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

[Prodigal Son]

I read every one of your links. They say you are lying.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

First of all you need to get what was said in the SOTU address correct.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Then you need to realize that the British still stand behind that claim because they have other sources besides the one that depended on the false documents.

The earlier statement that the CIA nixed was more specific(about Niger) and was based on George Wilson's 8 day trip there, where he asked the government and the mining companies if they had shipped or sold any uranium oxide to Iraq. Of course, they said no.

[txrangerette]

Repeat: the real liars aren't even a
blip on your radar screen. It's not
LYING you really care about. My post
#228 refutes yours that Bush "lied".
And it proves the real liars and yes,
traitors to this precious land. Deal
with the truth, or go away.

[cyncooper]

Before you spread more of your lies, you best read Tenet's Statement.

You may be used to speaking to fatuous idiots, but this place isn't buying your b.s.

[Prodigal Son]

I'm going to bed.

[M. Peach]

Please allow me to put my two cents in -

We agree that he would hurt us if he could.

I think it is safe to assume that he has billions of dollars to play with.

It is a fact that he has had biological and chemical weapons, because he has used them.

Why is it so hard to believe that he would give them to terrorists as surrogates to attack us? If I were a betting man, I'd bet 4 to one that he would do it.

With these odds, are you willing to wait for another attack on us?

By taking over Iraq, we have sent a message to the Muslim world not to mess with us - plus we now have a base in the heart of the Muslim world which also further puts the potential terrorist Muslim nations on notice. We don't have to bribe Turkey anymore for their permission to land.

This - to me - is reason enough to take over Iraq. How would you like the responsiblity for the lives of 280 million people?

I'm sure if you were cautious - you would also err on the side of caution.....

[cyncooper]

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

Yet another lie from one who comes here saying how he doesn't want to be lied to.

[Skywalk]

Just read one of Fisk's columns. It's filled with hysterical(if somewhat poetic) statements, assumptions, and he even excused people in Afghanistan who attacked him, blaming it on the US bombing campaign, despite the fact that little civilian damage was done and THOSE people who attacked him were in a camp far removed from the bombing long before the campaign began.

Anti-Americanism is his religion, he also seeks every opportunity to absolve suicide bombers and anti-Western(hence anti-liberty,anti-democracy) fanatics.

As for fascism being affiliated with the ultra-right, it would depend on what you call the ultra-right. To ME, ultra-right would be nearly anarcho-libertarian. You know that fascism is the spiritual cousin to the communist/hard socialist movement right? That neo-corporatism is practiced by most European countries, which is actually the foundation of fascism? Yet no one would label France fascist, well a few maybe.

I would agree that there are some on the 'right' that belong to the theocratic or right-variant statist ideology. It is definitely authoritarian but technically I don't know if you call it fascist or not.

[FascistSlayer]

What, you think Congress wasn't briefed about this before *we* heard about it?

[txrangerette]

No, Mar. of this yr. Rumsfeld & Tim
Russert said so today on Meet the
Press. And I remember it myself.

[cyncooper]

Edit: October 2002, not March.

That is also false.

The forgeries were so deemed March 2003.

The fall discussion of removing a reference in the Cincinnati speech was not based on knowledge that documents were forged.

[FascistSlayer]

Correct. The reference was removed because the CIA - Tenet included - felt that the claim would not stand up to scrutiny.

[cyncooper]

What, you think Congress wasn't briefed about this before *we* heard about it?

Congress authorized in the fall. Documents were deemed forgeries in March 2003. You put it together.

[FascistSlayer]

Despite our differing opinions, I respect this comment.

Thank you for not being reactionary.

[weegee]

You are still fishing. This was not the purpose of your original post. You took issue with something to do with 9/11 and Saddam and a January meeting with Tony Blair.

[huck von finn]

Oh man! You're going to get kicked out of here!

[rdb3]

So, tell me, what were your prior usernames? The rubber I smell is that of a retread.

[cyncooper]

No, Mar. of this yr. Rumsfeld & Tim Russert said so today on Meet the Press. And I remember it myself.

Correct. And all of us heard about it when the determination was made. It was hashed over then before combat began.

[swheats]

Why did the House and 77 to 23 of the Senate vote in October 2002, 4 months before the SOTU address, to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq? I'd like an answer on this one.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

Now either the majority of those voting did not check out all the facts available and voted, or at the time they fully understood the consequences of not doing their duty.

[FascistSlayer]

Right. This isn't hard to understand - Congress was briefed on September 24, 2002 by Tenet regarding the uranium claim, which at that point was not yet proven a forgery. We're on the same page there.

The documents used to brief Congress, after which it voted to authorize Bush to use force, were still false. The question is, did the Bush administration know this when Congress was briefed?

I say, yes.

"CIA Director George J. Tenet told White House advisers in October not to include in the speech an allegation that Iraq offered to buy uranium from Niger, the Post said, citing unidentified administration officials. Tenet told them the information came from a single source, the newspaper reported."

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBK73LLyPKMw&refer=us

And of course the British is standing by their claims. To do otherwise is political suicide. If they do indeed have further proof, they need to reveal it. Until then, I don't buy it merely on their word.