To: weegee
"In that same statement, it said, This revelation comes on the heels of a recent disclosure that President Bushs public assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium was based in part on forged documents documents about which C.I.A. officials were always suspicious. Bush has yet to retract his public statement, nor does he seem to feel the need to defend his use of faulty information. What nobody seems to be mentioning right now is that we knew that Bushs 16-word statement in the State of the Union address was false before the war even started ... "
uhh.... that right there blows up any feeble ground of reality.
9 posted on
07/30/2003 12:28:43 PM PDT by
Pikamax
To: Pikamax
This revelation comes on the heels of a recent disclosure that President Bushs public assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium was based in part on forged documents documents about which C.I.A. officials were always suspicious.First of all, neither her nor the NY Slimes has any credibility. Secondly, here were the "suspicions" of the CIA, pay careful attention to the second line...
An unsigned CIA memo on Oct. 5 advised that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts in Niger, Hadley said. A second memo, sent on Oct. 6, elaborated on the CIA's doubts, describing "some weakness in the evidence," such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.
Source
Seems the CIA has no credibility either...why wasn't THAT info put into the speech?!?!?!?!?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson