Reuters: Rice Says She Knew Iraq Tube Claims Questioned

Reuters ^ | 3 October 2004 | Wire

[piasa]

Check out some of the material I put on that other link- it looks to me like there are a lot of interests out there who want the "tube connection" killed to protect their hineys.

[piasa]

Thanks- I haven't caught his ad yet. That explains why the press is putting this out all the sudden- their puppet strings have been pulled!

[Jorge]

Thanks- I haven't caught his ad yet. That explains why the press is putting this out all the sudden- their puppet strings have been pulled!

It's at the end of the Kerry ad saying Bush lost the debate, now he's lying.

They don't specifically mention the tubing but say there now is evidence Bush suppressed intelligence reports to make his case for war. It's clear what they are talking about. Weazels.

[Alamo-Girl]

It looks that way... Thanks for the ping!

[danamco]

Wait a minute Reuters..... I seem to remember a speech given by a guy named Clinton in 1998 that outlined how dangerous Saddam was and how dangerous his 'weapons of mass destruction' would be to the world? And Clinton's Secretary of State, the lovely Madeline Albright, seemed to make that term 'weapons of mass destruction' a household term? Are you suggesting that Clinton and Albright were wrong? Geez, they used the W word two years before GW Bush was elected??????

Way too much liberal spin going on these days.......


Wasn't during the time after the exposure of Monica's "services" in the Oval Office (distraction)???

[sigarms]

The no-fly zones were not sanctioned by the UN. This was something that the UK and the US enforced under our own authority.

[sigarms]

I read today's front-page NYT article about the aluminum tubes issue. From what I can tell, we STILL do not know whether they were meant for uranium enrichment or for rockets. It's possible that Saddam chose these types of tubes for the express purpose of confusing us about the issue. The article also brought up the issue of the attempted purchase of yellowcake from Niger. As far as I know, we STILL do not know the full story on this either.

Reminder: According to multiple UN resolutions, the burden of proof was on Saddam to reveal the extent of his programs. If we were unsure of our intelligence regarding the tubes and the yellowcake, then it still makes sense to assume the worst.

The worst that can be said against the Iraq invasion is that Bush did not reveal the primary justification. The primary reason for invasion is strategic: to send a powerful message to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia by having US troops running around on their borders. The strategic implications of this are extremely powerful.

[Bernard Marx]

The worst that can be said against the Iraq invasion is that Bush did not reveal the primary justification. The primary reason for invasion is strategic: to send a powerful message to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia by having US troops running around on their borders. The strategic implications of this are extremely powerful.

Finally, someone who "gets it." The reason the primary justification can't be mentioned is that it's politically incorrect. Realpolitik is no longer allowed by the double-crossing State Department and the Left because it places American interests above those of the U.N. and the global socialists. Besides, it's very profitable for countries like France, Germany and Russia to skim off vigorish from U.N.-run programs like food for oil. These foreigners know they can always depend on the likes of Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, Soros, Carter, Kerry and their cohort to rev up the anti-American drumbeat anytime some politician acts in America's true intersts.