Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Italians made up Uranium Claim

  1. Nov 3, 2005 #1

    Bush was told it was a fake story but ran with it anyway....

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2005 #2
    Bush wanted to start a war to insure his re-election. That is the only reason for the war. His monomania since he and his republican cronies first stole the white house was to not be a one term president like his father. He thought that his best bet was to be at war during the election and he was unfortunately right. The war was a forgone conclusion, he just looked for any justification he could. As it turns out, every single justification he used has turned out to be false. His bad luck. History will judge him as the worst president this country ever had. It will eventually single him out as one of the forefathers of this country's downfall. He has single handedly caused more terrorism than 100 Bin Ladens. Osama probably faces Washington and prays every day to thank him for all the new recruits. Like the fall of the Roman Empire, most of us can't see the fall coming here either or why idiots like Bush and the republican party are helping it happen. :frown:
  4. Nov 3, 2005 #3
    What?!?!? Single-handedly? I don't think so. Cheney and Rumsfeld helped too you know.
  5. Nov 4, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  6. Nov 4, 2005 #5
    Another exageration?

    The point of my post is that Bush KNEW it was a fake dossier, but still used it to enhance his lies.. You can watch the report on Newsnight if you like:

  7. Nov 4, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmm... so he knew before the IAEA confirmed it? And oddly enough... why have you not mentioned the investigations that confirmed the fact that Bush had no intentions of lieing? Confirmation bias as usual....
  8. Nov 4, 2005 #7
    LOL yeah bush had no intention of lying...

    There were no wmd's...

    Iraq was NOT connected to bin ladin... (at least not before the invasion)

    There was NO "yellow cake"...

    Rove DID out plame...

    How many lies do you need?

    Why do you gloss over the fact that we put hussein in power in the first place?

    Why do you gloss over the fact that we trained and armed osama bin ladin?

    Why do you ignore the U.S. secret prisons?

    Why do you ignore the fact that torture is a sanctioned policy of this administration?

    Why do you continue to ignore the fact that this administration is blatantly eroding your civil liberties?

    Last edited: Nov 4, 2005
  9. Nov 4, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    More lies and sensationalization from the left.
  10. Nov 4, 2005 #9
    This has nothing to do with being on the left, it has everything to do with taking the stuffing out of your ears and the coins off your eyes long enough to stop being an animated corpse and start being a critical thinker.
  11. Nov 4, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah maybe you should start being a critical thinker. Lets see now...

    UN reported 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, over a ton of uranium.... but the conclusion is there were no wmd's and Bush lied. Critical thinking?

    Saddam Hussein admitted for years of supporting Al Qaeda.... yet no connection? Critical thinking?

    no nuclear material.... well good thing the guy who faked the documents wasn't being payed off by the French Government to lie... Critical thinking?

    Rove is guilty without even being indicted? Critical thinking?

    No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture... Critical thinking?

    Blatently eroding civil liberties with 0 facts behind it... critical thinking? (oh of course, you decide to critically think about what some blog tells you to think about).

    What else do you have? Pathetic... why don't you open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.
  12. Nov 4, 2005 #11

    Whats pathetic is that you would defend crooks so ardently and blindly..

    No evidence of US torture?? No erosion of civil liberties?? FFS... that is true ignorance on display.

    There was no UN intelligence you moron, the US gave an intelligence report to the UN. Read the reports from the weapons inspectors (which is what I assume you are referring to? Unless you truly are ignorant enough to believe that the US went to war on a UN intel report..) and you will see that Iraq had no WMD's.. this was known well before the war.

    Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11, Al Qaida did. So why did we TAKE OVER Iraq?

    And though Rove has not been indicted, there is MORE than enough evidence out in the public realm to convict him.

  13. Nov 4, 2005 #12

    Or just didn't emphasize it enough for you?
    What a fine example of critical thinking. :tongue:
  14. Nov 4, 2005 #13
    Source please..

    Where in the world did you read that?:bugeye: Please share your source.:rofl:

    What is that supposed to mean?

    First I have heard of it.

    Could you provide a source please?
    Practicing or sanctioning?

    As opposed to the ones that tell you what to think.

    You should provide a much better argument before you offer advice.
  15. Nov 5, 2005 #14
  16. Nov 5, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    The uranium that never existed was taken away without IAEA approval it seems.

    Guess all those payments went under the radar eh?

    Well since your claim is that Bush intentionally lied, how do you explain that the French Governemnt was paying off the guy who forged the documents?

    Actually you need to provide the source as to how Rove is already guilty without even being indicted for a trial.

    As per my response target, sanctioning

    Come on, lets see some evidence, you know you want to. Just a little evidence that isnt someones opinion (preferably actual legislation text) would do just fine! I'll give you a cookie too.
  17. Nov 5, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well since it is well known the guy was an informant for the French Government....

    Oh wait that already answers your question.
  18. Nov 5, 2005 #17
    Did you read your source or just hope that no one else would.
    So where is the Niger connection?
    What payments are you talking about?
    Because the administration knew the claim was suspect, the CIA refused to vett the claim so Bushco used the British as their source since the British had received the copies of the same portfolio. Our own CIA and FBI said it was a bogus claim. The NRC said that the aluminum tubes could not be used for enriching uranium, yet Bushco ignored that inconvenient fact as well.

    He knew his statements were false when he made them. That, IMHO is lying.
    I didn't make the claim you did. Or attributed it to some unknown straw-man.
    Oh never mind the International Red cross is just some crack-pot liberal organization that wouldn't know torture if it was being done to them.

    Vegan cookie?





    I am sure you will disregard this and any other evidence I could provide so I won't waste any more time.:tongue:

    Can you say "denial?"
  19. Nov 5, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Faked documents by the French government, there is none, haven't you noticed?
    Are you serious :rofl: :rofl: Someone so "informed" as you must have known about the years of reports of Saddam paying off terrorist organizations members, especially those working in Isreal

    Incorrect, they were in question and US legal precedent makes it very obvious how rational, civilized societies deal with "lies". They must be proven to have been konwn to be wrong at the time. Since this is not what you feel is justice, then this argument aspect will probably just end here.

    Well since you responded to my response to MaxS, I assumed you would have realized the original response was not towards you. Please, review your accusations.

    You must be in denail if torturing non-citizens is your only evidence of civil liberties being eroded. How bout you stay on subject this time?

    Oh how fun it must be to be so obvlivious rational thought.. right sky? :wink:
  20. Nov 6, 2005 #19
    So what you are saying Pengwino is that the French tricked George into invading Iraq?

    That won't look good for his macho image....LOL G'dubb being played for a fool by the wimpy effete French.:rofl: :rofl:
  21. Nov 6, 2005 #20
    I'm confused. French *help* give bush an excuse to go to war, and you link that to oil for food?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook