To: JeanS
We can surely expect this story to run above the fold in tomorrow's NY Times. Just as I fully expect to win the lottery tonight.
2 posted on
08/01/2003 12:58:47 PM PDT by
dirtboy
(Who's that big cat I saw roaming around here again? I thought he went extinct...)
To: dirtboy
I'm sure the Houston Chronicle would have run this news if they weren't so busy trashing Tom DeLay everyday.
9 posted on
08/01/2003 1:18:35 PM PDT by
Dog Gone
To: dirtboy
What gets my goat about this whole subject and no one else seems to be picking up on this, is the statement from Stephen Hadley, Bush's #2 guy on National Security...pay close attention to the second sentence...
An unsigned CIA memo on Oct. 5 advised that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts in Niger, Hadley said. A second memo, sent on Oct. 6, elaborated on the CIA's doubts, describing "some weakness in the evidence," such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.Source
The CIA determined that Saddam was not seeking uranium because he already had a large stock? And the Dems are complaining that Bush misled the nation into going to war on the "sought" charge? Why wasn't this info included in the speech instead of the "sought" charge? It is much more damning IMHO.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson