He speaks - and oh, the things he says!

White House.gov ^ | 1/31/2003 | White House

[FascistSlayer]

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

[PLMerite]

Are the Viking Kittens in any way associated with the Devil Bunnies?

[cwb]

Sorry Fifth...that should have gone to the slayer.

[weegee]

Sorry for the multiple post. The page never updated (that window still shows the preview), My Comments page never showed the post, and even the post 200 posts were slow to load.

[Big Giant Head]

DANGIT~

I hate it when that happens.

[Prodigal Son]

How are these bullsh!t links? Paste your proof from any one of them. That's how they're BS links. You can't! Put it here. Put it here. You have obviously studied these links, paste your proof right here for all to see. You can't. Prove me wrong.

[weegee]

A quick search of threads for Guardian and Barf would show some FReepers' perception of that rag.

[cwb]

I didn't even double click mine and it still posted two. It just said server busy and I exited.

[txrangerette]

Sorry, no lie. He said the Brits intel
found this to be true. They did, they
still do. Bush didn't know about the
forged doc. 'til March, SOTU was in
Jan. Irrelevant, anyway. There were
other sources besides the fake doc.

Wake up. Congress voted for force in
Oct. of '02, months before the one
line in SOTU. They lie if they claim
now that Bush's line misled them into
war.

And they called for force against SH
in '98 based on WMD intel.

They are lying about Bush & about the
past. They are traitors to America.

You are too obvious, not to be taken
at face value. The real liars aren't
even a blip on your radar screen.

[FascistSlayer]

So let me get this straight...

Someone claiming that xyz happened is true should be accepted as fact - if published in, say, NewsMax, or the Washington Times, or whatever - but someone claiming that xyz happened is true is uncredible if it appears in ABC, Guardian, etc?

What's the proof that the former is credible and the latter not? What kind of selective credibility is this, anyway?

If the Independent journalists can lie, isn't it possible that Fox news might lie? I mean, is that at all a consideration?

[ladyinred]

There is nothing wrong with the statement you quoted honey. Is there perhaps, something wrong with you? Like maybe you took a wrong turn at the corner of DU and Hell?

[CONSERVE]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943365/posts
Just one article that dispells that the President lied about Niger.

[cyncooper]

But here's one lie.

The Niger claim. Bush claimed that Iraq tried to buy uranium from an African country, later revealed as Niger, in the State of the Union speech.

This was not true. The CIA let him know before the SotU. He still used this claim in the speech. The documents used to "prove" the claim were forged, according to the IAEA.

That is a lie.

You are the liar.

The documents that are determined to be forgeries were so determined AFTER the SOTU speech.

The British to this day stand by their intelligence and believe it is a fact that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from SEVERAL African countries.

And to this very day the U.S. has reason to believe it, too, as Condi Rice stated on today.

You are twisting facts for our own deceitful purposes.

[FascistSlayer]

March 2002, yes. State of the Union was 2003.

Other sources? And the proof of that allegation is where? On Bush and Blair's say-so?

Yes, Congress did vote that way. They had seen been briefed on the Niger claim before voting - think that could sway their vote at all, thinking that Hussein was trying to get nuclear weapons?

[Skywalk]

Look, it's not that the Independent or Guardian haven't reported honestly or that Fox(don't go around here talking about Newsmax as credible, you assume too much) doesn't make mistakes or even distort.

It's that you can barely take the Guardian seriously with their embrace of the Fisks of the world, and Pilger is another name that comes to mind. They are outright liars, not merely ideologues. The Guardian and BBC are fine when they simply report a story as factually as possible, but even with this there exists a selective reporting.

You didn't address my post about your name, the typical slur leftists use against the right, or how what most rightists believe is "fascism."

[FascistSlayer]

Edit: October 2002, not March.

[Prodigal Son]

So let me get this straight...

Yeah. So let's get this straight. Can you provide anything from this mess of hyperlinks that backs up what you say? I have read all of them and have concluded you are lying. Prove me wrong.

[Skywalk]

In addition you damage your credibility with the title of your thread. Why not "W cannot make claim that Saddam behind 9/11?"

People looking at the thread title will have no idea what it's about, and the attempt at derisive humor will only further convince others that you are a disruptor.

[JakeWyld]

LOL. I happened to click on the AM profile. I see now.

[FascistSlayer]

Sorry, about the name: I do not think most people on the right are fascists. I think that the ultra-right are fascists. You, for example, I would not consider a fascist.

What proof do you have that Fisk, for example, lies? Isn't this what people here claim I'm doing with Bush?

[cyncooper]

If Bush blaming the CIA for leaving in the Niger claim, when the CIA warned him and had it cut months before, isn't evidence of lying, then I don't know what is.

You are relaying false information. The kind you claim you decry in others.

The Cincinnati speech was a specific reference to a specific country/incident based on limited intelligence that didn't rise to the level the CIA felt comfortable with yet and that is why it was struck. Not because it was deemed false. Again, Condoleezza Rice explained that today. It was not struck because any documents were deemed forged.

And by the way, since the president wasn't speaking of uranium procurement from Africa in the fall (thanks to the CIA using extreme caution and a very high bar), and the Congress went ahead and voted in the fall, they can hardly claim they voted based an a claim that they weren't hearing about----can they.