Niger vs. Africa - Democratic Underground

Nederland

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jul-18-03 10:37 AM
Original message

Niger vs. Africa

The Daily Howler is saying that the press core is screwing up with regard to Bush's statements in the State of the Union address. They claim that all the criticism surrounds the forged documents from Niger, but Bush never actually said Niger, he said Africa. So how do we respond?

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071503.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071603.shtml

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

redeye

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jul-18-03 10:53 AM
Response to Original message

1. Uh...

...have there ever been claims that Saddam was getting uranium from any nation but Niger? Remember, Bush couldn't name the nation in the address because a) most Americans wouldn't know what he was talking about (hell, even I had pronounced it like "nigger" rather than the correct way - ni-ZHER), and b) Niger sounds an awful lot like nigger anyway, and that's not exactly politically correct.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nederland

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jul-18-03 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. Answer

...have there ever been claims that Saddam was getting uranium from any nation but Niger?

Apparently yes, which is the Howler's point when bashing Chris Matthews:

<snip>

According to repeated Admin explanations, Bush would have been told that British intelligence says that Saddam sought uranium from several countries in Africa. But, like many pundits and reporters this week, Matthews has simply disappeared the Bush Admin’s explanation. Maybe he doesn’t know what the Admin has said. Maybe he’s creating a simpler, pleasing story. (He did just that, again and again, in his endless attacks against Clinton and Gore.)

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cocoa

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jul-18-03 11:08 AM
Response to Original message

2. I think Somerby is way off on this one

Milbank and Priest I think were correct in putting the Bush administration's "defense" toward the end of the article.

Those "defenses" are just technicalities, they don't address the fact that Bush misled us, which is the real story.

In fact, another story could be told about how this deception now appears so premeditated. Bush's attributing the story to the British makes it look like he's covering his tracks ahead of time, in case he got caught.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.