To: kattracks
So what's the bigger story here? Doesn't anyone still find it incredible that Wilson, a Bush hater, was given the task of vetting one of the most important allegations in Bush's State of the Union Address?
To: CobaltBlue
This actually, it seems to me is key.
Bush's administration has turned the other cheek again and again in the face of Democrat dirty tricks, sometimes verging on treason.
This can go on no more. The press will not try to get to the bottom of how Wilson got the nod here - though there does seem some evidence of a planned smear from the get go.
So, the Bush White house *must* go public with this process, point out the anti-war loonies are willing to misuse even the CIA to futher their ambitions, and show how the Democrat's press work tireless for the Democrats.
If he doesn't the press will make sure that their is always some lingering doubt about this affair clouding Bush's reputation.
To: CobaltBlue
Unless I'm interpreting everything I read wrong, Wilson actually went to Niger in 2002 - BEFORE the President's SOTU Address. Then, when the question of the uranium came up after the SOTU, he leaked his own confidential/secret report to the press.
Everything I've read has 2002 as the year Wilson went to Niger, so unless all the articles have typos in them, he went months before the SOTU Address.
18 posted on
09/30/2003 9:40:10 PM PDT by
jtill
(Those who love the Lord never meet for the last time.)
To: CobaltBlue; Sabertooth
We Balkan posters WARNED (AND WE WERE THE ONLY ONES TO DO SO ON FREEREPUBLIC) Bush to cut ties off from Clintonista Balkan holdovers like Wilson. what was Bush doing keeping them on? The only bad thibg this reflects on the Bush White House is that they were stupid enough to keep these enemies in positions of authority.
19 posted on
09/30/2003 9:40:43 PM PDT by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: CobaltBlue
So what's the bigger story here? Doesn't anyone still find it incredible that Wilson, a Bush hater, was given the task of vetting one of the most important allegations in Bush's State of the Union Address? Was it important? IMO no, true or false.
Anyway, ask yourself, who had the most to gain with continuing the Saddam regime and sanctions - the suppression of Iraq's oil production? Note Wilson didn't deny Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. He carefully said Iraq didn't acquire the uranium.
Apparently Mr. Wilson sits, for one, as a member of an organization funded by Saudi Arabia.
23 posted on
09/30/2003 9:42:29 PM PDT by
Shermy
(Show us the glove box.)
To: CobaltBlue
We still don't know why the guy was given this assignment
60 posted on
09/30/2003 10:00:27 PM PDT by
RobbyS
(nd)
To: CobaltBlue
66 posted on
09/30/2003 10:04:38 PM PDT by
Mia T
(SCUM (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations))
To: CobaltBlue
I heard early yesterday from her husband's own nasty mouth he has donated $2000 to Kerry when he called him on it! It's obvious this dim is another Clinton attack dog!
130 posted on
10/01/2003 1:46:04 AM PDT by
JustPiper
(We deserve no less than closed border's after 911!!!)
To: CobaltBlue
Doesn't anyone still find it incredible that Wilson, a Bush hater, was given the task of vetting one of the most important allegations in Bush's State of the Union Address? you might want to check your talking points.
the current administration line is that the african uranium connection was NOT AT ALL "one of the most important allegations in Bush's State of the Union Address," which is why is was no big deal that it turned out to be bogus - er, i mean unconfirmed.
btw, wilson had served previously as a high ranking diplomat in both iraq and niger - maybe it was not such a strange choice, eh?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson