Revising the story again

bear in mind that if the british government had further information on hussein's nucleur weapons programs then i believe they are required to pass that onto the iaea. they passed the niger stuff on and the iaea [like everyone else] declared it a forgery.
the iaea has said nothing further has been passed on to them.

this is the same british government that is increasingly likely to get a bloodied nose in the judicial inquiry into dr david kelly's death. if the bbc's tapes of kelly are genuine and accurate with regard the story then there will be several members of the cabinet and communications staff whose positions will become untenable.

don't forget that a couple of weeks ago tenet was blamed. now its the speechwriter. next week it will be somebody else. then we all get bored with them changing their story and fed up with it hogging the news.
 
ris said:
bear in mind that if the british government had further information on hussein's nucleur weapons programs then i believe they are required to pass that onto the iaea.
Click to expand...

That probably doesn't apply to National Security issues. Depending on the source, it could be classified. (rumor has it that it's France, seriously)


as far as the lies go, why is Dubya called a liar when he references British Intel that saddam MAY have tried to get uranium when Slick Willie diretly implied that Iraq had restarted it's nuclear program? (this argument isn't to get Bush off the hook only to reinforce the very concept that it's not a new complaint)
 
Gonz said:
as far as the lies go, why is Dubya called a liar when he references British Intel that saddam MAY have tried to get uranium
Click to expand...
Quit making excuses for him Gonz and look at the reality....or at least look at the links above for a start. He knew the Intel was bogus and referenced it anyway. Blaming it on England isn't going to work and it's weak.

The country pretty much split on the war (remember?) and Bush & Co obviously mislead the public to get a little higher % of them behind them.

The situation was different in many ways when Clinton ordered strikes, but it's very possible that he was wrong as well. I do remember a lot of debate on the issue back then, but the scope really doesn't compare to the situation we are in now.
 
as far as the lies go, why is Dubya called a liar when he references British Intel that saddam MAY have tried to get uranium when Slick Willie diretly implied that Iraq had restarted it's nuclear program?
Click to expand...
1. Slick Willie was and is a liar. Feel better?
2. Bush and his administration embarked on a campaign of lies, propaganda and deceit to make the "threat" seem more imminent and garner support for the war. We were all here, we all saw it. Whether or not you approve of the war or ther real reasons for it (whatever those are) I fail to see how anyone can deny that this is what happened. A lot of people accepted it at face value at the time, but I think it's time to wake up.

BTW, on another note, how many more soldiers have to die before we have more casualties since the "hostilities ended" that we did during the actual war? Anyone seen figures?
 
flavio said:
Quit making excuses for him Gonz and look at the reality....or at least look at the links above for a start. He knew the Intel was bogus and referenced it anyway. Blaming it on England isn't going to work and it's weak.

The country pretty much split on the war (remember?) and Bush & Co obviously mislead the public to get a little higher % of them behind them.

The situation was different in many ways when Clinton ordered strikes, but it's very possible that he was wrong as well. I do remember a lot of debate on the issue back then, but the scope really doesn't compare to the situation we are in now.
Click to expand...


ill say yes he was wrong since again its more death due to any kind of military action. id like to know more about it to see if its more justified but ill still say yes i dont like the idea of killing others by any means
 
You know, in all those links, I still haven't found any other references to the specific claim of attempting to purchase uranium from Africa (specifically, Niger) other than in the State of the Union address.
 
Inkara1 said:
You know, in all those links, I still haven't found any other references to the specific claim of attempting to purchase uranium from Africa (specifically, Niger) other than in the State of the Union address.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about other references to that claim, but since you asked about other lines from the STU in question I was able to recall one link on that subject. I also remember another article on msnbc dedicated to one other claim in the STU, I might still run across that again.

Regardless, what's the interest in additional claims about uraniun from Africa about? Did you find enough material in the links to see the dishonesty of the administration?
 
It was squiggy that said the uranium from Africa thing had been repeated many times.

My stance on the issue is that it's thorougly possible that Bush lied... but the jury's still out. If I got on the bandwagon and said, "yeah, he's a damn liar, there are no WMD's anywhere in Iraq, and I'll start using emotional appeals such as, "he's lying and killing thousands of people," instead of facts," then I'd feel awfully dumb if a bunch of WMDs were found immediately after.
 
According to "sources" (you know, the unknown kind) & innuendo, the US Army is presently cataloging & testing several large cahes of weapons. My bet is we'll hear about them long about 07/26/04.
 
My stance on the issue is that it's thorougly possible that Bush lied... but the jury's still out. If I got on the bandwagon and said, "yeah, he's a damn liar, there are no WMD's anywhere in Iraq, and I'll start using emotional appeals such as, "he's lying and killing thousands of people," instead of facts," then I'd feel awfully dumb if a bunch of WMDs were found immediately after.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, Inky. The difference is that I expect him to be a liar, so it's easy for me to believe. :shrug:
 
Gonz said:
According to "sources" (you know, the unknown kind) & innuendo, the US Army is presently cataloging & testing several large cahes of weapons. My bet is we'll hear about them long about 07/26/04.
Click to expand...


It took your pain in the ass adminishitstirrer to scoop the press. :D

Inside the Ring
By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Pentagon adopted a new strategy in its search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It is called the "big impact" plan.
The plan calls for gathering and holding on to all the information now being collected about the weapons. Rather than releasing its findings piecemeal, defense officials will release a comprehensive report on the arms, perhaps six months from now.
The goal of the strategy will be to quiet critics of the Bush administration who said claims of Iraq's hidden weapons stockpiles were exaggerated in order to go to war.
Click to expand...

Washington Times
 
it may also be in part that what is being found will not stand great scrutiny or be sufficient in itself, and that as a complete package the administration is hoping it looks more credible. if there was something substantial found i have difficulty imagining it being witheld [especially given the recent bad press], so the logical conclusion must be a small number of less substantial finds that would intend to appear greater than their sum.
 
special advisor to the cia, david kay, has hinted that 'suprises' on iraq's wmd lie ahead. bbc.

surprises like what exactly? saddam had an army of toy bunnies in a concrete bunker? he was a massive seinfeld fan? iraq was planning to export awful trash-pop to make our ears bleed [too late for that, we got sclub]. :D
 
Sounds like the same shit they were peddling before the war. "Well, there are weapons of mass destruction, but we can't really tell you anything or we'll compromise our situation." Bullshit, it's time to put up or shut up. Are they so stupid that they do't see that this shit just makes them look more like liars?

Never mind, I already know the answer to that question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top