Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Howlin; JohnHuang2; Sabertooth; Miss Marple; terilyn; lainde; KeyWest; MeeknMing; ...
Ping for the FredHeads.
2 posted on 07/18/2003 9:38:39 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Pokey78
Thanks! :-)
3 posted on 07/18/2003 9:40:02 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78; xm177e2; mercy; Wait4Truth; hole_n_one; GretchenEE; Clinton's a rapist; buffyt; ...

Fred Barnes MEGA PING!!


4 posted on 07/18/2003 9:40:53 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the ping!
18 posted on 07/18/2003 10:38:46 PM PDT by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Thanks, Pokey. I think the WH made a boo-boo on this one, and Fred is right.

A rare thing, as far as I can recall. Of course the 'RATS and media jumped all over it.

Kind of late now to go back and fix. Move forward.

Within days of conceding an error was made, most of Bush's senior staff concluded they had made a mistake. No, it wasn't in mentioning Saddam's quest for uranium in the State of the Union in the first place. It was in making an admission of error about intelligence information. "We have nothing to apologize for," an official said. The concession was like blood in the water, attracting sharks, another official agreed. What the White House might have said on July 7 but didn't was something like this: "We have full confidence that British intelligence is correct in citing Iraq's effort to buy uranium. The British finding is supported by further intelligence of our own." No apology or backpedaling required. This might not have satisfied Democrats and the press, but it wouldn't have raised more questions than it answered, as the we-made-a-mistake tack did. It would probably have brought the issue to a quicker end.


32 posted on 07/19/2003 8:12:41 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Coming Soon !: Freeper site on Comcast. Found the URL. Gotta fix it now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78; JohnHuang2
But the State of the Union never mentioned any supposed actual sale of uranium. No such sale was cited in any draft of the speech. None was referred to, even fleetingly, in Rice's article. So what was twisted? Wilson looked into the Niger case, but he had no grounds for accusing Bush of "selective use of intelligence." He hadn't examined the other evidence of Saddam's attempts to buy uranium in Africa. He didn't know the nature of the British intelligence Bush mentioned, if only because the Brits still haven't revealed it to the CIA, the White House, or anyone else. Wilson, by the way, is a fervent opponent of Bush and the war in Iraq. He's now advising congressional Democrats.

The Democrats will always look for an opportunity to undermine GW and his administration. It's up to the White House not to give in, and I think they're doing a fairly good job under the circumstances.

34 posted on 07/19/2003 12:08:40 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson