QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Oops, I did it again!

5
SazeracPerson was signed in when posted
07-10-2003
01:44 PM ET (US)
Actually, we should have formulated reasons for not invading Iraq, given that they were not an imminent threat to the United States in March of 2003.
4
ericthecurdog
07-10-2003
12:46 PM ET (US)
Damn that CIA!! We should withdraw from Iraq, formulate a set of new reasons for invading Iraq, and invade correctly this time.
3
GP
07-09-2003
03:51 PM ET (US)
NewsMax never claimed to be "Fair and Balanced", if you want that, go to FoxNews.com. I do find it interesting that you reject one biased source while accepting another. In previous exchanges with you, you have sited workingforchange.com, nytimes.com, and alternet.org. These sources are no more disinterested than NewsMax.

I visit those type of sites as well, as I am interested in the perspectives of others.
2
SazeracPerson was signed in when posted
07-09-2003
02:15 PM ET (US)
Ah, NewsMax ... now there's a fair and balanced news site. (*cough*cough*cough*)

From the referenced article:

"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," Blair insisted, according to the BBC."

Blair denies it -- hardly a "bombshell." He has yet to provide the separate intelligence, and besides, the Niger uranium story had already been debunked months ago by our own CIA operatives in Africa.
1
GP
07-09-2003
01:58 PM ET (US)
Blair Bombshell: Intelligence Confirms Iraq Sought Niger Nuke Fuel

While a firestorm erupted Tuesday over President Bush's supposedly false claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for its nuclear weapons program, Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained that the Iraq-Niger nuke connection had indeed been verified by additional intelligence.

Addressing Parliament Blair insisted that the story was not "a fantasy," as some U.S. sources were claiming, and that reports that British intelligence had based its finding solely on documents that later turned out to be counterfeit were not true.

(From: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/9/130433 )

Print | RSS Views: 1661 (Unique: 808 ) / Subscribers: 1 | What's this?