SouthernDemocrat said:
Either way, as history has shown, Wilson was right, the Bush Administration was wrong.
No stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
No programs to create any.
And according to the CIA not even any attempts to acquire the uranium necessary for a nuclear weapons program.
I don't know how other than historical revision and intellection dishonesty that one can argue with that.
All you guys on the right are trying to do is shoot the messenger.
WMD programs were found don't you remember the mobile weapons labs, and you guys on the left are trying to get Bush impeached on the basis of him lying in the State of the Union when infact he didn't lie or distort the intel it was just that the intel was wrong and Joe Wilson didn't investigate anything he sipped mint tea and talked to a few Niger officials, and if they were working with Saddam why would they tell Wison anything? Basically here's how it went down:
Joe Wilson: "Did Saddam try to buy yellow cake from you guys?"
Niger Officials: "No."
Joe Wilson: "OK I'm cool with that, it's been real but I got a flight to catch see ya."
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.