[Mike4Freedom]

Defending the president by pointing out that he said- "The British government said..." is kind of like Clinton wondering what "IS" is.
And yes, the claim was that Saddam attempted to buy uranium, but that wasn't true either.
And note also that the forgery was public BEFORE the first bomb flew, despite Rumsfeld's claim that he just found out in recent days about it. How did I know of it months earlier than the Secretary of Defense?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So what are they saying over at DU?

[SJackson]

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

You work for French Intelligence?

[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)

[reformed_democrat]

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

Magic Eight Ball?

[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.

[Redleg Duke]

Oh, BULL SHIT!