The only one with the head up his arse, as you so phrase it, is you. You seem to believe that to lie, to support your beliefs is not lying, so when a prosecutor who thinks a suspect has comitted a crime has the police plant evidence against that suspect, there is nothing wrong.

The Niger documents were forged. Bush knew them to be dubious, used them in part of his justification of war, and when Joe Wilson revealed that they were dubious, Bush had Joe Wilson’s wife’s identity as a CIA operative leaked in retaliation.

That makes Bush a liar.

That the documents weren’t included in the British case for war is irrelevant.

Oh, and your claims of plaguerism? What, you don’t like it when we check up on your data?

Who said he was successful? Another straw man argument?

Bush:
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

You my friend have been caught in so many lies and misrepresentations it’s comical. Liar.

Read my last post very slowly, specifically this…

“d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.”

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

And the sanctions were not working. But now your shifting the argument again because you’ve been caught with your head up your arse. See Clinton’s National Strategy I referenced above. He said regime change was the only solution. Sanctions were not effective at removing Saddam. But if you want to beat another straw dog…

It doesn’t change the fact that the forgery was used by the President in arguing his case for war, when he knew it to be suspect.

Further, it didn’t rule that Saddam was successful in buying Uranium from Niger, only that he sought to. That he sought to, was why he had sanctions on him and all you have proved, is that the sanctions worked.

The Niger documents, amounted to an agreement to sell by Niger. They were forged. Joe Wilson told the truth.

Bush. Lied.

And you evidently support being lied to.

As for the Butler Report, I’m glad you brought it up. The report destroys your wikipedia plagiarism arguments. And it refutes the IAEA’s conclusions. It states,

For the reasons given above, even now it is premature to reach conclusions about Iraq’s prohibited weapons. But from the evidence which has been found and de-briefing of Iraqi personnel it appears that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:

a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons
programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when
United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded
or lifted.

b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities.

c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

d. Did not, however, have significant – if any – stocks of chemical or biological
weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them.

In preparing the dossier, the UK consulted the US. The CIA advised caution about any suggestion that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring uranium from Africa, but agreed that there was evidence that it had been sought.

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.”

503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi
attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of
Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

Or do you think that falsifying evidence in support of your conclusions isn’t lying?

It would explain a lot about a fairly large sector of the rightwing.

The Hutton report is noted for being so uncritical of Britain’s government that it was immediately dismissed a total whitewash.

It’s findings were later questioned by medical practioners, the ambulance crews at the scene of the “suicide” and, on the basis of Dr David Kelly’s diary, of David Boucher’s meeting with Dr Kelly.

Futher, it didn’t actually examine pre-War intellegence, Hutton going to far as to say “I had to draw the line somewhere.”

The actual inquiry into the evidence for the Iraq war was the Butler report, which found the evidence to be unreliable at best. While the Butler report does mention that Britain had its information from other sources, it did not rule on the veracity of the Niger documents themselves.

The Hutton report is not a great source, whereas the IAEA is a reliable source. According to the IAEA testamony I linked you to…

Joe Wilson was telling the truth about the Niger documents. Further, according to the Whitehouse in later testimony – note the Time article – the Whitehouse knew that it was dubious.

Bush lied America into a war.

btw, “fixed” as used by Rycroft in both the Downing memo and the memo I referenced means “set”. Rycroft summarized in the memo that someone in the meeting felt that evidence was selected to “set” around or to fit the policy, rather than the policy was being set around the evidence. Doesn’t change the fact that Clinton, Blair and Bush felt the only way to solve the Iraq problem was with regime change. See Clinton’s National Security Strategy I quoted above.

The Hutton Inquiry states:

“We state in this Report that the SIS had two independent sources for the Iraqi intention to purchase uranium from Niger. The SIS is still awaiting the clarification of the documentary evidence from one of the sources; the other source’s reliability has been examined and is considered to be sound. The SIS continues to believe that the Iraqis were attempting to negotiate the purchase of uranium from Niger. We have questioned them about the basis of their judgement and conclude that it is reasonable.”

First of all the term “fixed” in that context was extremely clear. It was the American meaning, not the English one (Otherwise, why the “but”?

To anwer your question:

Yes to all, but that isn’t where the lies came in.

The lies comes in, with Bush falsifying evidence to strengthen his case for invading Iraq. Of course, such a concept might just be beyond you.

You can think you are right, and make up evidence to “prove” you are right and still be a bloody liar.

Yes or no, did Clinton (and Blair) believe Iraq was in compliance with cease fire agreements and UN resolutions, specifically Res 1441?

At then end of hiis term, did Clinton believe Iraq had WMD and would distribute to rogue nations or terrorists?

Yes or no, did Bush (and Blair) believe Iraq was in compliance with cease fire agreements and UN resolutions, specifically Res 1441?

Did Bush believe Iraq had WMD and would distribute to rogue nations or terrorists?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464405,00.html

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_uavs.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.htmlrv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030608/ai_n12583062

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

And

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

Easy enough. I trust you know about what Joe Wilson said, so lets just cut to the corroboration

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

And I hope this comes out:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Note that I have linked you to transcripts.

You are the one shifting the argument, because I destroyed yours completely.

It wasn’t found to be in suffecient contravention to merit military intervention. Oh, and the whole weapons inspectors drama? What Saddam wanted, was simply to not have the countries ethusing over invading Iraq, included in the weapons inspectors.

That’s what got me at the time, Saddam’s request was ultimately reasonable.

Oh, and Clinton was wrong. He had imperfect intellegence, which he took to Congress and the Senate. They ruled that it was not enough to go to war on, they wanted further evidence.

Bush later went forward with faked intellegence, reports edited to read as saying the exact opposite the non-redacted versions said, and some outright doozies. Read the Downing Street Memo.

Basically, Clinton took an honest case to the American people. Bush sexed his up, which means Clinton was wrong, but Bush lied.