edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
this is how you avoid ACTUAL evidence, eh?
TYPICAL
I don't know what ACTUAL evidence you mean , but that is how I rebut the moronic "logic" that as long as Bush didn't say Saddam had a nuke "ready to use" then Bush NEVER discussed "nukes in Iraq" and Iraq was never on the list of those "trying to develop nukes."
You read deeper into what I said that you should have...but I will take the blame. and reword.
Bush did not believe Hussein had nukes developed. He knew he had aspitrations; hje knew he had financial supporters; he knew he had some ingredients. He ALSO knew Hussein was years away from being nuclear capable.
He did not go in there with the nuclear weapons on his mind. He went in there witht he chemiocal and biological weapons in mind.
Good move? Certainly not good timing seeing as we had other issues on hand.....but to claim it was "nuclear weapons" he was looking for in 2003 is wrong. Bush knew he did not have nuclear weapons .
You must have missed this part of my earlier post.
Surprising for a mind-reader like you!
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
George W Bush