Scandal!--Bush’s enemies aren't telling the truth about what he said. (Uraniumgate)

nationalreview ^ | 7-15-03 | Clifford May

[PJ-Comix]

So what are they saying over at DU?

They are pretending that it is the greatest scandal in history. However, the average person is paying NO intention to this fake scandal. It has no legs and will go nowhere. The net effect is that the Demmycrats will look like a bunch of whining crybabies desperately grasping at verbal straws.

[Ann Archy]

Isn't "French Intelligence" an oxymoron?

[SJackson]

Yes, but I wasn't sure how to spell it :>)

[FairOpinion]

"They are pretending that it is the greatest scandal in history. "

---

Just remember they did that with the Baghdad Museum looting that never was too. Remember the headlines for weeks: "170,000 priceless objects looted, a loss to our entire civilization, and it's all the fault of the US troops and Bush, of course, for not preventing it" as a substitute for real headlines: "US liberates Iraq".

Then, no apology, when the entire story turned out to be bogus, because all the priceless objects have been locked away in vaults by the museum staff months before the war started, and were never looted in the first place.

[DoughtyOne]

Sorry. The brackets led me to believe you added that part in. Thanks for clearing that up.

[FairOpinion]

Suggest you read:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946730/posts?page=30

what Bush actually said and the CONTEXT.

And here are the points I made there:

Two major points here:

1. Bush attackers say and imply that Bush said that Iraq bought uranium from Niger(i.e. transaction took place), when in fact, Bush said Saddam SOUGHT uranium from Africa:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Their "refutation" of Bush's claim, consists of the diplomat asking Nigerian officials if they SOLD Saddam uranium recently. If they did sell him uranium, they wouldn't be stupid enough to admit it, so even if they said no, this is hardly a credible refutation. And even more importantly, Bush's statement that Iraq SOUGHT to buy uranium has NOT been refuted. (UK still stands by their statement), so Bush's statement in the SOTU is FACTUALLY and CONCEPTUALLY WAS CORRECT AT THE TIME HE MADE IT AND IS STILL CORRECT TODAY.

2. The Democrats are hoping everyone has forgotten Bush's SOTU address and nobody will look it up, because they are claiming that we went to war with Iraq based on the one single statement Bush made about Iraq having sought uranium in Africa.

Everyone should read the part of the SOTU I excerpted above, where Bush makes the case for going after Saddam eloquently, where if we take out that one sentence, it wouldn't diminish the case one bit. Also note he cites a LIST of several good reasons for going after Saddam, where the WMD is just one part. (Dems are lying again, when they insist that if we don't find WMD, there was no case against Iraq)

[FairOpinion]

Suggest you read:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946730/posts?page=30

what Bush actually said and the CONTEXT.

And here are the points I made there:

Two major points here:

1. Bush attackers say and imply that Bush said that Iraq bought uranium from Niger(i.e. transaction took place), when in fact, Bush said Saddam SOUGHT uranium from Africa:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Their "refutation" of Bush's claim, consists of the diplomat asking Nigerian officials if they SOLD Saddam uranium recently. If they did sell him uranium, they wouldn't be stupid enough to admit it, so even if they said no, this is hardly a credible refutation. And even more importantly, Bush's statement that Iraq SOUGHT to buy uranium has NOT been refuted. (UK still stands by their statement), so Bush's statement in the SOTU is FACTUALLY and CONCEPTUALLY WAS CORRECT AT THE TIME HE MADE IT AND IS STILL CORRECT TODAY.

2. The Democrats are hoping everyone has forgotten Bush's SOTU address and nobody will look it up, because they are claiming that we went to war with Iraq based on the one single statement Bush made about Iraq having sought uranium in Africa.

Everyone should read the part of the SOTU I excerpted above, where Bush makes the case for going after Saddam eloquently, where if we take out that one sentence, it wouldn't diminish the case one bit. Also note he cites a LIST of several good reasons for going after Saddam, where the WMD is just one part. (Dems are lying again, when they insist that if we don't find WMD, there was no case against Iraq)

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thanks for the "ping". Will pass this info on....

[SJackson]

They're using it as the topic for these articles on their home page. I like it, a great term for press bias, if only Republican's could make it clear where the dishonesty lies. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

[FairOpinion]

Sorry for the duplicate -- as sometimes happens, it didn't go and I refexively clicked on "post" again.

[alwaysconservative]

The real scandal is that the CIA saw fit to send this moron partisan hack (Wilson) over to check out VP Cheney's concerns. Can't they do better than this? Is this an example of why our intel is so shoddy? Who is responsible for making the decisions to send tea-drinkers to do an investigation? If this is another Tenet decision, he HAS to go.

[reformed_democrat]

How did I know of it months earlier than the Secretary of Defense?

Magic Eight Ball?

[SJackson]

Who is responsible for making the decisions to send tea-drinkers to do an investigation? If this is another Tenet decision, he HAS to go

Unfortunately, 2 1/2 yeas in, it's GWBs responsibility, he has to fix it.

[alnick]

Defending the president by pointing out that he said- "The British government said..." is kind of like Clinton wondering what "IS" is.

So according to you, it is a scandal if we can take the president's words literally.

[alnick]

The real scandal is that the CIA saw fit to send this moron partisan hack (Wilson) over to check out VP Cheney's concerns.

I agree. Who did that anyway? I think that someone should look into that person's ulterior motives.

[Mike4Freedom]

Magic Eight Ball?

How about I read it in the Washington Post.

[Spunky]

(Dems are lying again, when they insist that if we don't find WMD, there was no case against Iraq)

I was listening to Tom Brokaw NBC News tonight. He had David Kay, former UN inspector on. He is the man who we have sent over now to go over the information we have found.

He showed we have found literally thousands upon thousands of documentation that the Iraqs kept in regards to their WMD. David Kay said they even kept records that would make them (Iraq) look bad.

David Kay says he has all the confidence in the world that he will be able to make the case that Saddam was making WMD. He indicated he will have a report early this fall.

On a side note, Tom Brokaw reported that Tarick Aziz (sp) has said that right up to the end Saddam Hussain didn't think we would invade, because of the world opinion. Also he said Saddam was writing 3 epic novels.

[cc2k]

Scandal!--Bush’s enemies aren't telling the truth about what he said. (Uraniumgate)

Man bites dog.

There's nothing in your headline that is news. Bush's enemies always lie about him.

[rintense]

Can the DNC be sued by the GOP for libel and misrepresentation?

[rintense]

It's-not-Clinton's-fault-gate.