[E357]

I see now that our Pres. in in Africa for an extended visit we are admitting that Iraq had no Atomic potential. Anyone expecting some hardboiled African reporter to ask those embarrassing questions?

Elliot

[JohnBT]

What questions?

John

[rrader]

The Iraqis probably stashed that African uranium along with the baby incubators they swiped from the Kuwaiti hospitals back in '91.

[Malone LaVeigh]

The best explanation I've seen is Saddam probably lost them to Bill Bennett in a high-stakes poker game in Atlantic City.

[Hkmp5sd]

Actually, the administration admitted that one of the comments used in the State of the Union address was not accurate. It does not mean that there was an across the board acknowledgement that Bush lied. Ever hear of bill clinton admitting to giving out erroneous data? Not a chance.

[igor]

Boy, isn't it silent here?

[TheEgg]

I'm no Bush apologist, but I don't see this as some big deal. Bush based his comment in the State of the Union address on a British intelligence report. The British government now says that that report was inaccurate. So the White House says now that they should not have said that, the comment was not accurate. How is this a major deal? Any President has to rely on the information he is given by his intelligence organs -- he can't do the investigation himself, so bad information will lead to errors like this. It does, however make me wonder even more about the ability of our CIA/FBI etc.

Iraq had no Atomic potential

My understanding is that this was about a possible attempt by Iraq to buy "yellow cake", a slightly enriched form of uranium. The fact that they did not try to buy it does not lead to the conclusion that Iraq had no Atomic potential. In addition, during the run up to the war, Bio and Chem weapons were the primary boogiemen from the Bush crowd, not nukes.

I don't like a lot of what Bush is doing -- and if we find that he lied to us about the rationale for going into Iraq, I will be with you at the head of the tar and feather brigade -- but I want better than this before I start plucking chickens.

[DaveB]

The Bush White House knew in March 2002 that the Nigerian Uranium documents were forgeries.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

He didn't use bad information. He knew what he was saying was not true.

OK. Maybe his speechwriters didn't know, but is no one in charge over there? Doesn't anybody verify the 'facts' that the President of the USA uses in front of the world?

Sorry. I don't believe it. I don't understand why so many of you defend him.

db

[TheEgg]

DaveB -- first I was not trying to 'defend' Bush, simply trying to be fair. Second, be careful about believing what you read from the BBC.

The 'ambassador' quoted in that piece went over there and 'investigated' by wandering around, drinking mint tea with some old buddies, and came back and made an oral report to the effect the it was 'obvious' that the report was untrue. This in the face of continued assurance from the British government that the report was true. As a matter of fact, from the same article you quoted, Blair is still saying that the information is correct, confirmed from sources other than the original apparently forged documents.

I don't know who is right on this, but I am skeptical of articles in the BBC based on the word of out of work ambassadors and un-named CIA sources.

Should his speechwriters have known that there was a dispute about this report and thus not used it? Probably. Did they know? I don't know. I still think this is not a "smoking gun".

See, I did get a gun related comment in.:D

[Hkmp5sd]

Asking Baghdad Bob would result in a more believable answer than anything comming from the BBC.

[iamkris]

People "defend" him because the look at the sum of the man and see a strong leader that, on the whole, takes actions and does what he believes is right. No one is unfailing...yet it is typical of the left to deal in minutiae.

Clinton was a good speaker and could dream and motivate. Outside of that, I found little to like.

[MonkeyMan]

Perhaps someone could explain why Dubya is being hammered for this when slick Willie told the nation in 1992 (I think) that he launched cruise missles against Iraq's "nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities"?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

[DaveB]

1992 <> 2003

db

[einstein]

What minutiae?

$750 billion for what? Iraq did not destroy the World Trade Center. Iraq did not attack the US. Sure, Iraq had an awful dictator, but that does not justify our country being the world's policeman.

We should lead by example.

What about $750 billion for education? the environment? decent health care?

A coincidence that Bush's top people have or will make a lot of money in Iraq?

The tax cut? Who profits from that?

The Patriot Act I and II? Doesn't this country already have an FBI and CIA? Go the GOA website and see what the Patriot Act is about.

I fear Bush's policies will lead the end of the great Constitutional experiment that this country has been conducting for the past 227 years.

Bush has picked a bad guy to demonize and if you don't agree with Bush then you are not a patriot. Is that what the constsitution is about? (There's an appropriate quote from Goerring at the top of JPFO's "Unpopular Speech" page).

And when is the last time anyone heard Bush mention the Constitution?

"What's good for General Motors is good for the country". (I forget the president that said it). That used to be the mantra of this country that when industry is doing well, the people are doing well. Now it's "what's good for (fill in a corporate name) is good for (fill in corporate name).

The only good thing Bush has done for us as gunowners is create an environment in which anti-gun legislation is held at bay.

None of the above is meant to deny that the USA is the best country that ever was in the world.

einstein

[DonQatU]

Of course he was......... but Clinton is GONE!

Don

[DonQatU]

I forget the president that said it.

einstein, that was actually Charlie Wilson, the chairman of General Motors, summing up G.M.’s philosophy before a Senate hearing in 1955.

The exact quote was: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the rest of America.”

The points you made are still valid.

Don

[einstein]

Thanks for the correction.

I was always under the impression it was FDR promulgating big business.

einstein

[DonQatU]

einstein, I check the stuff I agree with ....... twice! or more! Don

BTW.... I screwed up! The "yellow cake" story was first put out in the President's State of the Union speech! NOT Powell's statement before the Security Council! :uhoh:

Don

PS - Accuracy........ and THEN MORE accuracy!!!!!

[Skunkabilly]

PMI but what's MC^2 mean?? :confused:

[DonQatU]

Skunkabilly,....... please explain to us the difference between a fission and a fusion bomb!

How do you enrich "yellow cake" to weapons grade material?

How far along is North Korea's weapon's program?!!! :uhoh:

Just wondering!

Don