How has the uranium thing hurt Bush's credibility?

[SmallTown]

Well penn, if the british government told bush he would have eternal life if he jumped from the wilson bridge into the potomac, would he do it?

With all of the research that went on during the pre-war days, and for the state of the union speech, the thought that he DIDN'T know it wasn't true scares me more than the notion he lied.

[SmallTown]

nice...

"Administration officials say the remark should not have been included in Bush's speech because it was based on British intelligence that was not confirmed by the United States."


Wow! Look! This is the kind of info we're looking for to gain support for the war!

Mr. President, we haven't confirmed this report, we have no idea how accurate it is. Tenet told us a few months ago this information may be false.

Doesn't matter. I trust the british government. I can use the info to help gain support for my cause, and if it comes up as false, we can just blame the british.

[vraiblonde]

I am such a retard I scare myself. I actually bought into that maybe Bush DID lie during the State of the Union and, in an effort to find out what exactly he DID say, I dug up the text of the speech:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...xt_012803.html

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

That's it. That's all he said. Now. If you can prove that the Brits DIDN'T give him that information, then Bush lied.

Tempest in a teapot and just goes to show how petty and hysterical the Democrats can be when it comes to partisan politics. Ask again why I don't vote for them.

[vraiblonde]

Dems, I would LOVE for you to try and explain to me why it should be an impeachable offense for Bush to say the Brits gave him that information.

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
With all of the research that went on during the pre-war days, and for the state of the union speech, the thought that he DIDN'T know it wasn't true scares me more than the notion he lied.

You are a scary-like person. Did it also scare you that Clinton sold our missile technology to the Chinese? How about the Utah land grab? That scare you? How about him possessing the FBI files of over 900 former Republican officials? How about all the drug dealers he pardoned, which included his own brother? That scare you any?

Or are you just scared that Bush might not have known whether Nigeria sold Hussein uranium or not?

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
You are a scary-like person. Did it also scare you that Clinton sold our missile technology to the Chinese? How about the Utah land grab? That scare you? How about him possessing the FBI files of over 900 former Republican officials? How about all the drug dealers he pardoned, which included his own brother? That scare you any?

Or are you just scared that Bush might not have known whether Nigeria sold Hussein uranium or not?

It scares me we would use such info in a high profile speech (war propaganda) without verifying it. Heck, people here throw a fit if I post something that doesn't give firm proof for something, I would excpect the same from the president of the U.S.

Yes, it did scare me what we sell any secrets to any country and let a bunch of people out of jail who should be there. I don't see how this relates to the issue at hand, however.

Some people make it sound like intellegence info is a cut and dry thing. Remember we are getting this info covertly and it is not easy to get at all. Naturally we will miss some stuff and there will be bad info mixed in if for no other reason than to throw the dog a fake bone to chase.

There was and still is some very strong circumstantial evidence that would point to the British intellegence being correct. The most notable of this evidence is the behavior of Iraq itself not cooperating with inspectors, getting caught in lies, and being very difficult for someone that had nothing to hide. There was no doubt in anyones mind that Iraq previously had a Nuclear program, no doubt that they had used WMD before, and no doubt that they were in violation of UN sanctions that they themselves had agreed to. The evidence against Iraq was on par with that against OJ in his trail....I expect that 90% of America thinks that he is guilty.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...that's the thing. Good post.

The League of Exceptional W Haters are essentially upset that Al Capone is accused of killing people with baseball bats in addition to knifings, shootings etc...without blood certain evidence...of the baseball bat thing. If the indictment isn't perfect then it is somehow terribly, liberty threateningly wrong, far more upsetting it seems, than Hussein ever was (or is) to their way of thinking.

Al Queda will attack us again. It may be spectacular. It may be Iraq related. It may be a dirty bomb of some sort. None of that would surprise anyone; it is not only possible, it is probable, same as 9/11 was to begin with if a person was paying ANY attention at all to the last, oh, 500 years of world history. Or read a few books.

Then, just as they get done with outrage how old dumb W OVER sold the danger, he will then be excoriated for underselling the danger.

The point is that at this time in world history it is now clear that it will be harder to attack us, harder to get away it with and a whole hell of a lot more expensive than it used to be.

"Arguments" like this Nigerian he said/she said are absurd to the extreme. If/then logic applies. If this is a, a what, an exaggeration? a conspiratorial lie? concocted from thin air to spruce up an already ironclad case, then the remedy is to impeach Bush, return Hussein to power, apologize, pay to clean up the mess. Of course.

What the hell. We throw cases out of court all the time when a dead body or 500 pounds of coke are found in the trunk if there was something truly heinous going on, like profiling, mispronunciation of Miranda or, God forbid, no warrant. How dare we focus on the real danger.

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
It scares me we would use such info in a high profile speech (war propaganda) without verifying it.

ST, it was ONE line! Did you not read the transcript of the speech? I surfed it down for you and even quoted the ONE line that referenced it.

I don't see how this relates to the issue at hand, however.

How it relates is that if we can survive 8 years of dangerous behavior on the part of our President, don't you think we'll survive Bush quoting ONE LINE of British intelligence in a State of the Union address?

The weirdest things scare you.

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
ST, it was ONE line! Did you not read the transcript of the speech? I surfed it down for you and even quoted the ONE line that referenced it.

How it relates is that if we can survive 8 years of dangerous behavior on the part of our President, don't you think we'll survive Bush quoting ONE LINE of British intelligence in a State of the Union address?

The weirdest things scare you.

Thats where you miss the point. Sure, it is one line, but it is hardly minor. Saying some one has uranium in an effort to build nukes brings a great deal more attention than had he said they were gathering old Ford parts to build a new mustang.

And yes. I have read the transcipt of the speech. I watched it live as well. And I know that upon hearing they bought uranium in an effort to build nukes, my ears perked up.