"Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium"

So pretty much it is your religion against their religion.

So much for separation of church and state....

Why do we need secular laws and a secular Constitution when folks like you can quote the Bible....

Quote from murray t turtle:

===============
hapaboy ;
True & remember the 3 Presidential reasons for liberating Iraq;
1]Defend Israel
2]Military style neutralize terrorists
3]WMD

Like the Church & some hebrew choirs sing and then ;
the LORD fights for Israel, Praise the LORD his mercy [covenant love] endureth forever.
II Chronicles 20,21,-25-29:cool:
More...
 
If Bush was right all along, then why did he blame the Niger thing on bad intel? Why has he subsequently changed his reason for going to Iraq, oh, about 4 times?
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I'm not sure I undestand your objection. Bush said that Saddam was trying to get uranium in Africa. The british intell service agreed. Joe Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, came back and gave the CIA a report, which apparently said the Iraqis had been there but hadn't bought anything.

Fastforward to Wilson's op ed in the NYT, which falsely claimed he had proved the story to be wrong. The Senate Committee said not only did he not prove it wrong, but he basically confirmed it. They also said he lied when he claimed his wife did not recommend him for the job. They even produced a memo where she went on record as recommending him.
More...

sorry, the earlier post was poorly worded - the objection is this: stipulating, for argument's sake, that joe wilson has lied consistently and completely about everything he said, there is no evidence presented for the main argument of the essay.

wilson's being a liar would not prove that "Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium" - his wife being a liar wouldn't either.

neither would iraqi "commercial relations" with niger. that the new york times hates bush with a white-hot passion doesn't prove it. and the bush crew's retraction of the statement certainly does not prove it.

the point is that they have not offered any evidence to prove their assertion. after 3 years and hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal, if they haven't provided it yet, why?

and, again for the sake of argument, even if every factual assertion were accurate and bona fide, they would not establish that there was even a remote threat to the US.
 
Quote from Madison:

sorry, the earlier post was poorly worded - the objection is this: stipulating, for argument's sake, that joe wilson has lied consistently and completely about everything he said, there is no evidence presented for the main argument of the essay.

wilson's being a liar would not prove that "Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium" - his wife being a liar wouldn't either.

neither would iraqi "commercial relations" with niger. that the new york times hates bush with a white-hot passion doesn't prove it. and the bush crew's retraction of the statement certainly does not prove it.

the point is that they have not offered any evidence to prove their assertion. after 3 years and hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal, if they haven't provided it yet, why?

and, again for the sake of argument, even if every factual assertion were accurate and bona fide, they would not establish that there was even a remote threat to the US.
More...

I thought it had been established that an Iraqi commercial delegation had visiting Niger. Niger has nothing to sell but uranium. There were questions about forged documents, etc, but all Bush said was that they had been trying to buy uranium. It seems to me the facts tend to support that. They certainly don't refute it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top