclusive: Bush Used British 45 Minutes Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Editorial Staff Tuesday 15th July, 2003

Just two weeks before the U.S. Congress voted to authorise military action in Iraq, President Bush told congressional leaders that, according to the British government, Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in 45 minutes.

Mr. Bush made the claim in a meeting of members of Congress at the White House on September 26 2002. He was seeking support for a resolution then being prepared for the Congress.

Following the meeting the president addressed a press conference in company with the members of Congress in the Rose Garden where he said, "The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given".

Mr. Bush went on to say, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year".


more........
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=86472d5e261200ea


:bounce:Once ya tell a Lie its hard to let it go!

[bif]

1. He should be given 45 minutes to get out of the White House.

n/t

[Gman]

2. The impeachment trial wouldn't last 45 minutes before conviction

then on the The Hague to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[MaineDem]

3. This is another important story!

Liar liar pants on fire. Hell, the whole damn suit is ablaze!

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

4. They'll use the same wormy out of saying "according to the British"

This constant twisted use of "factually accurate," but frankly misleading statements will be the undoing of this administration with the American public...though, the vast majority of the American public may not be that bright or informed, they do a good job (sometimes) of seeing through the bullshit.

JB

[salin]

5. Except... that there are witnesses

who know whether or not at the time he referred to the British.

I will be very curious to watch those Congressional (house and senate) folks who were unconvinced of the "immenent threat" prior to these briefings and thus publically disinclined to support the War Resolution in its proposed (Rovian/Rumsfeldian) form who suddenly due to this information (and the fear inspired by it) changed their vote. They must be quite conflicted - and angry. They were duped. We could say they should have known better, but those were pretty big risks to dismiss (had the claims been true). While I wouldn't have banked on it, I can understand how some might have.

But now - to publically go against the administration can also be perceived to be doing damage to those servicefolks who have been sent by them (the vote allowed it) who already increasingly in "sitting duck" positions.

Rock and hardplace. Outrage. Concern/conscience. What to do, what to do? I would hate to be in these folks place and have to deal with the very, very heavy reality of what their actions have led to - and the sense (outrage) that they were profoundly decieved when making that decision - and the guilt of what might be brought by their reaction.

It will be interesting to see how some of these folks (including my own Congressman) react over time. I predict that many will be silent - trying to support troops but not be as positive and behind the president as before - in a way to try to balance "supporting the troops" without future support for the president and his foreign escapades.

I also predict that the deep outrage will manifest itself elsewhere. I predict many more ugly partisan fights - because of this outrage. In short, while it may not change the current Iraq policies, I would venture to bet that it will serve as a "spine infusion" in terms of blocking presidential initiatives, in the future.

[Frances]

6. Eshoo voted against the resolution

I attended a town meeting in Sunnyvale CA on Saturday and she said that some people who voted for the resolution felt duped.

Eshoo said that the yes vote was the easy vote and that she was accused of being unpatriotic when she voted against the resolution.

Eshoo said that she had attended every intel briefing she could and she voted against the resolution because there was no proof of the following:

1. Imminent danger to the U.S. from Saddam

2. A link between Saddam and the Al-Quaida

3. There would be a decrease in the terrorism threat to the U.S.

She also said that people in our district are well educated and do a lot of reading so she thought they would understand what was really going on.

[Cocoa]

7. classic John Warner in that article

On Meet the Press earlier this month (July 6 2003), Senator John Warner, a member of the Intelligence Committee, was asked by host Andrea Mitchell whether the Washington Post article was correct.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, (R-VA): I'm a member of the Intelligence Committee. This is my second tour in the 25 years that I've been in the Senate.

MS. MITCHELL: That's why I asked the question, sir.

SEN. WARNER: And I never comment on testimony that that committee receives. So I can neither...

MS. MITCHELL: Well...

SEN. WARNER: ...confirm nor deny.

MS. MITCHELL: I can say independently that it was in the...

SEN. WARNER: Yeah. Well...

MS. MITCHELL: ...national intelligence estimate.

SEN. WARNER: I'm not going to confirm it.

MS. MITCHELL: OK