[lookingin]

I have read only a few different articles about this issue of President Bush including a line in his State of the Union address which they say came from "forged" documents alleging that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Maybe some of you have a take on this, but what I don't understand of our news information is that in every report so far on this issue it seems that they fail to ask the most obvious, and the most important question. Which is: Who the hell is forging documents?! Or rather -- What's wrong with intelligence gathering that forgery could possibly be allowed to even enter the picture? --not to mention speculation of the motives behind doing such a thing!!! Meanwhile the Democrats and Republicans are too busy protecting their party's so-called "integrity" as well as their upcoming election interests instead of opening their eyes and paying attention to what might really be happening with the country. Now the director of the CIA comes forth and "takes responsibility" --they say (see link). thereby excusing the President for using it in his SOTU address. Who gives a crap? That's besides the point -- it's not the main issue, this is only a move by the Republicans to counter the accusations of the Democrats, but neither seem to be aware that some one or some group is inventing information in the intelligence community? What the heck is going on? The issue keeps getting skirted, both parties Rep and Dem seem to be diluting the real story, and to further erase the situation, each news story seems to be moving further away from getting to the real perpetrator(s). And we the citizens are victims to an over-bloated machine of a government where nobody can see clear through their smoke-screen of distraction to their self-serving manipulations.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... index.html

[Efrem Da King]

Okay pres bush made one line in his speech that was from now "quistionable" british intelligence. That it was forged is made up by the leftwing media that would like to say the pres lied to the public when he had no idea it was wrong. Or that it could be wrong.

[KurtFF8]

are you calling cnn "the leftwing media"?

[Efrem Da King]

Yes I am. Why?

You do realise that they are one of the most biased news organizations around don't you?

[CasX]

Biased? Yes.
Left wing? That's a new one. How do you figure that?

[Efrem Da King]

Oh I don't know. Listening to their spin on things. The fact that they knowingly lie about israel is a major clue.

[lookingin]

Okay pres bush made one line in his speech that was from now "quistionable" british intelligence. That it was forged is made up by the leftwing media that would like to say the pres lied to the public when he had no idea it was wrong. Or that it could be wrong.

Well even if what you've said were true then how could the leftwing make such a claim and still cover their own tracks? It should be possible to find out if there is or isn't any forged documents or if there is or isn't any person(s) responsible -- that's something that should be directly traceable. It's just weird why neither party seems to be aware of this? It's as if both parties are playing a sort of game, cooperating with each others tactics so that both would mutually benefit financially and in job status by talking any given issue in circles ie. getting nowhere, just playing, while public and world affairs goes to hell -- but I think that would be a little too obvious to public perception even though it does look that way at a glance sometimes. The fact remains, if documents were forged then this should be traceable to a source -- which realistically -- both honest Reps and Dems (if there are any) should be interested in proving this wrongdoing to the public. And this is what should be investigated instead of the Dems pointing fingers at Bush, or the Reps over-protecting him. Bush also hasn't helped the situation, because he himself should call for an investigation of the forgery, but instead he himself is interested in protecting his re-election. It may well be that he had no knowledge that the information he used in his address was inaccurate, but of course he would've believed it because he was looking to find evidence supporting war with Iraq or ousting Saddam. If so, then might it be possible that the forged intelligence info was made by unlawful intelligence personnel whose intention is to manipulate political affairs and fates behind the scenes from within the intelligence agencies for the purpose of feeding the President more of the information he was looking for to build his case for going to war with Iraq?

Both sides are still largely avoiding the real issue, sure a minority of them on the side of each party come forth to say it needs serious investigation, but who knows if this is just to convince the public that the issue is being handled, or that they're doing their job -- which should be looking for the truth, not exchanging it for the sake of procuring the next election. Why so few of them demand an investigation, but the rest are quiet or dismissive I cannot understand other than to say it is to protect their own self-interest at the cost of forsaking truth. Or is it to protect the country's pride, because they believe that we shouldn't be caught making mistakes in front of other countries. Still I would think a breach of security of such consequence would be more important than any vain pride for one's country.

Remember, if you are human -- regardless of political position, anybody can be guilty of falling for various temptations to promote self or party (which is basically an overly eager group mentality) -- this could be what is subverting the truth in this matter...and who knows what other ones?!

I don't believe the media is largely biased toward left or right, it can appear that way for sure, but realistically -- they aren't biased in any obvious way, but they are biased to the extent that most reporters don't want to lose their jobs by asking the "wrong" questions. "Wrong" because they are the tough questions that nobody dare ask for fear of personal consequence, and because most people live life afraid of what might happen to their own comfort zones if they ask the deeper questions. We're all susceptible, but we must try not to be.

[arcis]

Fooling around:

"You can fool some of the people all the time,
and all the people some of the time,
but you can't fool all the people all the time."

(Abraham Lincoln)

[Freedom]

Actually it was Italy who forged the documents...and there was actual intelligence on this transaction but until the Italians delivered these documents they were not to be disclosed, as they were not sure on the validity of the intelligence.

Anyway, the whole thing is overblown.

[lookingin]

Actually it was Italy who forged the documents...and there was actual intelligence on this transaction but until the Italians delivered these documents they were not to be disclosed, as they were not sure on the validity of the intelligence.

Anyway, the whole thing is overblown.

Italy? I haven't heard that, what news source said that?

I agree that what's making this overblown is the partisan fingerpointing, but more importantly is the fact that the real question seems to be largely pushed aside. So far Bush, National Security Advisor Rice, CIA Director Tenet, and overall statements from the White House have all done an excellent job of protecting Bush, meanwhile they have all ignored and dismissed the real issue -- and now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "that the information is still "technically correct" and "the British today still believe they're accurate". As if that makes everything better. Who cares if a forged document is proven true by some other source? That wouldn't pass for science, and neither should anyone accept that as justice, it still doesn't acknowledge the problem of someone forging a document, it only further ignores and dismisses the fact that something was forged in the first place.

I mean am I not understanding the meaning of the word 'forged' correctly?! It is a serious thing when a document is forged, correct?! Shouldn't this raise concerns about intelligence in a most serious way?

This link finally gets around to what I've been saying towards the end:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.i ... index.html

But it is amazing how forgiving everyone is about this -- US officials seem to want to dismiss it as a simple mistake instead of something illegal and they just want to go back to sleep as if they're hitting the snooze button on their alarm clock.

[Efrem Da King]

Yeah the information was given to britain by france and italy but on the condition that they wouldn't give it to US. So america couldn't investigate could they?