Instead, he preferred to say that the threat had "unique urgency".
I don't even recall that.. Just the "growing threat" comment..
But thank you for providing references..
But it all depends on how one defines "imminent threat".. Is he an imminent threat to the US homeland? That might be hard to support.
But is he an imminent threat to his neighbors, and to regional security and international peace? That's an argument that was MUCH easier to make, given the evidence observed over the course of the past 10 years.
Of course, this is like Wilson claiming that Bush lied about Niger planning on selling Uranium to Iraq.. He cited a British MI6 report, not the CIA, and clearly stated as such.. While it might be controversial that he cite the intelligence of another country as evidence, he did not lie.
And even MI6 has not rescinded that report.. They are standing by it, although prevented from sharing the sources of it with the CIA, because French intelligence will not permit it.
washingtontimes.com
portal.telegraph.co.uk
In fact, Tony Blair just promoted John Scarlett, who was directly responsible for collecting much of the information on Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear material (including the Uranium from Niger) to head MI6..
That's hardly a vote of no confidence on the part of Blair. Nor is it a sign that he fabricated any of the information related to Iraq.
politics.guardian.co.uk
The fact that these Uranium mining companies are French owned, and the current believe that the MI6 report eminated from information provided by French Intelligence, strikes me as rather compelling.
In fact, it strikes me as an actual attempt on the part of Chirac to WITHHOLD intelligence that would substantiate Saddam's non-compliance.
And that would be tantamount to being able to assert that France provided DIRECT aid and comfort to Saddam's regime in DEFIANCE of the UNSC mandate that this disarmament effort be enforced by all members.
Hawk |
