posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:17 AM
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Wow people are that stupid on this website that they cant determine the difference between uranium and nukes? Even when we did not even say enriched
uranium, again I don't think members here re that stupid.
- So where is the talk about enriched or other wise when Tachyone brought the subject up and said "Saddam certainly had nukes and did you read
about the five or so tons of uranium recovered
or how about your own first comments about it - "also heard about that on the News like a week ago about our troops brining some uranium from
I didn't call anyone on this web-site stupid, although in the light of this maybe I shoulda....hmm?
Since when does your opinion count as a true fact? Please give me one solid evidence that supports you claim other than, well I heard form my
moms fried and my moms friend heard form her uncle... Give solid proof other than just your opinion.
- Westy don't be such a jerk over this; it isn't just a personal opinion.
The most glaring evidence is the utter and total lack of anything approaching a WMD in anything like the 'could strike us within 45minutes' terms
that were shouted from every rooftop beforehand.
Everybody but everybody is now excusing their mistakes on this.
In the UK we have had 4
separate major reports into what went on.
Check out the Butler report or the Hutton report. Or the UN's latest comments.
No-one is now claiming Iraq had WMD's of the kind claimed pre-war.
The only people still refusing to publicly admit their mistake are Bush and Blair.
Really bush is on record saying that than you surely wont have difficulty form posting what these “witnesses” said and posting a link which has
the testimonies of these “witnesses”.
- Richard Clark (veteran Intel under 4 presidents) under oath
(in marked contrast to 'Dub-ya') said so. He isn't the only one and that's
good enough for me.