If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003
But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003
We said what we said because we meant it…..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.htmlPress Gaggle with Ari Fleischer MR. FLEISCHER: Let me explain to you the President's thinking on this. A greater, more important truth is being lost in the flap over whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The greater truth is that nobody, but nobody, denies that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. He was pursuing numerous ways to obtain nuclear weapons. The United States never said that he had nuclear weapons. We have said that he was pursuing them. It should surprise nobody that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire the means to produce from a variety of sources and a variety of ways.
He had previously obtained yellow cake from Africa. In fact, in one of the least known parts of this story, which is now, for the first time, public -- and you find this in Director Tenet's statement last night -- the official that -- lower-level official sent from the CIA to Niger to look into whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought yellow cake from Niger, Wilson, he -- and Director Tenet's statement last night states the same former official, Wilson, also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official, Wilson, meet an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.
This is in Wilson's report back to the CIA. Wilson's own report, the very man who was on television saying Niger denies it, who never said anything about forged documents, reports himself that officials in Niger said that Iraq was seeking to contact officials in Niger about sales.
What did the President say in the State of the Union? He said: according to British reports, Iraq is seeking uranium from Africa. And the intelligence cited two other countries, in addition to Niger.
So, again, the larger truth, was Saddam Hussein a threat, in part because he was seeking nuclear weapons, in addition to what we know and have said about chemical and biological.
Now, if you ask, how is the President approaching this, what's the President's approach, the President sees this as much ado, that it's beside the point of the central threat that Saddam Hussein presented.
---
MR. FLEISCHER: It was corrected in March, when the part about yellow cake from Niger was looked into by the IAEA and that's when they reported it was based on forged documents.
But we still do not know whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. According to the intelligence, there were two other nations that were cited for where Iraq may have been seeking or was seeking uranium.
So what we have said is it should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech. People cannot conclude that the information was necessarily false. After all, why would it surprise anybody that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. The more uranium you have, the fewer centrifuges you need to produce a nuclear weapon. So that, in and of itself, should not surprise anybody.
What is the issue here, in the President's judgment, is whether that information should have risen to his level and his giving the speech. And the administration, I think, to be fair to the administration, we did acknowledge that. We were the ones who were forthright and direct about it.
Q Well, after the IAEA brought up the forged documents. But on February -- if it wasn't substantiable enough to be presented in Mr. Powell's presentation, surely by then the White House realized that it wasn't substantiable enough to be put in the State of the Union. Why no public comment after February 5th? Why wait a month until the IAEA challenged the forged documents?
---
When people hear about the flap over whether or not Iraq did, indeed, seek uranium from Africa, the American people say, we didn't go to war because Iraq may or may not have been seeking uranium from Africa; we went to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat because of chemical and biological weapons and also because he was pursuing nuclear weapons, whether he did or did not seek uranium from Africa. So I think the American people have it in pretty good perspective.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030712-11.htmlHere is the video of him last night on Chris Mathews
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x282829
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
