Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 07/09/2003 6:28:07 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
Pretoria, South Africa: President Bush answered questions in a joint press conference with South Africa's president. I rolled you the audio in the links below, because after a response insisting we will not overextend our troops, Bush took on a question about his citation of British intelligence that Saddam's regime tried to buy uranium from Niger. Bush cited this in his State of the Union Address. He did not mention it in his speech on the eve of the war, nor did he make it a centerpiece of his case. It was a single brushstroke painting the picture of a tyrant.
Before going any further, read "Britain Says Stands by Iraq-Niger Nuclear Link" from, of all places, the extreme liberals at Reuters. Quote: "Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said Britain had 'different knowledge' from the United States to back up its charge, set out in Blair's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. 'We included it in the dossier on our own analysis and assessment,' Blair's spokesman told reporters." Blair said the UK believed the intel on Saddam's ''intent to obtain uranium from Africa...is valid and accurate."
Reuters writes that this "followed an admission by the White House National Security Council that President George W. Bush's claim Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was based on forged documents." This makes it sound as if the administration admitted forging the documents. That's either lazy writing or massive bias. When faced with a question on this, Bush didn't do what Clinton would've done. Bush said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace," despite "a lot of attempts to rewrite history." The fact of the matter is the administration made a mistake in passing on this one piece of evidence, and they admitted it.
Now, when is the last time something like that has happened? Can you recall at any time in the eight years of Bill Clinton where a mistake that was made was admitted? Clinton would've told this reporter, "I said Iraq tried to buy uranium for nuclear facilities, not nuclear weapons. That makes all the difference." The press would've applauded how well he spun them, and Republicans would've gone into a shell. All these Democrats are glomming onto this single mention of one piece of intelligence, which was forged and reported by non-Americans.
Senate Democrats - most of whom are running for president - saw this intelligence too and made these same statements about Saddam. Now they're trying to make the laughable claim that the war wasn't necessary based on this! Meanwhile, the latest Pew poll finds Bush with a 60% approval rating. I also rolled you audio of Reverend Al Sharpton screaming about this nuke intelligence as if the White House admitted to forging it. Again: they did no such thing and made no such admission. This is all about replaying Richard Nixon's fall for the Democrats. They hated Nixon because he exposed a communist - Alger Hiss. Even after the Russians admitted Hiss worked for them, liberals continued to deny he was a communist. They're totally focused on Watergating anyone who gets in their way. It's sickening - but it won't work.
Read the Article...
(Reuters: Britain says stands by Iraq-Niger nuclear link) Britain Stands By Iraq-Niger Muclear
Nobody by that name.
I had no idea that this was the case prior to my asking about him.......
Needless to say, I'm deeply saddened.
Herewith: The thirteenth rule: Pick the target,freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. What has happened here, is that the left has been able to make WMD the issue. Having made that the issue, the right has fallen into the trap of waiting and hoping that the issue will be resolved.
William Jefferson Blyth Clinton did not have to explain away the lack of 100,000 unmarked graves in Kosovo. Why? because the leftist press did not give a damn whether Nato lied or not. The issue should be this. Is Saddam well rid of? Did he kill tens of thousands?.
The left still controls the debate and they are as corrupt as all get out.
So let's see this evidence? Or is that a seecreet? Hardly a strong assurance. And I hope we don't compare all Presidential actions in the future to the lowest common denominator- the Clinton Presidency.
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.