John Hawkins has a complete recap of the myths, misstatements, and flat out lies that our friends on the left are spreading in order to attack Bush over Iraq. For example- how many lefty websites have crowed that the intelligence Bush cited about Iraqi uranium purchase from Niger were forgeries? Now, ask yourself how many of them have pointed out that the British have alternative sources of intelligence to back up that claim, and they are most assuredly not forgeries- and that the Brits stand by the claim to this day.
Reader Interactions
6Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
Bush Over Iraq
Here is a good resource for reading some of the propaganda of the Left (via Balloon Juice). My favorite part of the post was that the words “Bush over Iraq” could be found together. Think of all the pun-tastic possibilities:…
st
So, Blair, who is on the same hot seat that Bush is, claims to have alternative intelligence, and you declare the existence of this intelligence to therefore be proven fact, and support this by twice linking to the same NewsMax story (accompanied by a blinking sidebar ad for a book that will “Blow the lid off the secret conspiracy” between China and Saddam to pull off the 9/11 attacks)? Notwithstanding that “the Brits” are hardly unified on this question and the provenance of this “other intelligence” was, inter alia, the subject of recent hearings that concluded that while Blair didn’t intentionally dupe anyone, the nuke evidence was probably bogus?
I’m not calling Bush a liar, frankly we just don’t have (and probably won’t have) enough evidence to make that allegation. I agree with you that far. But damn, you can find better sources than this for your moment of righteous indignation, can’t you? Can’t you at least acknowledge that there is something vaguely unsettling about this?
Courtney
ST- Strangely, it’s being ignored by the American media. Hmm.
Here’s an alternate link:
The Independent
Relevant quote from above link:
Mr Blair stood by the claim in the September dossier that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons. He insisted the claim was based on different intelligence to the forged documents which have been dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr Blair said: “This is terribly important, because this has again been elevated into something that really is not warranted by the actual facts. There was an historic link between Niger and Iraq. In the 1980s Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called forged documents. They came from separate intelligence. In so far as our intelligence services are concerned, they stand by that.”
Sounds like Blair’s not backing down.
Barney Gumble
From MSNBC:
“British officials have insisted that the Bush administration has never been provided with the intelligence that was the basis for the charge included in the Blair government’s September intelligence dossier.”
Well this story is falling apart fast.
Courtney
Not that you would intentionally take that statement out of context, Barney, but you should provide links to articles when you quote them, if possible.
David Perron
Now here’s an unfortunate MSNBC headline:
“Democrats unite to bash Bush.”
Here’s another one, as far as Barney is concerned:
“CIA approved Bush remarks on Iraq”
And wonder of wonders, I found the article of which Blarney speaks. Here it is:
http://msnbc.com/news/937342.asp?0dm=C17RN
Note that the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH after the once Blarney cites says this:
“National Security Council guidance distributed within the U.S. government yesterday acknowledged that