THE LA TIMES LIES; THE FRENCH SWEAR TO IT!

The LATIMES has an article they tout as further proof that Bush misled the nation about Saddam's nuclear weapons. (This is based on the fact that Bush spoke of the potential of a nuclear-Saddam before the war. Which is true, but it is also true that these speeches came AFTER the Congress had passed the Resolution authorizing Bush to attack Saddam - for 23 reasons, of which only three were about WMD or nukes!)

A huge tip-off that the article is all BS is that it relies on French intelligence; (an oxymoron, non? Mais oui!).THE LATIMES OPENS WITH A BLATANT LIE:

"The case of the forged documents that were used to support claims that Hussein was seeking materials in Africa launched a political controversy that continues to roil Washington. "

The truth is, the USA NEVER used these documents! BUT LATER, THE LA TIMES PRINTS THE TRUTH (inadvertantly, I guess!):

The former CIA official said that in fact the U.S. had been offered the same documents in 2001 but had quickly rejected them as forgeries. ... When Bush gave his State of the Union address in January 2003, citing a report from the British that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa ... A spokeswoman for the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Chouet's remarks, reiterating that the British government continued to stand behind its conclusions that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Africa.

SUMMING UP THE LEFTIE POSITION (from the conclusion of the LA TIMES artricle):

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee when the Niger claims first surfaced in 2002, said some officials in the U.S. State Department were also expressing doubts: "The big mystery is why did the administration, in the face of at least a very persuasive contrary view, feel the president should take the risk of stating this?"

The ANSWER is actually right there IN THE SAME ARTICLE:

On Sept. 8, 2002 — within months of the third French warning — Cheney and then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke in dire terms of Iraq's alleged efforts to pursue nuclear materials. Rice warned: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

IN OTHER WORDS: (1) Bush's SOTU statement clearly said that we only had good intel - from the Brits - that Saddam HAD SOUGHT uranium in AFRICA. This OBVIOUSLY ONLY INDICATES SADDAM'S DESIRE FOR NUKES, AND NOT HIS POSSESSION OF THEM. BUSH NEVER CLAIMED SADDAM HAD NUKES. And (2) Kay and Duelfer backed up this claim: they BOTH testified that their investigations had proven that Saddam had a desire to re-build all of his WMD capability - including nukes - AS SOON AS SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED, WHICH WAS A REAL PROSPECT IN 2001!

In the absence of 100% confirmed intel, (WHICH IS ALMOST ALWAYS NEVER AVAILABLE!), Bush decided to err on the side of caution, and not give Saddam the benefit of the doubt - on nukes or anything else - (ESPECIALLY SINCE HE DID NOT COOPERATE FULLY WITH BLIX OR FULLY ADHERE TO UNSCR#1441).

Many Dems are NOW saying that knowing what they know today, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO WAR. They' saying, in effect, that they now believe that they should have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt - AND THAT THEY WOULD TODAY.

Which is why I don't trust them with national security or the defense of the Free World.