The battle raging between the Editors of The New York Times and the Bush White House has just exploded into a no-holds-barred brawl.
In Thursday’s lead editorial about the 9/11 commission’s conclusion that Iraq was in no way connected to the 9/11 attacks, the Times concluded that
there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.
In response, Cheney called the Times’ coverage of the commission report “outrageous,” and Bush said flatly, “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda” is “because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” Both then went on to make the argument that they had never said this “relationship” was meant to imply a collaboration on the 9/11 attacks.
Today, the Times essentially asked the White House to put up or shut up.
Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were “ties” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.
[…]
When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has “been pretty well confirmed.” If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.
Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney’s adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to “tiptoe through the land mines of what’s sayable and not sayable” to the public, but that “his job is to connect the dots.”
The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there’s more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.
Clinging to what’s “technically true” is becoming an art form in DC (and BushCo hardly invented it). Fortunately, there’s a balance in the system to the idea that “What people choose to believe you mean is really beyond your control”; once they believe that’s what you meant, they’re less likely to accept the “technically true” explanation absolves you if it comes to light that’s not what you meant.
Somewhat foolishly, Cheney didn’t leave himself much wiggle room to respond to this latest editorial. Having called the first one “outrageous,”; he’s left little more than “libelous” at this point. Personally, I hope he goes there and we get an answer to this back-and-forth once and for all.
Edward_:
The lead sentence of the Times editorial has already been contradicted by Lee Hamilton, vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission:
“The sharp differences that
the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are
not that apparent to me,” Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day
after insisting that his probe uncovered “all kinds” of connections
between Osama bin Laden’s terror network and Iraq.
Putin’s statement of the other day would also appear to be a flat contradiction of the first clause of the Times’s claims: “never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda”.
And, to the best of my knowledge, the Czechs still maintain that the Atta/Iraq intelligence meeting took place cf. here.
The significance of the contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda are certainly a matter open to discussion, the fact of the contacts would not appear to be.
I think the Times has overstepped a little. And, Edward when the Times offices are shut down for OSHA violations (or the equivalent), I’ll consider it a “no-holds-barred brawl”. Up until then it’s just the Times that not pulling its punches.
“Mr. Cheney, tear down that wall of ‘secrets'”
Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports
The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission called on Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday to turn over any intelligence reports that would support the White House’s insistence that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
The commission’s chairman, Thomas H. Kean, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, said they wanted to see any additional information in the administration’s possession after Mr. Cheney, in a television interview on Thursday, was asked whether he knew things about Iraq’s links to terrorists that the commission did not know.
“Probably,” Mr. Cheney replied.
…
One outside adviser to the White House said the administration expected the debate over Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda to be “a regular feature” of the presidential campaign.
“They feel it’s important to their long-term credibility on the issue of the decision to go to war,” the adviser said. “It’s important because it’s part of the overall view that Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you discount the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then you discount the proposition that it’s part of the war on terror. If it’s not part of the war on terror, then what is it — some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?”
NY Times
Epitaph for the Bush Administration:
“If it’s not part of the war on terror, then what is it — some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?”
Just checking to see if I could eliminate the italics after Jim’s post by starting mine with a close italics.
Guess not. Interesting how you can hijack the whole site after your comment by leaving out a couple little keystrokes (if that’s what caused it).
Hmm, wonder if this’ll work
Ahhh, no. Well, have a good Sat. all, I’m off to see Pedro pitch to Barry….maybe.
this usually works.
this usually works.
whatdya do Katherine?
‘I’m off to see Pedro pitch to Barry’
What sex club is that? Do they have a website?
“Doublespeak means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them”
1984
The veep insisted in an interview with CNBC that an alleged meeting in Prague between lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi agent before the Sept. 11 attacks was never disproven.
That’s untrue.
The 9/11 commission says the meeting never took place – and has cell phone records and a bank photo showing Atta in Florida at the time of the alleged rendezvous.
…
Political observers said it’s too early to tell whether the row will hurt Bush’s reelection chances. But GOP pollster Frank Luntz thinks Bush can capitalize on his decision to stick to his guns.
“There are certain truths that are accepted even if they’re not true,” Luntz said. “What they need to do is say that terrorism is terrorism, whether it’s Afghan terror organizations, Iraqi terrorist organizations or Iranian terrorist organizations.”
NY Daily News
Sidestepping the issue of intent for a moment, how can Bush successfully play this “technical truth” card in the election when an overwhelming majority of Americans drew a conclusion that is so radically different from the technical truth? How does Bush avoid effectively telling the electorate that they were idiots to conclude from his statements that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks?
Maybe I’m underestimating the power of spin, but I don’t see how this can reflect well on his regard for the American people, whether the deception was intentional or not.
how can Bush successfully play this “technical truth” card in the election when an overwhelming majority of Americans drew a conclusion that is so radically different from the technical truth?
I think he’s relying on an outcome that makes the means irrelevant to most people. “Yeah, I thought Hussein was connected to Iraq, but it doesn’t matter now…he’s gone, and the threat is gone, so all’s well.”
Of course that leaves out those who lost someone in the conflict, but…
Or maybe some of you guys are out of touch with mainstream America???
Gromit: How does Bush avoid effectively telling the electorate that they were idiots to conclude from his statements that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks?
He’ll lie. So what else is new?
Edward Jay Epstein has an interesting set of questions and answers about Staff Statement #16 here:
“It is the business of the staff to produce evidence for the committee members to appraise, not to make ‘judgment calls’ without presenting any evidentiary basis. The staff omits at least seven facts in ‘Staff statement #16’ that the full Commission deserves to know to render its own judgment.”
Blue,
Was there a point to your quoting in the last comment? The majority of Americans thought Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks. Even the President admits that’s not true.
Who’s out of touch with whom?
Dave, those 7 items would validate Tenet’s conclusion that he didn’t know either way, and if the Commission didn’t see them, then I would agree that they didn’t have all the info they needed to conclude the meeting never happened.
But where are these “facts” from? No cite is given.
Perhaps I’m not phrasing my question carefully enough (ironic, I know, given the subject matter):
If it is Bush’s position that he never implied Iraqi involvement in 9/11, but the vast majority of the public inferred just that from his statements, then if we take his argument at face value, does it not then follow that it must be the fault of the American people that we jumped to the wrong conclusion? How does Bush avoid the problem of pitting his own claim to integrity against the intellect of the very people he needs to persuade, assuming he sticks to his current story? How does he keep this argument from coming down to something like “I told the truth, but you weren’t sophisticated enough to properly interpret it,” which doesn’t seem like an easy sell.
I suppose he could always blame the media.
It is not Bush’s position “that…the vast majority of the public inferred [Iraqi involvement in 9/11] from his statements.” That is the position of Bush’s critics. Bush has expressed no opinion on the sources of this particular public belief.
Edward,
I don’t think these polls mean the American people “know” that Hussein was involved. And then this WaPo poll gets repeated over and over and over.
If someone asked me if it was “likely” that Hussien was involed in 9/11 (even today), I wouldn’t hesitate to say yes. It is highly likely! And it is highly likely given his past record of supporting terrorism and hating the U.S.
I don’t think me saying that means what many in the media/left have spun it to mean. I don’t think it means that the American people don’t get it.
That’s why I think the media/left is out of touch. I personally work in every state in the country. I deal with people considered middle class, but from all different walks of life. I interact with a lot of different type of people each week on a personal level.
From my experience, many on the left/media are just out of touch with mainstream America.
I put your quote in there because I think you misread the average American.
I can’t prove that you have, it is just an opinion based on meeting with alot of Americans each week.
It’s much like how the media/left has taken the 9/11 commission’s report and read it in a way to make it say what they want when it really doesn’t.
Much like how Bush gave many reasons for the Iraq war, but then everyone only focuses on WMD.
I think Americans see through that kind of spin.
I think the average American remembers Clinton and all of his talk about Iraq and Hussein and know that this media attention now is mostly crap.
I may not live in mainstream America, Blue, but I come from it and talk with those from where I come all the time.
I think you’re hoping against hope a bit too much here, but fortunately both our opinions will be tested soon enough.
Vinteuil: It is not Bush’s position “that…the vast majority of the public inferred [Iraqi involvement in 9/11] from his statements.”
Nor did I say that was Bush’s position. The ellipsis in the above quote hides a conjunction separating two clauses. However, you have just illustrated what a blunt instrument language can be. The Bush administration tailored their statements to achieve the maximum implied linkage between 9/11 and Iraq while never explicitly linking them. They seem to think the technical truth gets them off the hook, as if their worst sin was not speaking precisely enough on each individual occasion, but the pattern is pretty damning.
If someone asked me if it was “likely” that Hussien was involed in 9/11 (even today), I wouldn’t hesitate to say yes. It is highly likely!
Could you please provide support for that belief?
Anarch,
That’s really the point. The question doesn’t get at the facts or whether I grasp the situation.
I “think” it is likely because Hussein plotted to kill the first President Bush. I “think” it is likely because we have waged a low level war with Iraq for over a decade. I “think” it is likely because Hussein sends money to Palestinian terrorists. I “think” it is likely because we know Al Queda members were in and out of Iraq during the 90’s. I “think” it is likely because we know that Hussein murdered his own people. I “think” it is likely because Clinton bombed Iraq due to the threat. The list goes on and on.
Just like I “think” it is likely that the guy always hanging out on the corner down the road from me is a drug dealer becasue I know there are drugs in this part of town. I haven’t seen the drugs personally, but it is likely.
geez, blue, I wonder what you think of the House of Saud, then? And Musharraf? If Iraq is a “hotbed” of terrorist support, perhaps you need to look around the Middle East a little more.
Mithrandir:
First, Blue never uses the term hotbed in his/her posts. Why are you using quotation marks?
Second, Merriam-Webster defines hotbed as “an environment that favors rapid growth or development”. It seems to me that it is self-evident that Iraq was, in fact, a hotbed of terrorist support. Please note that by the definition of hotbed there need be no actual terrorist support in Iraq for it to be a hotbed. And this is a strawman argument, anyway.
Finally, the mention of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan your criticism of Blue’s point is irrelevant. The notion that we must attack all terrorist supporters simultaneously or even in proportion to their degree of support for terroism is fatuous.
BTW I’m no supporter of the war in Iraq. I’m just a fan of sound argumentation.
Mit,
I don’t remember the thread being about Pakistan and the House of Saud.
Maybe you can show me where we were talking about that???
Last time I “looked” around the middle East I didn’t see Pakistan there. Maybe, things have changed geographically since then.
But, since you brought it up there is a definite difference between the govt’s in those countries and the former one in Iraq.
I don’t think you really want to know what I think.
So one way to evaluate your hypothesis, Blue (which as I understand it is that the idea that Saddam was connected with 9/11 is a natural one that didn’t depend on or benefit from any hints from the administration to that effect) is to see if any polls were done that asked about likely sponsors of the attack before the Bush admin started the push for the Iraq invasion. I’m at work and not at liberty to surf to my heart’s content — can you or anyone else dig up such numbers?
kenB:
I don’t have any polling stats close at hand but it’s worth mentioning that there were other non-Administration sources that suggested that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. I was just looking at a story published shortly after 9/11 in which Israeli intelligence made this suggestion. I’ll see if I can dig up the citation.
I did find this in support of that thesis, from an ABC/WaPo poll on Sept 13, 2001:
How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday’s terrorist attacks? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?”
Osama Hussein
% %
Very likely 78 34
Somewhat likely 14 44
Not very likely 1 9
Not at all likely – 3
Not sure 7 10
So at the very least, there was fertile soil for anyone who wanted to push the connection.
The next question is, at what point did Bush become pretty sure that Saddam was not involved in the attack, and how hard did he and the administration try to make sure Americans knew the truth?
kenB,
To be upfront I am not trying to claim a provable fact. Interestingly enough Polling Report jumps from 1998 to 2002. I can’t really explain the hole there. Also, this is a meandering post to say the least. Read at your own risk.
I also think the problem is you can’t take the questions in these polls one by one and reach a conclusion which is what I think the media often does. I think you have to look at all the questions to get something meaningful and even then it may still be sketchy. (Again read the first sentence.) You and I can read the results from the same poll and reach different conclusions about what the results mean. Sort of like the 9/11 report just released.
However, more people finding a connection between 9/11 and Iraq doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with what the Bush administration has done or not done. I could easily blame it on the media.
I would argue that the U.S. public could have easily built up the perception after seeing Saddam, a known enemy gloat over his painting of the planes going into the WTC on CNN. His praising of the bombers on CNN. Him proudly giving money to Palestinian terrorists. That could have easily impacted the American thought process just as much if not more. As a matter of fact, I would bet good money that more people saw those clips played over and over than actually watched the State of the Union.
…………………………………….
The Gallup Poll. Aug. 5-8, 2002.
“As far as you know, what are the reasons why the United States may take new military action against Iraq?”
Fear of chemical/biological warfare/weapons 30
Fear of terrorism 30
To promote peace/Iraq a threat to U.S. 13
Saddam Hussein is evil 10
To get rid of Saddam Hussein 6
Iraq will not let inspectors in/comply with treaties 6
Oil 4
Iraq had something to do with 9/11 terrorist attacks 4
To finish what was started years ago/what George H. W. Bush failed to do 3
To stabilize situation in the Middle East 2
Current actions are ineffective/have to do it 2
Other 14
No opinion 4
………………………….
Investor’s Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor poll Oct. 7-13, 2002
“In your mind, is there enough of a link between Iraq and TERRORISM to justify a U.S. military campaign to try to topple the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein OR does the U.S. need to offer more evidence?”
Is Enough Of a Link
Need More Evidence
Don’t Know
% % %
10/7-13/02 50 45 5
9/3-8/02 48 45 7
………………
So let’s see Gallup in August 2002 has 4% saying we are invading Iraq as far as they know because Iraq had “something” to do with 9/11.
In September 2002 48% thinks there is enough of a link to terrorism to topple him. I’m not sure what to conclude from that. But, the questions are different.
………………….
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 10-12, 2003
“Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or not?”
Was
Was Not
Don’t Know
% % %
2/03 42 42 16
9/02 51 33 16
This may be better…
Now I am not sure if I am reading this correctly, but it seems to say in Sept 2002 that 42% thought there was. Went down… not sure what that means.
I really feel like am getting the apples confused with the oranges with these different questions.
………………………………..
ABC News Poll. Oct. 2-6, 2002
“What do you think should be a higher priority for the United States right now: [rotate] tracking down and capturing al Qaeda members, OR disarming Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power?”
Iraq and Saddam Hussein 46
Al Qaeda 30
Both (vol.) 13
Neither (vol.) 6
No opinion 6
You could easily say that this proves that the American public was duped by Bush into thinking that Iraq was the bigger threat because of Bush’s “push” to war. But, I would argue that Iraq was a bigger threat because it was a state.
I would say the American public new we were fighting Al Queda and said let’s fix the Iraq problem, too.
Just trying to point out how we can read the results differently.
………………………………
“Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?” Form B (N=519, MoE ± 5)
Yes, Involved
No, NotInvolved
No Opinion
% % %
3/03 51 41 8
8/02 53 34 13
Again went down.
…………………………..
“In your mind, is there enough of a link between Iraq and TERRORISM to justify a U.S. military campaign to try to topple the regime of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein OR does the U.S. need to offer more evidence?”
Is
Enough
Of a Link Need
More
Evidence Don’t
Know
% % %
10/7-13/02 50 45 5
9/3-8/02 48 45 7
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html?ex=1403496000&en=d9a3d1aa68140e2c&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
Seems like Cheney isn’t really that foolish and that the New York Times new more than what they lead us to believe. It seems safe to say that NYT owes everyone an apology for being so deceptive.
Blue, two points for you to consider, one a direct quote from the article you cited:
1. “The Defense Intelligence Agency paid the Iraqi National Congress for documents and other information until recently, when the group and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, fell out of favor in Washington.” And this was one of the documents: a “trove” uncovered by Chalabi’s cronies. Don’t pin your hopes too firmly on it: it might well turn out to be inauthentic.
Even if it were authentic:
2. A report of contacts in 1996 does not justify invasion in 2003.
I did manage to actually read the entire article for myself.
I didn’t ignore that paragraph or selectively pull out anything to make my point… but if that’s what you want to do…
Do we really need to discuss which paragraph is more accurate? It seems like the Times grudgingly admits that based on their own investigation of the document that atleast the gov’t thinks it is authentic.
That plus much much more is actually quite enough for me.
However the thread really wasn’t about the ins and outs of justifying the Iraq war, which I could easily do for myself based on the vast amount information that has been provided about Hussein. It would be a waste of both of our times to go through it.
The original post was about the old grey lady taking her gloves off. The old grey lady is quite deceptive.
Blue,
The old gray lady knew what she knew when she published that editorial.
She still thinks she’s right and the WH is wrong.
It seems like the Times grudgingly admits that based on their own investigation of the document that atleast the gov’t thinks it is authentic.
And, given the Bush administration’s record of (at kindest) being fundamentally wrong about virtually anything to do with Chalabi or the INC or a fabled Hussein/al-Qaeda link, means simply “the government thinks it is authentic” – and the government has been very wrong a lot of times before.
But, given that a document from 1996 about contacts made between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein back then is authentic – still not something I would advise you to wager money on – point 2 is enough to make any claims that this document requires an apology from the NYT to Cheney absurd.
And the bar continuously moves…
Bush lies and the dots don’t connect
Bush lies and the dots don’t connect
True.
U.S. Justice Department lies:
US Justice Department in spring 1998, which stated: “. . . al-Qa’eda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qa’eda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qa’eda would work co-operatively with the Government of Iraq.”
Al Gore lies:
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
No, it was not, because if you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.” -CNN’s “Larry King Live,” December 16, 1998
“Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.” (Al Gore, Remarks To The U.S. Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, February 12, 2002)
William Cohen lies:
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Ted Kennedy lies:
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
Nancy Pelosi lies:
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
John Kerry lies:
“We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous, dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United States Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons program and disarm.” – John Kerry 01/23/03
Putin lies:
The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam’s special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States “and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets.”
George Tenet lies:
CIA director George Tenet: “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qa’eda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qa’eda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have credible reporting that Al Qa’eda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. Iraq has provided training to Al Qa’eda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.”
Well either they are lieing or they were able to connect the dots…
It’s interesting psychologically that so many Bush loyalists deal with their idol’s persistent and obvious lies by coming up with a list of quotes that they claim “prove” that a whole lot of other people were also lying, just as much as Bush was. I am never sure how to respond to this, because it doesn’t seem to me that quoting people who may or may not have been lying, or mistaken, or cited out of context, or lied to, can change the fact that, yes, Bush & Co have lied to the US people, to the US Congress, and to the UN, in order to get the US into an unnecessary war of aggression which has ended in disaster.
Actually, I don’t think any of them were lieing.
Stick head in sand…
Actually, I don’t think any of them were lieing… amd I didn’t at the time.
I was being sarcastic in my post to illustrate how silly your accusasation the Bush lied people died meme.
When it comes to psychological analysis may I politely suggest a mirror.
Blue, the point is: Bush & Co did lie, and people have died and are dying now as a direct result of Bush & Co’s lies. Quoting other people doesn’t change that simple fact.
Ouch…bad timing.
How much proof can really be ignored?
Seems this supports the case that Bush & Co really didn’t lie.
Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295002&p=1012571727102
Oh, yeah?