Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
What exactly is untrue about that statement? Just because one of the several pieces of intelligence possibly used prove this has been found to be false, that doesn't mean it isn't right.
"The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence," Blair told the lawmakers.
"We have independent intelligence to that effect," Blair stressed.
"And secondly, it may just be worth pointing out to the house and also to the public, it's not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know (that) in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Let's atleast put it like this, that they went back to Niger again," Blair argued.
To categorically delcare that Bush lied you need proof and none of you have any. Yet, strangly, that doesn't seem to stop you. Could it be because you're more interested in advancing your agenda than seeking the truth?