Skip to comments.
He speaks - and oh, the things he says!
White House.gov ^
| 1/31/2003
| White House
Posted on 07/13/2003 6:51:18 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; ajntsa; algorelostgetoverit; andyourpointis; bush; bushbashing; cantfindassindark; dirtyunderwear; dontfeedthetrolls; dummyunderground; iraq; joined14july2003; kittenchow; newbieposting; troll; vikingkitties; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 341-345 next last
To: FascistSlayer
I read every one of your links. They say you are lying.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
To: Prodigal Son
I'm going to bed.
To: FascistSlayer
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.....
246
posted on
07/13/2003 10:12:02 PM PDT
by
M. Peach
(eschew obsfucation)
To: FascistSlayer
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.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
248
posted on
07/13/2003 10:15:00 PM PDT
by
Skywalk
To: cyncooper
What, you think Congress wasn't briefed about this before *we* heard about it?
To: FascistSlayer
No, Mar. of this yr. Rumsfeld & Tim
Russert said so today on Meet the
Press. And I remember it myself.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
To: cyncooper
Correct. The reference was removed because the CIA - Tenet included - felt that the claim would not stand up to scrutiny.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
To: Skywalk
Despite our differing opinions, I respect this comment.
Thank you for not being reactionary.
To: FascistSlayer
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.
255
posted on
07/13/2003 10:20:24 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: FascistSlayer
Oh man! You're going to get kicked out of here!
To: FascistSlayer
So, tell me, what were your prior usernames? The rubber I smell is that of a retread.
257
posted on
07/13/2003 10:22:11 PM PDT
by
rdb3
(Nerve-racking since 0413hrs on XII-XXII-MCMLXXI)
To: txrangerette
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.
To: FascistSlayer
259
posted on
07/13/2003 10:22:37 PM PDT
by
swheats
To: cyncooper
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 341-345 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson