Uranium Scandal

[charrison]

Scandal

Some commentary from the other side. The article basically says that intelligence supports that there was more than one attempt to get uranium from african countries by Iraq.

The president's critics are lying. Mr. Bush never claimed that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger. It is not true ? as USA Today reported on page one Friday morning ? that "tainted evidence made it into the President's State of the Union address." For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? The British government did say that it believed Saddam had sought African uranium. Is it possible that the British government was mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that Her Majesty's government came by that belief based on an erroneous American intelligence report about a transaction between Iraq and Niger? Yes ? but British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet say that's not what happened

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

CBS just reported that Britain has said it has additional proof of the uranium claim, but they can't share it with anyone. Wow, deja vu.

 

[Red Dawn]

Do you think that without lying about WMD's and Iraq's Nuclear ambitions that the Bush Administration would have had the support it did to attack Iraq?

 

[Tripleshot]

double post. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr:|

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you think that without lying about WMD's and Iraq's Nuclear ambitions that the Bush Administration would have had the support it did to attack Iraq?

I don't. The issue was about emminent threat to the US. We were/are nervous about the vulnerabilty we see ourseolves in after 9/11 and Bush and company played that to the hilt. By insisting that Saddam had WMD's and the capability to deliver to our shores and that of our allies (Israel), then suuport for pre imptive strike was resanable. That is now been exposed as a lie, but the fact remains he used it, knowing it was a lie. He did it to bolster support. He got that support from people like me. I feel I've been mislead, and am as angry as when Clinton wagged his finger. A lie is lie and demands to be corrected. This adminsitration has not done that. They just found a scapegoat. The will continue to claim they told the truth. I do not believe them,do you?

The fact he used nerve agents on the kerds, although not near us, appals peole like us,but other atocities in history have appaled us and did not lead to an invasion by force. Bush led this country to war based on faulty information. Information an investigation will show he knew to be false. He has failed to get Osama, Saddam and all his sons. We are being attacked every damn day and soldiers are being killed. There is no exit strategy and the costs to this government are skyrocketing, in the midst of the worst economic downturn in recent memory. And now he is ready to commit troops to Africa, and give 15 billion for AIDS there. I would bet ther is an oil contract attached to that package. any takers?

Bush does not get a pass on this. He is accountable.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you think that without lying about WMD's and Iraq's Nuclear ambitions that the Bush Administration would have had the support it did to attack Iraq?

WMD is one thing, nuclear ambitions is another. While the possession of WMD by Iraq appears to be negligable, I'm not at all convinced that is the case with their nuclear ambitions. Not in the least bit. I supported the war without all the nonsense spewed by the administration about imminent threat or possible hidden stockpiles of WMD. That still hasn't changed for me although the pressure being put on Bush and company is justly deserved. IMO, he should have presented his case based solely upon facts and necessity. Either his arguement, based upon facts, has merit or it doesn't. I doubt war would have taken place but one can hope that maybe others would feel there was justifiable cause to end the games with Saddam.

And for all you pinheads that want to take issue with my view on kicking Saddam's ass, I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion if war was justified or not. I feel it was and you're not about to change my opinion on that so don't waste your breath.

 

[JellyBaby]

For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Two words: plausible deniability. That was the perfect way to phrase an assertion you know to be false. On the other hand it could have been an honest mistake. My gut tells me it's the former.

Do you think that without lying about WMD's and Iraq's Nuclear ambitions that the Bush Administration would have had the support it did to attack Iraq?

Hey, Red, good to see you.

Kings and tyrants lie to their people to foster support to go to war. Presidents present the truth, the people then debate (through their representatives) whether or not to go to war. Congress decides and the president accepts the outcome.

 

[Squisher]

Imagine that, a secret service agency not willing to give up all its secret sources to appease its detractors.


All I can say is hip hip hurah.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I wonder what the liberals will choose to attack Bush with after the classified evidence Sen. Warner spoke about regarding WMD's is finally released?