Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Friday, July 09, 2004
WMDs in Iraq
We continue to get glimpses every now and then into what might potentially become the single biggest embarrassment for the Left in this country. I have pointed out various pieces of evidence supporting the existence of WMDs (both past and present) in Iraq (here, here and here) and I would like to call your attention to yet another.
From the Financial Times (via The Washington Dispatch):
Some of latched on to this sentence from the FT article:
Two take-home points:
1) Bush did not lie...as a lie necessitates that the liar knows that he or she is lying. Even if the Niger claim turned out to be false (and it is apparently true), that does not make Bush a liar.
...and most importantly...
2) The naysayers who have ripped into Bush over 'faulty intelligence' and 'outright lies' about WMDs and Saddam's ties to al Qaida (among other things) have been, and continue to be, proven wrong at every turn. The truth will come out in the end. Unfortunately, in the mean time the efforts of the Bush-hater crowd will cause serious damage to our anti-Terror efforts, in the process putting American lives in danger.
Update:
USS Neverdock has a great roundup of evidence in support of WMDs in Iraq (I dare say better even that mine =)).
|
From the Financial Times (via The Washington Dispatch):
People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.So it appears that President Bush's 16 words might have been quite as far off as some on the Left might like you to think. As a matter of fact, they might turn out to be right on.
President George W. Bush referred to the Niger claim in his state of the union address last year. But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary intelligence material the US possessed were documents later shown to be forgeries.
The Bush administration has since distanced itself from all suggestions that Iraq sought to buy uranium. The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the intelligence material it had gathered to underpin its claim.
Some of latched on to this sentence from the FT article:
But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary intelligence material the US possessed were documents later shown to be forgeries.That is not to say that the British had not informed us that they possessed authentic "primary intelligence material." As a matter of fact, that makes a good deal more sense than to assume that President Bush would include what he knew to be false information in his State of the Union address.
Two take-home points:
1) Bush did not lie...as a lie necessitates that the liar knows that he or she is lying. Even if the Niger claim turned out to be false (and it is apparently true), that does not make Bush a liar.
...and most importantly...
2) The naysayers who have ripped into Bush over 'faulty intelligence' and 'outright lies' about WMDs and Saddam's ties to al Qaida (among other things) have been, and continue to be, proven wrong at every turn. The truth will come out in the end. Unfortunately, in the mean time the efforts of the Bush-hater crowd will cause serious damage to our anti-Terror efforts, in the process putting American lives in danger.
Update:
USS Neverdock has a great roundup of evidence in support of WMDs in Iraq (I dare say better even that mine =)).
|
