Well that's your opinion and Bush's. Someone else with more information that you may feel differently about it.
I assume that you are talking about Bush's statements wrt Iraq and getting uranium from South Africa? What Bush said was and still is true. It's your pure ignorance and bias that don't allow you to analyze the situation clearly.
Good question. Saddam either has them hidden away or maybe he got rid of them. If he got rid of them he sure wanted everyone to think he had them. A bluff that didn't fall in line with UN mandate.
That may be true. Regardless Saddam was to comply with the UN and he didn't. He played a dangerous game and lost. After 9-11 the US can't sand by half hearted threats to boisterous dictators. You either comply or face "serious consequence" and that does not mean a dottering old man from Europe wandering around in the desert.
I think we do because you don't seem to have a grasp of them. The UN never intended to followthrough but the US did. So why did they vote for it? Who's thumbing the nose at whom?
If they are so stupid why can't you answer them? It's old only news to those to biased and blind to look at things objectively, e.g. the angry left. Tell telling yourself your lies. When Moore's movie comes out pull the blinders on get a popcorn and a soda and enjoy bliss.
What information? " Get your facts straight before you reply ".
Fact is the Former Ambassador to Iraq was sent by request of the Bush Administration to Niger to get back up to that White Paper from England...
His report back to the administration did not back the white paper... if you had read the interview you would see that what the White Paper suggested was virtually impossible.
The Uranium is controlled by a consortium... the members of which would never approve of a sale to Iraq... and a Purchase of Uranium was never attempted... Niger and Iraw didn't even have trade relations.
Also... remember that forged document showing the sale of Uranium from Niger to Iraq... according to the Nigerian government... if it was real it would have had 3 signatures... 3 ministers have to sign the document to approve the sale of any Uranium.
All sales of Uranium from Niger to anywhere are public and not done is some clandestine way.
All of this was in Wilson's report.... MONTHS BEFORE the state of the union...
Just because a white paper existed from england doesn't make it true. The report doesn't hold water.
Iraq couldn't get its hands on Uranium or the technology to refine it.
"It is true, as some critics point out, that the phrase "British intelligence has learned" implies certainty that the claim is true. In this regard, the President's statement was indisputably misleading given the lack of confidence within and outside the US government about the accuracy of the claim. However, since the British intelligence is still secret, we simply can't know whether there is other evidence indicating that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or other African countries."
this covers the whole "lie" debate pretty well...
What is interesting is that the line in the state of the Union was purposely reworded...to say Africa rather than Niger... so if they got called out on the lie... they could say technically it wasn't. Because the Niger intelligence they had pointed in the other direction.
Scott is right to a point... unless the evidence from the UK can be checked... which is unlikely, they'll keep that underwraps for as long as they can.... you can't say it's false... they'll just keep saying it's true. And you can't disprove a false positive with out the intelligence out in the open.
So we just have to "trust" british intelligence. Apparently the CIA's the NSA and military intelligence of the US isn't as good as the Brits. The Bush administration ignored it.
"News reports based on interviews with administration officials and Congressional testimony have indicated that the sourcing of the claim to British intelligence and the broader citation of Africa, rather than Niger, originated with a conversation between Alan Foley, a CIA official, and a National Security Council staffer named Robert G. Joseph reviewing a draft of the speech. Foley reportedly objected to a claim in the draft stating that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger, apparently based largely on the discredited documents. Joseph is then said to have proposed citing published British intelligence claims about alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa, rather than from Niger specifically, and the speech was revised accordingly. (Joseph has denied doing so through third parties.)"
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Well that's your opinion and Bush's. Someone else with more information that you may feel differently about it.
I assume that you are talking about Bush's statements wrt Iraq and getting uranium from South Africa? What Bush said was and still is true. It's your pure ignorance and bias that don't allow you to analyze the situation clearly.
Good question. Saddam either has them hidden away or maybe he got rid of them. If he got rid of them he sure wanted everyone to think he had them. A bluff that didn't fall in line with UN mandate.
That may be true. Regardless Saddam was to comply with the UN and he didn't. He played a dangerous game and lost. After 9-11 the US can't sand by half hearted threats to boisterous dictators. You either comply or face "serious consequence" and that does not mean a dottering old man from Europe wandering around in the desert.
I think we do because you don't seem to have a grasp of them. The UN never intended to followthrough but the US did. So why did they vote for it? Who's thumbing the nose at whom?
If they are so stupid why can't you answer them? It's old only news to those to biased and blind to look at things objectively, e.g. the angry left. Tell telling yourself your lies. When Moore's movie comes out pull the blinders on get a popcorn and a soda and enjoy bliss.
What information? " Get your facts straight before you reply ".
Originally posted by Scott
Well why bother? You all are locked into your preconceived notions and refuse to back up your dogma with facts and reason.
Man this is like what little kids say when they're backed into a corner!
" Well if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you ".
The truth is you have no facts or reason only rhetoric and bluster.
The only facts presented here would lead one to believe Bush lied.
People in court have been convicted on less!
Geez!
His report back to the administration did not back the white paper... if you had read the interview you would see that what the White Paper suggested was virtually impossible.
The Uranium is controlled by a consortium... the members of which would never approve of a sale to Iraq... and a Purchase of Uranium was never attempted... Niger and Iraw didn't even have trade relations.
Also... remember that forged document showing the sale of Uranium from Niger to Iraq... according to the Nigerian government... if it was real it would have had 3 signatures... 3 ministers have to sign the document to approve the sale of any Uranium.
All sales of Uranium from Niger to anywhere are public and not done is some clandestine way.
All of this was in Wilson's report.... MONTHS BEFORE the state of the union...
Just because a white paper existed from england doesn't make it true. The report doesn't hold water.
Iraq couldn't get its hands on Uranium or the technology to refine it.
Originally posted by Scott
Prove me wrong then. It should be easy. Fact is the Brits stand by it. Therefor Bush was and is correct. Fact!
Sorry but really bad try. The current thought is that the Brits ( Tony Blair ) were in on it.
No Scott we want to hear your " facts ".
There is far more evidence in favour of Bush lying.
Prove us wrong ( if you can ).
"It is true, as some critics point out, that the phrase "British intelligence has learned" implies certainty that the claim is true. In this regard, the President's statement was indisputably misleading given the lack of confidence within and outside the US government about the accuracy of the claim. However, since the British intelligence is still secret, we simply can't know whether there is other evidence indicating that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or other African countries."
this covers the whole "lie" debate pretty well...
What is interesting is that the line in the state of the Union was purposely reworded...to say Africa rather than Niger... so if they got called out on the lie... they could say technically it wasn't. Because the Niger intelligence they had pointed in the other direction.
Scott is right to a point... unless the evidence from the UK can be checked... which is unlikely, they'll keep that underwraps for as long as they can.... you can't say it's false... they'll just keep saying it's true. And you can't disprove a false positive with out the intelligence out in the open.
So we just have to "trust" british intelligence. Apparently the CIA's the NSA and military intelligence of the US isn't as good as the Brits. The Bush administration ignored it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
...
What is interesting is that the line in the state of the Union was purposely reworded...to say Africa rather than Niger...
...
How do you know it was reworded?
http://www.computerbytesman.com/911/praguefaq.htm