knuckleboner
07-22-2004, 11:46 AM
here's my take on why the yellowcake "controversy" hasn't been solved by recent indications that iraq might have actually tried to purchase it.
hell, we could have videotape, a signed confession and a notarized affidavit from God. wouldn't matter.
in his prewar state of the union, president bush mentioned the controversial/now-less-controversial 16 words about iraq tyring to buy yellowcake uranium.
then what happened? in the wake of criticism about the authenticity of that claim, the administration repudiated it. at least partially.
now, we apparently have evidence that iraq might've actually tried to buy the yellowcake after all.
perhaps an indication that bush didn't lie about that claim (though, personally, i never thought he did).) but still, for me, it doesn't change a thing.
there was still the prior backtracking. which was done, i'm sure, because at the time, the administration was not sure about it, nor did they have the proof to back up the claim.
just because their hunch might've turned out to be correct doesn't mean they didn't rely on insufficient evidence in the first place.
and THAT'S the problem.
hell, we could have videotape, a signed confession and a notarized affidavit from God. wouldn't matter.
in his prewar state of the union, president bush mentioned the controversial/now-less-controversial 16 words about iraq tyring to buy yellowcake uranium.
then what happened? in the wake of criticism about the authenticity of that claim, the administration repudiated it. at least partially.
now, we apparently have evidence that iraq might've actually tried to buy the yellowcake after all.
perhaps an indication that bush didn't lie about that claim (though, personally, i never thought he did).) but still, for me, it doesn't change a thing.
there was still the prior backtracking. which was done, i'm sure, because at the time, the administration was not sure about it, nor did they have the proof to back up the claim.
just because their hunch might've turned out to be correct doesn't mean they didn't rely on insufficient evidence in the first place.
and THAT'S the problem.