Quote:
Originally posted by aways
Your "evidence" that he was lying is far weaker that the evidence that was used to justify going into Iraq.
|
Easy to say, but lazy thinking.
1. The Bush administration was notified that the Niger letter was a forgery in October '02, but was used as evidence by Bush in this SOTU speech in '03
2. The 'aluminum tube' evidence was disputed from the start. The tubes were not suitable for any weapon creation or delivery system.
And if you parse out the notion that Saddam was going to use these aluminum tubes to create a centrifuge to enrich uranium (hundreds of tons of which exist, naturally in the soil of Iraq), then Saddam was many steps from a 'weapon.' Then arises the question of what vehicle he might use to deliver that weapon to "American soil." At the time, it was well documented that Saddam had nothing capable of carrying a warhead 700 miles. I'm sure you know the nearest American soil is many times that distance.
So please, instead of an unthinking wave of the hand, could you tell me how these two facts are "weak?"