[FairOpinion]

Two major points here:

1. Bush attackers say and imply that Bush said that Iraq bought uranium from Niger(i.e. transaction took place), when in fact, Bush said Saddam SOUGHT uranium from Africa:

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

Their "refutation" of Bush's claim, consists of the diplomat asking Nigerian officials if they SOLD Saddam uranium recently. If they did sell him uranium, they wouldn't be stupid enough to admit it, so even if they said no, this is hardly a credible refutation. And even more importantly, Bush's statement that Iraq SOUGHT to buy uranium has NOT been refuted. (UK still stands by their statement), so Bush's statement in the SOTU is FACTUALLY and CONCEPTUALLY WAS CORRECT AT THE TIME HE MADE IT AND IS STILL CORRECT TODAY.

2. The Democrats are hoping everyone has forgotten Bush's SOTU address and nobody will look it up, because they are claiming that we went to war with Iraq based on the one single statement Bush made about Iraq having sought uranium in Africa.

Everyone should read the part of the SOTU I excerpted above, where Bush makes the case for going after Saddam eloquently, where if we take out that one sentence, it wouldn't diminish the case one bit. Also note he cites a LIST of several good reasons for going after Saddam, where the WMD is just one part. (Dems are lying again, when they insist that if we don't find WMD, there was no case against Iraq)

[Support Free Republic]

CHEAP THRILLS - $1 (the first one's free!)
	If every FR member gave a buck a month, we wouldn't need fundraisers. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[FairOpinion]

Ping

I decided to post Bush's statement as a reminder for everyone (including the part of the SOTU speech dealing with Iraq, showing what a small part the statement about uranium was of the case made as a whole.

[FReepaholic]

The Internet will spell the death of the Democrats.

For ages, they've been able to control public opinion via their lackeys in the media.

Now the public has access to the truth.

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

[Right_in_Virginia]

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

May God bless you, Mr. President. This American citizen thanks Him for giving us your leadership and courage at this most painful and critical point in our history.

[speedy]

Let me add my voice to those thanking you for posting this. It is absolutely astonishing for those of us who try to deal in facts and reality to run up against the liberal world of "perception" and "feelings." This is a clear cut case of liberals simply making something up and being totally indifferent to the truth. While it would seem like an easy argument for us to make, in fact it is not. The world of make believe is not easy to penetrate, and while I would like to think that the vast majority of people can understand the difference, I'm not so sure sometimes. I don't know that the concepts of truth and facts can sway someone who is not interested in them. That's why this is a particularly frustrating issue -- the facts are not in dispute, but their relative value is. Our biggest enemy is stupidity, the most formidable of them all.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this as separate thread!

[Wolfstar]

On June 11, I posted the following thread regarding the President's address to the UN on 9/12/02. Here's the link [click here].

In that speech, the President layed out the case for overthrowing the Hussein regime. He also listed a series of FIVE demands for Hussein. Had Hussein met those demands, no war would have occurred. In the spirit of your excellent thread, which is to remind people of what the President ACTUALLY said, here are those five demands.

PLEASE NOTICE THAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE DEMANDS HAD TO DO WITH WMD. The media — yes, including the so-called conservative media — keeps repeating the LIE that we attacked Iraq solely because of the WMD issue.

[BEGIN EXERPT FROM BUSH 9/12/02 UN SPEECH]

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

We need to keep this front and center.The media is allowing the Democrats to totally distort and misrepresent what was actually said.I have been in self imposed exile today from the media-are the conservative talk show hosts stepping up to the plate? Any members of Congress stepping up? Hopefully, the White House is getting their ducks in a row.President Bush needs to come out swinging and take this away from the angry villagers with the torches, over at the DNC.

[reformed_democrat]

Thanks for posting this.

A concise summary works wonders. The limited attention spans of sheeple tend to drift after 20 words or so . . .

[onyx]

A terrific and useful post! Thanks.

[WFTR]

I know that I don't have to tell you this, but there's another point that needs to be made. Consider the very small chance that President Bush left that statement out of the SOTU speech and as a result Congress somehow prevented us from going to war to depose Saddam Hussein. Then consider that Saddam Hussein might have obtained uranium from Africa and built a nuclear bomb. When that bomb exploded in New York City or Los Angeles, the same idiots who are attacking him now would be screaming "What did he know and when did he know it?" If it became known that he had the information and didn't mention it because it was unconfirmed, they would claim that he had hid vital information from them.

These people are just hypocrites. Real Americans shouldn't listen to anything that they say.

PKM: It's not good for my blood pressure, but thanks for the ping on this one.

WFTR
Bill

[mafree]

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

All this fuss over THIS statement? Some folks have way too much time on their hands.

[windchime]

Thank you for posting this, FairOpinion.

The inaccuracy in the quote by the dems, media and even Republican proponents of President Bush is infuriating.
Your thread has been put in its own folder for quick reference.

[harpo11]

Excellent work!! Thanks for posting. As I recall ever since President Bush's Inauguration Speech he has talked so much about human dignity and human rights. He spoke eloquently about America and her destiny to help those who live under tyrannical and brutal dictators to seek freedom and liberty.

Democrat leaders are a specious group of non-productive obstructionists that would rather mire themselves in foolish games of politics of personal destruction than join the fight against terrorism.

For them to solely focus on sixteen words of Bush's SOTUS containing many words, does not resonate with the American people, but surely will only instead gather the people closer to Bush as he strives valiently to lead the fight for our liberty.

[billbears]

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

That's the only sentence that matters. If there are no WMDs found, then his argument for war is in question. He never states that Iraq will be attacked for the human rights violations, for the poor, the hungry, or anything else. Just one thing. WMDs.

[Remole]

Hey, let me tell you what kind of hard-*ss I am about the war against Saddam: I believe that the US and its coalition partners had enough justification for the war just as soon as Saddam violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. And Saddam violated the cease-fire at the very least by the fall of 1991 when he attacked the Marsh Shi'its and the Kurds. So there. The Dems and other opponents of the war should be grateful that the US was so patient for 11 years.