What Bush really said about Iraq -- excerpt from Bush's SOTU (REMINDER)(w. my major points about it)

White House ^ | January 28, 2003 | President George W. Bush

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you 100% -- they will do anything!

[PhiKapMom]

Senator Warner leveled the RATs but good on Saturday about this whole deal and the person who said VP Cheney had absolutely nothing to do with this Niger deal or putting pressure on the CIA -- already been investigated!

[PhiKapMom]

Those lowlifes along with the DemocRAT D.C. Press Corps make me sick! Whatever happened to ethics in the press?

[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

[PhiKapMom]

I am just glad that I have low blood pressure because I think it is increasing by the day!

I cannot believe what is going on right now no more than I could believe the Florida fiasco. Since the Clintons were behind Florida, we know who is behind this one!

Hillary Clinton is out to run in 2004 IMO and has moved up her timetable from 2008! I would like to know what drove that move up of dates!

[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.

[FairOpinion]

"The inaccuracy in the quote by the dems, media and even Republican proponents of President Bush is infuriating."

---

That's how I feel exactly. That's why I posted it.

[nopardons]

And THANK ,B> YOU </B> for posting it ! Now ... we all need to get this info out there, in the real world.

[FairOpinion]

The Dems are totally twisting Bush's statement, they claim that Bush said that Iraq actually GOT uranium from Niger recently, instead of what he really said, that they "sought" to acquire.

Actually there IS absolute evidence, including the admission of Niger that they DID provide uranium to Iraq some 20 years ago, so it wouldn't be that big a stretch to figure that they may still be doing it today. Niger exports uranium to France also and remember, France was the one who set up the nuke reactor Israel bombed.

[FairOpinion]

Just keep setting everyone straight, when they either lie deliberately, or make mis-statements because they believe what the Dems claim Bush said.

The liberals are still shamelessly keep lying about it.

[nopardons]

You know, of course how to tell when a Dem is lying; don't you ?

His/her lips are moving.

[FairOpinion]

Actually they are even lying when their lips aren't moving. Just look at those shifty eyes and grimaces. ;)

[nopardons]

True, all too true. LOL

[windchime]

"That's why I posted it."


Thanks again BTT!

[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.

[Remole]

You are correct about Pollack. His book clinched it for me.

[VOA]

You are correct about Pollack. His book clinched it for me.

Thanks for the note...and it gives me an excuse to bump the thread and tell lurkers
to check my posting at #28 about Pollacks book/views.