1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Lots of bad evidence?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Major, Jul 16, 2003.

  1. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    This is a bit interesting for those who say the Uranium thing was only a minor piece of the puzzle.

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/939538.asp?0cv=CB10

    Bush faced dwindling nuclear data

    Much was undercut, disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq




    July 16 — In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president’s State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

    BUT A review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

    By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa — although now almost entirely disproved — was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration’s case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.

    ...

     

Share This Page