right or wrong

In a "nutshell", the NIE report clears President Bush. It makes it
clear that Saddam's attempt to acquire nuclear materials from Africa
was highly probable at the time he made his speech in January, 2003.

1) Only one letter from a dossier full of data on this matter was
proven forged. So what? There was lots of other sources of
intelligence. One forgery does not prove the rest of the intelligence
in the dossier is false. So there is no deception to begin with.

3) The NIE report indicates that Saddam clearly had a nuclear program,
so whether he got uranium from Africa or wherever, is irrelevant. What
is relevant is what he might do with nuclear weapons in light of his
proven track record for tyranny against everyone. So again there is no
deception.

3) The forgery was not discovered until after President Bush made his
speech. So, there is not attempt to deceive anyone here.

In a "nutshell", Democrats like Sen Graham, Sen Kennedy & Sen Clinton
are the ones deceiving the public, because they know damn well that
the only important issue is whether or not Saddam had a nuclear
program or not, not where he got uranium from. And they know damn well
from the Senate Intelligence Committees reports to the rest of the
Senate, that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, even if only in its
"infancy".

Phuck you, Senators Graham, Kennedy and Clinton! And in terms used by
your fellow Democrat in the House, you are all "fruitcakes".

joe s.

A "program." But we were assured the he had WEAPONS. There's a difference.
A big difference.

Polish it up, wordsmith it, wiggle around all you want, he lied.


Hardly. The SOTU speech was made in January 2003. In October 2002 the same
lines were removed from another speech because the source was determined to
be a forgery. Of course, in Bushthink, October 2002 may come after January
2003 -- but not in the real world.

But we were told Iraq had "WEAPONS," the emphasis was not on a "program,"
but on WEAPONS IN EXISTENCE RIGHT NOW.

--

----
Joe S.