Lieberman issues Statement on Bush Uranium Claim

[dolstein]

(July 11, 2003)


ARLINGTON, VA -- Joe Lieberman issued the following response to news reports saying the Bush Administration ignored the CIA's objection to including a claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa in the State of the Union address:

"These are troubling reports that need full and thorough investigation. We cannot and should not play fast and loose with our intelligence information, and however it happened we now know that the information in the State of the Union was false, and misled the American people. This breaks the basic bond of trust we must have with our leaders in times of war and terrorism.

"Quite simply, we need to know what people in the Administration knew about the weakness of our uranium intelligence reports and when they knew it.

"Nothing can be more important in times of war and terrorism than to make sure the American people have straight talk on what is happening and that is why I have called for the 9/11 commission to look at this question, to see whether there was any information-shading, and the larger question of the quality of our intelligence."

http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5429&JServSessionIdr008=4mvysqlrd9.app14a&news_iv_ctrl=1041

[Champion Jack]

1. Is there video of this? Because I'd like to see Holy Joe

Pull his head out of *'s ass long enough to issue a statement.

[gratuitous]

2. Gee Joe, ya think?

Got any choice words for the guy who's supposed to be steering this ship? Or don't you want to rush into anything? I mean, it's just s bunch of soldiers (who wouldn't vote for you anyway) and a bunch of Iraqis (who can't vote for you) dying in the desert far away. But it's truly bold, bold I say, of you to pile the investigation of this lie onto the 9-11 commission. After all, the administration isn't giving the commission any information about their intelligence failures that led to the deaths of 3,000 folks then. Why don't they get stonewalled on this, too? No sense organizing another commission, and getting a whole bunch more people upset with this corrupt administration, is there?

I hope you're not expecting a rush to the Democratic nomination, Mr. Lieberman.

[AnnabelLee]

3. He's calling for the lies about WMD in Iraq

to be investigated by the 9/11 commission? Is that a good idea, as a practical matter? I mean, the commission doesn't even have enough funding to do a thorough job as it is. Am I missing something?

[damnraddem]

86. That does seem a bit strange.

WE may think that it's all connected: negligence and fraud by Dubya's gang; instances of being able to wag the dog for political effect; fraudulent attempts to link Saddam to 9/11 and Al Qaida. But whatever we think the ties are, that still doesn't make investigating Dubya's lies about WMDs in any way part of the 9/11 Commission's mandate.

[tjdee]

4. The 9/11 commission?

WHAT?

He wants the 9/11 commission to look into the IRAQ uranium claim?

Psst, Joe....Iraq and 9/11. No connection. I see what he's saying about the quality of our intelligence overall, but as written it looks and sounds like a stretch.

[MaverickX]

14. you don't understand..

The 9-11 commission will investigate it because the reason for going to war was as part of the war on terrorism.

[Sophree]

50. Right

And they're exposing ALL (or most?) of *'s lies, deceit, and malfeasance.

There's no connection between SADDAM and 9/11, but there IS a connection between the * Admin, 9/11, the Iraq war and the policy of pre-emption in general.

[Beetwasher]

5. If Joe's on the Boat and not being an apologist, it just might be

as big as we hope...

[crissy71]

10. Right, at least the Media Whores

Can't dismiss him since he's their model Democrat - liked the Watergate echo too. If nothing else, our buddy Joe is an opportunist.

[Sophree]

43. I'm no Lieberman fan

But I think you're right about the significance of this.

This statement is nothing but good news for all of us.

:bounce:

[wtmusic]

6. Lieberman's a switch-hitter

just more goat-scaping from the pro-war dems who see their stance becoming less and less popular

[hang a left]

72. who cares

just investigate

[Sinistrous]

7. I really do not like Mr. Lieberman.

And this mealy-mouthed statement has not changed my opinion.

This is not the time for "walking on eggs" so as not to upset somebody.

Carpe jugulum.

[MaverickX]

11. why not?

It's not "walking on eggshells" to call for an investigation into Bush claims on intelligence. However, you can't expect Lieberman and other senior senators to come out and accuse Bush of lying without having proof of this. Doesn't this require gathering evidence?

[wtmusic]

15. Of course, he's just about a month behind

while Waxman and Byrd are sticking their necks out Lieberman is comfortably riding public opinion.

Zero leadership.

[MaverickX]

17. as if Byrd is a leader..

He spent half of his Senate career providing pork to West Virginia.

[wtmusic]

20. Byrd is a better leader than Lieberman will ever be

Byrd has seen through the lies since October, stood up on the Senate floor with virtually no support whatsoever and denounced the principle of "preemptive self-defense" from the very start.

That is leadership.

Has Lieberman done ANYTHING remotely qualifying him as a leader?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

52. That's got to be

the most pitiful response I have ever heard. You don't think of Byrd as an ex-KKKer and Lieberman's religion has nothing to do with the discussion - and you know it. This was simply a low blow by someone with no argument.

[Cheswick2.0]

64. he was a KKK member 60 years ago

Joe is still holy and it has nothing to do with being Jewish.

[MUAD_DIB]

31. I would like to know what senator doesn't

do that for their constituents?

[Neutrino]

38. Byrd is a Great American Statesman--

trying to bring Honor back to Government. So bite your tongue!

[Cheswick2.0]

63. we aren't talking about half his career

and FYI, they all provide pork.

We are talking about the last year in which he has been brilliant!!@!

[Bandit]

37. Actually it makes him seem "calm and deliberate" to the majority

There will always be those who speak out immediately and stir things up. These people are usually just considered rabble rousers and chuckled at. Then there is the "calm and deliberate" ones who want to investigate and get the "facts". Those are traditionally the ones that Americans tend to listen to and actually elect. We must have both and IMHO more of the rousers because that is what stirs things up. "Calm and Deliberate" is good also because that is how the hard facts get brought into the light. Joe is smart. He will not get the Nomination IMO, but he is very smart and should be given credit where credit is due. He is a Democrat and is on our side whether we agree with all of his positions or not. No body gets everything they want, not even us.

[wtmusic]

53. Calm and deliberate = safe and complacent

We are up against the most conservative hardline agenda perhaps in American history and Joe is not rocking a boat which should be tipped over.

The hard facts get brought to light by pounding on them and their concealers, not by agreeing with everyone else after the dirty work has been done for them.

He calls himself a Democrat but he is a traitor to true Democratic ideals and is certainly not on my side for supporting *'s illegal war.

You say "Joe is very smart and should be given credit where credit is due." What exactly should we be giving Joe credit for?

[Robb]

13. Indeed.

"however it happened"... total cop-out.

[legin]

8. I got Joe

calling for an attack on Iraq before the begining of November 2001.

[MaverickX]

19. I supported war too..

For different reasons than Bush mostly.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaverickX]

44. uhh..

Don't be making accusations against me. Democrats aren't required to be anti-war.

[Cheswick2.0]

68. no but they should be

that war was a horror and still is. Afghanistan was a horror and still is. There was no reason to approve of war with Iraq.

[Robbien]

29. Wasn't Lieberman a signor of the PNAC letter,

of course he was calling for war before all the others.

[AnnabelLee]

40. If he was, I'm not seeing it

You can take a look here

http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm

[GreenArrow]

62. he was calling for regime change

"I said then that, "the United States must pursue final victory over Saddam. We must use all reasonable diplomatic, economic, and military means to achieve his removal from power. Until that end is realized, the peace and stability of the region will not have been fully accomplished."

In 1997 and 1998, I joined with Senators Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Trent Lott to introduce the Iraq Liberation Act, which established in law for the first time that it is U.S. policy to change the regime in Baghdad, not just to contain it, and authorized specific assistance, including military training and equipment, to the Iraqi opposition in furtherance of that goal. That declaration was based on Saddam's record of barbarism before, during and after the Gulf War, and his repeated violations of U.N. resolutions."

Taken from his statement in favor of the Iraq resolution, a statement that manages to inject at least one lie/deception/propaganda tidbit into almost every paragraph.

http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/speeches/02/09/2002913614.html

[dolstein]

73. Yeah, and so did most Democrats

The Iraq Liberation Act passed the House on a 360-38 vote and passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It was signed into law by Clinton.

Lieberman has been consistent all along in his opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime. The hypocrites are the anti-war Democrats (including, I should point out, Dennis Kucinich) who voted for regime change in 1998.

[GreenArrow]

81. The point was

that he helped to introduce that policy, which in my opinion is a stupid one. The secondary point is that I don't find his protestations particulary honest or believeable. The fact that so many Democrats leapt to support that policy only suggests that both parties were and are working towards the same goal, only using slightly differing approaches.

I didn't know about Kucinch's vote, but it is disapointing to learn about it.

[MaverickX]

42. no..

Lieberman criticized the pre-emptive war concept.

[Jivenwail]

9. Hmmmmmmmmm....

"What did Bush know and when did he know it"?

That sounds awfully familiar. Seem to recall one Cynthia McKinney saying that about 9/11 - and it cost her a job! At least she was completely honest when she said that and had no agenda, unlike Holy Joe.

[MaverickX]

16. no...

Cynthia McKinney didn't call for an investigation, she made accusations.

[Allah Akbar]

25. Accusations which are totally true and on the money

Dems who talk shit about the few people who are REALLY trying to work for them and get their throats cut by the "leadership" really need to get a clue.

[flavorself]

27. Actually she did call for investigations...

"The BBC report which got McKinney in hot water mentioned the Bush Administration’s reluctance to investigate associates of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which the FBI secret document termed “a suspected terrorist organization.” They may be. They may not be. McKinney’s question was only, Why no investigation?


Just after McKinney’s defeat, the courier of Osama bin Laden's latest alleged taped threat against the United States was busted in Africa: He was on the staff of WAMY. Shortly thereafter, Prince Abdullah, the Saudi dictator, invited WAMY leaders to his palace and told them, “There is no extremism in the defending of the faith.”


So if you listen to U.S. radio and read U.S. papers, you are told this: Abdullah’s protector and godfather, George W. Bush, is sane and patriotic, and McKinney, who wants to investigate these guys, is a loony and a traitor. Got it?"

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=16172

[0007]

33. You got it Toyota

Very well put.

Did we ever hear Holy Joe during those times question what McKinney was talking about? Fuck no. She was too radical and on top of things she was black.

[Cheswick2.0]

70. bull

she called for investigations. Why are you rewriting history?

[VaLabor]

12. a supremely stupid idea

Lieberman could have called for a REAL investigation. Not a commission, but full blown congressional hearings. And not a commission that already exists, is already underfunded, is already tied up with over things.

Instead, he wants to dump the uranium issue off on the 9/11 Commission, which is already hamstrung by lack of money and time - and not even able to get a hold of all the info it needs to fulfill its primary purpose: INVESTIGATING 9/11.

This is just another example of why Lieberman fundamentally sucks. Why anyone would vote for him, except in the extraordinary circumstances where one must choose between Bush and Bush Lite, is beyond me.

Joe, you're running in the wrong party.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

21. Didn't have to go there

So we're playing the bigot card now, huh? Maybe you should face it that Lieberman would be wishy-washy even if he was Muslim.

[Champion Jack]

22. No, we hate bush lite

[dolstein]

74. Well if that's true, then why do you hate Lieberman?

Calling Lieberman Bush-lite doesn't make it true. If you bothered to examine Lieberman's voting record and public statements over the past few years (something that few Lieberman critics actually bother to do), you'd find that Lieberman has opposed Bush's economic policies, environmental policies, energy policies, civil rights policies, judicial selections, the Ashcroft nomination, etc. Indeed, the only high profile issue on which Bush and Lieberman agree was on the decision to go to war against Iraq, and most Democrats in the Senate sided with Lieberman on this, a decision that had strong bipartisan support in the Senate.

So you suggestion that Lieberman is Bush-lite simply lacks credibility. And the willingness of so many DU'ers to spread lies and distortions about Lieberman's record, even after being presented with evidence to the contrary, only serves to raise suspicions about the true motives of the Lieberman bashers.

[VaLabor]

24. The problem is...

Lieberman isn't outspoken enough! He's jumping on the Investigate-the-Lies bandwagon, but then he's cutting the feet out from under it by offering this weak and beautiful compromise for Bush: give the investigation to a commission already overburdened with work, lacking sufficient funds, lacking sufficient time, etc. No real investigation will happen on either 9/11 or the Iraq War, that way.

It's just a stupid idea.

[eyesroll]

26. Hey, I'm an outspoken Jew...

and I hate Lieberman, too...

(I know, I know, don't take the bait...)

[MUAD_DIB]

34. I am not an antisemite.

Weren't you just pointing out that accusations are a bad thing?

How can you make such a baseless statement?

That is an old argument. If you don't like what you hear then claim racism.

BS


I wish that Lieberman was outspoken , but he really doesn't go the distance on some issues.

It's not racsim it's realism.

[newyorican]

35. Nice card to play, that'll win your guy votes

To oppose Lieberman is anti-semetic? Is that the campaign slogan?

[Neutrino]

36. Doncha love people who use the expression "you people"

pot callin the kettle black.

[Jim Sagle]

45. That's way over the line.

I'm an outspoken Jew, and I loathe Loopy Lieby. There may be a few antisemites here, but there are many more who dislike him because he's a whining, snivelling, hang-dog Mike "Ain't Got No Guts" Dukakis wannabe - a "Please Don't Hit Me Anymore" Democrat - a half-Democrat, half-Republican political morphodite.

And that's on a GOOD day.

[Eloriel]

65. I love outspoken Jews

but I never think of Lieberman as either outspoken (which he isn't) OR Jewish (until someone reminds me of it).

Why do you keep bringing it up? Why is it an issue to you? Can you not separate Lieberman from his Jewishness? Why not? Can you not distinguish between criticism that has nothing to DO with his Jewishness and those that might (such as his support of Israel and perhaps the war)? It muddies the water badly, and unnecessarily. Good grief, there's enough REAL anti-Semitism to go around without imaginging or fabricating it.

Eloriel

[Allah Akbar]

23. The biggest warmonger after Bush was Joe Lieberman

so I really think he just needs to shut the hell up.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. A tie between him and Geppy.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

59. The rest of the world didn't think so

Or maybe you, Bush and Lieberman were right, and everyone else was wrong.

Maybe we should abide by agreements we're party to, like the UN Charter, and give due process a chance.

[dolstein]

75. Yeah, and the rest of the world disagreed with Churchill in 1939

Sorry, but when it comes to taking on genocidal sociopaths like Hussein or Hitler, the "50,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong" argument just isn't very persuasive.

[Dhalgren]

79. Don't forget that Stalin (another of your heros?)

was also on to Hitler in '39. So much so that he was trying desperately to sucker him into an agreement that would allow the USSR to gain enough time and land to keep Hilter at permanent bay.

But your equation of the 10 million plus worldwide and every nation on earth (except for the coalition of the billing) with "50,000 Elvis fans is pure Republican rhetoric. And you wonder about the term "Bush-lite".


edit: couldn't stop laughing

[dolstein]

83. Excuse me, but are you equating Lieberman with Stalin?

Are you suggesting that only Stalinists think Lieberman's a good guy? Other than their first names, I fail to see what they have in common.

Of course, when it comes to Lieberman, DU'ers are willing to say just about anything, but your post represents a new low. That's quite an accomplishment.

[wtmusic]

85. Here we go again -- the lame Hitler comparison

The issue has nothing to do with a popularity contest but with democracy, which is ironically what we claim to be spreading throughout the world. In 1945 we agreed to be part of a world democracy called the "United Nations". Remember?

As part of that agreement we are obliged to act under its bylaws, none of which authorizes "preemptive self-defense" as a justification to attack another sovereign country. Our unprovoked attack on Iraq is on par with the 'liberation' of Austria and puts the US more in league with Hitler than Hussein.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. This statement is fine as far as it goes

Lieberman and the other "Blair Democrats" must ask themselves how far they can go in distancing themselves from the junta's lies. After all, they bought them hook, line and sinker. To continue to support Bush's policies when they are based on lies makes them look gullible.

In the thread about whether the revelation that Bush's charges in the SOTU were based on a forged document gave them an out, I made the following recommendations for the Blair Democrats:

First, each should admit to having been wrong about the war. Admit that there was no real justification for the invasion. Each should make an angry speech expressing outrage at having been misled by the junta. Not only were they misled, but all members of Congress and the American people who relied on the administration to inform them of threats from foreign enemies were misled. Call for a full investigation and demand that those who deliberatly misled the nation resign from office.

Next, each should attack the junta for it mishandling of the war on terror. Pledge that, if elected, the target of the fight against terrorism will be identifiable individuals and organizations that have committed specific crimes. Pledge that the desire to bring terrorists to justice will not be used to justify nefarious and dubious foreign adventures, like the invasion of Iraq, that in fact have nothing to do with US security or the fight against terrorists.

Finally, each should pledge to review the draconian measures pushed by the junta, such as restrictions on civil liberties. It would be most desirable to suggest very strongly that the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts be repealed; in any event, any attempts to further errode civil liberties should be denounced.

[Q]

32. What happened to the Enron 'investigation'?

- He had the same 'harsh' words about the Enron scandal...but it went nowhere.

-

[Jack Rabbit]

58. That's a bit of a red herring here

Enron was a completely different matter.

However, if you are trying to make the point that a call for an investigation needs to be followed up with an investigation and with real action, then you're right. In this case real action could include a presidential impeachment.

[Neutrino]

46. Lieberman is a nice person, but poison for America

just like Chimpy--who also is a nice guy--and a lousy President.
We don't need to make that mistake again!

[Jolene]

47. And Holy Joe overlooks the obvious again...

The SOTU is a Constitutionally-mandated report to Congress. The investigation should focus on Bush's misleading Congress, with lying to the American people being secondary.

[leesa]

48. Of course, everyone is still ignoring the fact that we had absolutely

no authority to invade Iraq no matter what we thought he had.

[MaverickX]

51. I see..

So if a nation's leader commits genocide against his people we can't invade to stop him. The crazy libertarian isolationist foreign policy is nuts.

[Dhalgren]

54. No,

if bush and his side kick Holy Joe had come out and said to the american people, " Saddam is killing his own people and we are going over their to stop him." And then if the american people had suppoerted that - then fine. But that's not what happened and the "genocide" card is played almost as much as the "anti-semite" card.

[wtmusic]

55. Propping up a lame excuse

If we're so damn self-righteous, why haven't we invaded Sudan where 2 million people have been killed in the last 10 years?

Nothing isolationist about it, just anti-hypocritical. The justification for the war was to disarm. There weren't any arms, so war supporters are frantically searching for reasons to salve their conscience.

To stop a maniacal ruler we invade a country of 24M people (without provocation) and kill about 20K of its citizens? That is what is nuts.

[Pastiche423]

57. What genocide?

Which racial, political or cultural group was being murdered? What did * know about your genocide claim and when did he know it? And why did he claim WMD as THE reason for the invasion and not genocide?

Have you not been paying attention?

[haymaker]

66. You sound so much

like all the Repuke apologists I know. Why is that? And that "outspoken Jew" thing up above was just a laugh riot.

[Jack Rabbit]

67. No, you don't see

That a given national leader is a monster is not reason by itself to go to war. If it were, we'd have a lot of work to do beyond Iraq and would have troops spread pretty thin. Your altruistic foreign policy sounds magnanomous, but in the real world it is impractical.

Saddam was a monster. However, he was a monster in 1988 when he gassed Halabjah. Obviously, we didn't invade then. Indeed, the Reagan administration winked. Why invade now? Perhaps because in the spring of 2003 America, like Iraq, was in the yoke of a tyrant. The reasons for the invasion were greed for profits, gluttony for oil and lust for empire. They had less to do with Saddam being a monster than with Bush being one.

Saddam was a problem that had been contained. Bush decided to fix a problem that wasn't broken. Moreover, Bush had no idea how to fix the problem. Bush can talk about liberating the Iraqis until the cows come home, but all his bluster cannot disguise the fact that oil fields were secured, the oil ministry protected, the hospitals looted and the power grid bombed. Residents of Baghdad still have electricity only in spurts and little clean drinking water. Summer tempretures in Iraq are about 120 degrees. That's how much Bush cares for the people he claims to have liberated.

As for Lieberman and the other "Blair Democrats", their challenge now is to make a graceful about face. Bush lied to them and got them to support the war. They were gullible enough to buy the lies. Now they must call them lies.

[Oilwellian]

69. Destabilizing Iraq doesn't make sense

I'm still puzzled as to why we invaded Iraq, the only secular Arab nation in the region. At a time when this country is facing islamic fundamentalism in a most dangerous way, we take out the only Arab nation who was also fighting against Islamic fundamentalism. That's why we put Saddam in power to begin with...to keep the Iranian fundamentalists from spilling over into Iraq vis a vis the Shi'ite population which represents 60%. You say Saddam committed genocide against his own people but for 2 decades, we supported that action because it was in the best interest of our national security. Now you defend Bush for destroying a leader who followed through with his commitment to keep islamic fundamentalism at bay in his country. Can you explain this conundrum?

[Eloriel]

71. That "genocide" was something like 12 years ago.

Kinda slow to anger, aren't you?

Eloriel

[dolstein]

76. 11 years of UN resolutions = "no authority"

I find your argument interesting, but wholly unpersuasive.

[Jack Rabbit]

78. Speaking of unpersuasive arguments

As I recall, a resolution to authorize the invasion was offered, and withdrawn because if faced certain defeat.

I am completely unpersuaded that there was any proper authorization for the invasion, or that it was justified by any facts. What we are discovering is that we who marched against the invasion ahead of it last winter were right: Bush's case for war was a pack of lies.

It is now pleasing that Senator Lieberman, an otherwise intelligent man who was gulled by Bush's lies, calls for an investigation into the matter.

[tinnypriv]

80. The onus

Is on those who propose large-scale international violence to provide the argument for it. There is no requirement for anybody who opposes it to be "persuasive"; wholly or otherwise.

[Dhalgren]

82. By that rationale, the UN should invade Israel.

.

[tinnypriv]

84. Don't you understand?

Those weren't Chapter 7 resolutions!* Israel gets a free pass. :D

*usual apologist argument.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. Perhaps his Rose Garden dog and pony show was premature

[Cocoa]

60. "in times of war and terrorism"

I like it!

Each dem has their own take, all aiming at Bush from different angles. :-)

[Bob3]

61. Once again Joe Lieberman issues a statement

that reads pretty much the same backwards as forwards.

A more timid response to the huge fucking dead whale that is lying there in the middle of the White House Lawn would be hard to imagine.

Ugh.

[David Zephyr]

77. Glad to See This From Lieberman.

I was hoping that Senator Lieberman would step forward on this issue and am very happy to see that he has.

As much as I disagreed with Lieberman's shameful cheerleading for the Invasion of Iraq before the war, he did not present false evidence with the intention to deceive the American people.

George Bush intentionally added the nuclear threat to his State of Union address in full knowledge that it would be a lie in doing so in order to build his case for the war he wanted to wage.

I applaud Lieberman's statement. We all should.

Impeach George W. Bush Now.