Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 113

• 0%

  pc253 months ago

  http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?i...

  AP Exclusive: US Removes Uranium From Iraq

  The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

  Reply

  33 Replies

  • 0%

    libsRfunny3 months ago

    Yeah, I saw this story the other day. Funny how he had all that yellow cake yet somehow didn't have an illegal nuclear weapons program in the works.

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      pc253 months ago

      This is 550 TONS....... NOT POUNDS......... TONS of yellow cake........

      "Professor Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, England, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had more than enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons."

      http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/9...

      from the AP story

      "The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives â;; kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal."

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        GWHayduke3 months ago

        550 TONS you say? 550 TONS?!?

        You and professor Dombey (how appropriate) FAILED to mention that this is un-enriched uranium incapable of making a nuclear device of ANY kind.

        There is only around 2000-3000 tons of enriched uranium anywhere in the world, most in the US & Russia.

        Dirty bomb, yes. Nuclear weapon, no.

        More nonsense from frightened scaremongers.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          willottica3 months ago

          Yeah, simple math will tell you that 550 tons / 100 weapons = 5.5 tons per weapon.

          I'm fairly sure that the nuclear payload of a weapon does not weigh 5.5 tons, therefore a heck of a lot of enriching/refining would have to be done to make this stuff weapons-grade.

          Reply
        • 0%

          HOUSEMD3 months ago

          550 TONS for a dirty bomb??? Nah don't think I want a dirty bomb in my area. It lowers the property value tremendously.

          Reply
  • 0%

    Aidenag3 months ago

    I love how this is being used as a justification for Bush's WMD claims about Iraq by the usual neocons. This stuff was pre first gulf war, and was under lock and key by the IAEA, and was declared to the U.N. by Iraq.

    It's like a slowly evolving process with these guys, first it was "He has nukes!, and Nerve Gas!, and Bears oh my!" Then it evolved into the claim that "He secretly shipped it out of Iraq before the war"

    Now they have gotten so desperate, that it's "He had stuff everyone already knew about including the UN,US and IAEA dating from the 1980's, and wasn't even processed to be of any use. But were ganna use it to say we were right anyway!"

    I can't wait to see what the next pathetic attempt is.

    Reply

    25 Replies

    • 0%

      pc253 months ago

      HUA

      Reply

    • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.
    • 0%

      Codi69343 months ago

      This stuff was pre first gulf war, and was under lock and key by the IAEA, and was declared to the U.N. by Iraq

      Why was it still in country? Why didn't the IAEA force Saddam to get rid of it? Did the IAEA have guards on the yellowcake to keep Saddam from using it?

      This is another fact about the justification for the war that evreyone is overlooking again!

      Reply

      22 Replies

      • 0%

        ybdogsct3 months ago

        CODI:

        "Why was it still in country? Why didn't the IAEA force Saddam to get rid of it?"

        Because according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries are allowed to possess nuclear fuel for energy production - which is what the Canadian purchasers are going to do with it.

        Countries are just not allowed to process and enrich it via isotopic centrifugation for use in weaponry - and there is NO evidence Iraq tried to do that after 1992.

        http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

        CODI:

        "This is another fact evreyone is overlooking again!"

        Actually, this is just another fact about how Bush lied about Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger. Why would Saddam have to purchase "several tons" of yellowcake from Nigeria if he had already possessed 550 tons?

        Bush KNEW about the 550 tons of yellowcake Saddam already had and still allowed Colin Powell to use it in his speech to justify preemptive war against Iraq.

        Unbelievable.

        Reply

        21 Replies

        • 0%

          Codi69343 months ago

          Get over it, we had just cause for the war, more evidence is coming out everyday. It is funny how everyone else is over looking it. Bush didn't lie, we went with the same info from not only Clinton but other western intell agencies. NOW, we need to win, which is what we are doing! But you don't hear that, do you!

          Reply

          20 Replies

          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            CODI:

            "Bush didn't lie, we went with the same info from not only Clinton but other western intell agencies."

            Clinton did NOT execute a preemptive, unilateral war against Iraq against the wishes of the UNSCR and NATO. Get over it, indeed.

            LOL.

            http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006...

            "'Chemical Ali' was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD, but claims many within the ruling circle always believed they did...According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about having WMD during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD, but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary. Saddam went on to explain that if Iraq made such a declaration, it would not only show Israel that Iraq did not have WMD, but might actually encourage the Israelis to attack."

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 0%

              ybdogsct3 months ago

              "By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted towards pursuing policies designed to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM and that it was free of WMD...As 2002 drew to a close, the regime took active measures to counter the Coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that 'in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war,' Iraq would give full access to UN Inspectors."

              "Saddam became convinced that because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, the Americans or Israelis were not beyond planting fake evidence."

              "Saddam avoided taking actions in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would appear obstructionist or threatening. In late 2002, he told a group of officers that Iraq would provide UN inspectors with the access they needed, thus denying President George W. Bush and the Americans any excuse for starting a new conflict."

              Reply
            • 0%

              Codi69343 months ago

              unilateral war: Not quite!

              Clinton could of done something, but was too busy,..well you know!

              Saddam kept the ruse to keep Iran from invading. HE could of stopped the invasion at anytime. Our hand was forced! Get over it! Now we need to win!

              Bravity is a form of wit!

              Reply

              8 Replies

              • 0%

                ybdogsct3 months ago

                CODI:

                "Clinton could of done something, but was too busy,..well you know!"

                We've already been over this. If you had read the 9/11 Commission Report (and it's clear that you have NOT), you would have known that it:

                1) absolved Clinton of all accusations of neglect

                2) applauded his attempts to strike at Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Sudan

                3) applauded Richard Clarke's Counterterrorism Security Group for attempts to track Bin Laden during the Clinton administration

                4) decried Bush's politicizing and dismantling of the Counterterrorism Security Group, and

                5) admonished Congressional Republicans of accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he ordered these strikes.

                CODI:

                "Bravity is a form of wit"

                The word is "brevity." Correct diction and grammar is also a form of wit.

                LOL!

                Reply
              • 0%

                ybdogsct3 months ago

                i) Clinton was the ONLY president who attempted to assassinate Bin Ladin--not Reagan, not Bush Sr. and not Bush Jr. even in the 9 months prior to the 9/11 attacks.

                http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

                "Saying 'there will be no sanctuary for terrorists,' President Clinton on Thursday ordered U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan. American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

                U.S. officials say the six sites attacked in Afghanistan were part of a network of terrorist compounds near the Pakistani border that housed supporters of Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden. "

                Reply

                4 Replies

                • 0%

                  ybdogsct3 months ago

                  ii) Clinton's attempts to pursue Osama Bin Laden further were thwarted by the Republican-controlled Congress.

                  http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

                  "Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention from his personal difficulties. At that time, some GOP lawmakers used the phrase 'wag the dog' to describe Clinton's military actions.

                  The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House intern, wrapped up her testimony."

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct3 months ago

                  iii) The 9/11 Commission Report determined that Clinton's Counterterrorism Security Group headed by Richard Clarke had done more to track Osama Bin Laden than ANY other intelligence agency under ANY other administration. However, Bush and Rice effectively killed the program because it was associated with Bill Clinton.

                  http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

                  "Republicans questioned about the timing of the strikes...The failure of the strikes, the "wag the dog" slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Ladin."

                  "President Clinton was deeply concerned about Bin Ladin. He and his national security advisor, ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on Bin Ladin's reported location...The CIA new more about Bin Ladin's network than any other terrorist group in the world."

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct3 months ago

                  "the principals had endorsed strengthening the CIA's capability. To the CTC, that meant proceeding with "the Plan, which it had put forward half a year earlier--hiring and training more case officers and building up capabilities of foreign security services that provided intelligence via liaison."

                  "Presidential Directive 62 had said specifically that Clarke's Counterterrorism Security Group should report through Deputies Committee or directly to the principals...Rice decided to change the special structure that had been built to coordinate counterterrorism policy. It was important to sound policymaking, she felt, that Clarke's interagency committee--like all others--report to the princiapls through the deputies."

                  Reply
                • 0%

                  ybdogsct3 months ago

                  "Within the first few days after Bush's inauguration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her--and the new President [Bush]--to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration...President [Bush] explained to us that he had been concerned les an ineffectual air strike [in retaliation for the Cole bombing] just serve to give Bin Ladin a propaganda advantage."

                  Reply
              • 0%

                ybdogsct3 months ago

                Meanwhile, it's laughable you ignore Bush's failure in even MAKING AN ATTEMPT to capture Bin Laden.

                1) Bush ignored a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the U.S." that suggested an airlines-based attack on the WTC. From the Presidential Daily Brief:

                http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/i...

                "Bin Ladin implied that his followers would follow the example of WORLD TRADE CENTER bomber Ramzi Yousef...Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam had told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack L.A. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack. FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity consistent with preparations for HIJACKINGS or other types of attacks, including RECENT SURVEILLANCE OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK."

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ybdogsct3 months ago

                  2) After the first airline hit the WTC, instead of immediately executing the national emergency response plan, closing American airspace, and ordering U.S. fighter pilots into the air, Bush continued to read to a book to schoolchildren until after the 2nd jet struck the WTC.

                  3) Bush Jr. allowed Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618...

                  "Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora and could have been caught...Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a 'strategic disaster' because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members."

                  4) Even REPUBLICAN William Cohen defended Clinton's pursuit of Bin Ladin, as other Republicans were crying "wag the dog."

                  http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

                  "the U.S. military was prepared to kill or capture Osama bin Laden whenever there was 'actionable intelligence.'"

                  Reply
          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...

            "Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was not intended for an Iraq nuclear program, but were likely intended for a conventional rocket program" which Iraq was allowed to possess; "Iraq pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are high dubious"; "Iraq no longer had a large scale biological weapons production capability after 1996" and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq maintained stocks of biological weapons or possessed bulk biological agents after 1996"; "Iraq never possessed, or developed, mobile facilities for producing biological agents"; "Iraq was not expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons production"; and "Iraq did not possess missiles which exceeded UN range limits."

            Reply
          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/repor...

            "The ISG found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991 and that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressivel declined after that date. The ISG found no evidence that Saddam Hussein attempted to restart the nuclear program. The intellectual capital (needed to restart a WMD program in the event UN sanctions were lifted) had decayed since the end of the nuclear program in 1991, and there was no evidence that scientists were engaged in renewed weapons work. A CIA nuclear retrospective said that Saddam 'probably harbored some intent to acquire nuclear weapons, but there were credible claims...to suggest he abandoned such pursuits."

            Reply
          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/...

            "Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said...In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction..."Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said...Ritter said that the Bush administration was "using weapons inspections as an excuse" to go to war with Iraq.

            Reply
          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...

            "Saddam viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat, and his regime since its inception has arrested and executed members of both Shia and Sunni groups to disrupt their organizations and limit their influence.

            Saddam then specified that Iraq did no cooperate with bin Laden. According to Tariq Aziz, 'Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden. When the Taliban was in power, the Iraq government deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul...The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.'"

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              ybdogsct3 months ago

              "Saddam immediately refused bin ladin's requests for the office, mines, and military training...bin Laden sent Abu Hafs al-Mauritani to Baghdad in order to request $10 million to be used to continue al-Qa'ida attacks against the West. Saddam refused to meet with Abu Hafs and explicity rejected the request for assistance. Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called saddam an 'unbeliever....' Saddam asked why the al-Qa'ida representative ad chosen to come to Iraq. Hussein was worried that al-Qa'ida operative's presence in Baghdad would cause a problem for Iraq."

              Reply
          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...

            "Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the source of reports on al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training in iraq, recanted the information he provided...The DIA assessed that 'there has been no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq...No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak...Postwar site exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida lined individuals took place there."

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              ybdogsct3 months ago

              "Both captured former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a 'special committee' to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him...the IIS did successfully arrest one of the individuals responsible, Abu Yasim Sayyem."

              "According to the DIA, detainee information, and captured document, the regime was aware of Ansar al-Islam, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. Senior Ansar al-Slaim detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam's regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it...The government of Iraq considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw and blamed Ansar al-Slam for two bombings in Baghdad."

              Reply
          • 0%

            ybdogsct3 months ago

            http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report...

            "Saddam viewed international terrorist organizations in terms of what they could do to further his 'historic' mission. During the course of the 1990s, bin Laden came to see Islamic terrorist groups as part of a jihad that would one day topple all apostate governments, unite all Muslims, and finally restore the caliphate. Saddam had his own vision, a Ba'athist pan-Arab socialist superstate with Iraq at its center. Saddam's vision was always about the centrality of Saddam--and never about the glory if Islam or some modern-day caliphate.

            Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the U.S., out of Muslim lands. Both wanted to create a single powerful state that would take its place as a global superpower. And Saddam and bin laden often found a common enemy in the U.S. These similarities more than created the appearance of cooperation as common interests, even without a common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat."

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              ybdogsct3 months ago

              "But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted--and still wants--to restore the ISLAMIC caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the SECULAR ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-term compromise between them HIGHLY UNLIKEKLY. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the WORST KIND OF 'APOSTATE' REGIME--a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges.

              The director of IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) cautioned against meeting with Islamic parties as they would 'not serve the current Iraqi situation...and will make us lose our main target.' He went on to note that working with the religious parties was dangerous because they were 'associated with the religious terror, which Hezbollah and Iran are practicing...and it is provoking the West.'"

              Reply
  • 0%

    engineer3 months ago

    Funny how this didn't hit mainstream. Please back this up from a neutral or mainstream source.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      pc253 months ago

      abc, associated press, msnbc.... what are you kidding me, amazing that probably 95 percent of the people in this country are totally unaware of this.........

      Reply
• 0%

  pc253 months ago

  FTA

  "First, it took 37 military flights to ship it from Baghdad to Diego Garcia. Even when not processed into nuclear weapons, it was dangerous in its own right, being radioactive. It could also be used in other methods of spreading radiation short of full nuclear bombs. The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it. It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents. That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.........A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons. This distinction seems to get lost way too often.

  Reply
• 0%

  pc253 months ago

  FTA

  "Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program? Does it matter? After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD..........Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003. It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.

  Reply
• 0%

  Wolfie20073 months ago

  I notice the libs aren't around commenting on this, what a surprise.

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    Goppy3 months ago

    Weird, eh?

    I mean, when them Libbies post similar loony stories ... I mean ... stories liek the 'Truther's Version of 911' - all my Christian Conservative buddies come runnin just liek cowboys on the range when Cookee Twanged the Triangle.

    But, I think this story is far more worthless than even them Libbie 'Truther' stories.

    Maybe we should just face facts, we Christian Conservatives just caint keep sellin our very souls to support this Lyin, Cheatin, Immoral, Anti-American Ideeologie called Neo-Conservatism.

    I mean, COME ON!! We GOT to STOP.

    We Christian Conservatives sold our souls to support GW.

    He betrayed us.

    He betrayed traditional American Values.

    He sold out the American soldier to Military Contracters.

    He is protected members of his staff that outed a CIA agent! ... AND THATS TREASON!

    Hes a Deficit Spender - liek all GOP.

    I think we need to say a prayer for him ... send him packing ... and try to fill the void where our Morals used to be.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      GWHayduke3 months ago

      Are you sayin' that you "seen the light?!?"

      Say it aint so.

      This yellowcake nonsense lends itself so well to the outright ridiculous notion that the current executive branch has an inkling of competence when it comes to running this country and making the world a better place that....well, its just another nail in the coffin of neoconservativism/Roveism.

      Good people see through divisive ideology and outright lies.

      Reply
    • 0%

      pc253 months ago

      get out the high waders he has returned...........

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        Goppy3 months ago

        LOL!!

        YOu send me an invitation to the story ... then express mock indignation when I comment!

        LOL! We Christian Conservatives are certainly 'out there' in LaLaLand.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.
        • 0%

          pc253 months ago

          Goppy you know I enjoy your input.........just a little friendly banter.......

          Reply

    • brothermichaelComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    engineer3 months ago

    Wolfie

    Funny how this didn't hit mainstream. Please back this up from a neutral or mainstream source.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • TLovesTeddyComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  BB643 months ago

  Gee, where are the libs bi-ching about, "Where's the WMD?" He used the chemical and bio weapons on his own people. Had we not taken him down, how long do you suppose it would have taken to make the dirty bombs we all fear. Picture it. All packed into a van, underground parking with a little diesel and fertilizer. That was the original attack on the Trade Towers. Can you imagine the damage a dirty bomb would have caused?

  Reply

  15 Replies

  • 0%

    PsychoHosebeast3 months ago

    It was no secret that Saddam at one time had a nuclear program, or that this stuff existed... surprisingly, the cons seem to suffer from selective memory loss when it comes to this kind of thing.

    Last I checked, BTW, dirty bombs aren't WMD's... that's a pretty lame attempt you're making at fear mongering, based in nothing. Any time you start your justification off with "can you imagine," you already lost.

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      GWHayduke3 months ago

      Trudged through the article TWO times.

      Not once is Niger mentioned.

      Wasnt Shock and Awe sold by fictitious yellowcake from NIGER?

      Reply

      10 Replies

      • 0%

        pc253 months ago

        no niger is here in this article

        http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/07/us-remove...

        First, let's start with the AP itself. Proving that it learned nothing over the last five years in terms of research, it gets the Joe Wilson story wrong â;; again:

        Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

        Brian Murphy follows a long tradition of getting this story completely wrong at the AP. Niger has four exports: uranium ore, livestock products, cowpeas, and onions. Wilson reported that the Prime Minister had been approached by an Iraqi group interested in secret negotiations for an export deal, and the PM didn't think that the Iraqis wanted to secretly buy onions.

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 0%

          pc253 months ago

          Wilson reported back that Niger believed that the Iraqis had attempted to make a uranium purchase, but had refused their advances. This came out years ago in an investigative report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a report that the AP's myriad of reporters still has managed to miss for three years.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 0%

            miklkit3 months ago

            That is NOT what your mis-administration said at the time. Wilson was slandered and a CIA agent outed because he didn't toe the official line.

            http://liesofbush.com/

            Lots of links there.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488667/...

            David Kelley was a weapons inspector.

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              pc253 months ago

              Valerie Plame was about as covert as Angelina Jolie's breasts

              wise up

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                Goppy3 months ago

                Lie all you want to pacman.

                But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

                Besides, it aint just about Valerie, it's about the network ... which was compromised.

                Look, I realize we Christian Conservatives HATE the notion of democracy and are willing to support ANY lie, but eventually, we are going to recognize (hopefully before it's too late) that being shills for ideeologically driven politicians is NOT the way to salvation ... OR ... patriotism.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  BB643 months ago

                  Christian Conservatives HATE the notion of democracy? Have you never actually read about the founding fathers? I don't mean the public school's version where all they seem to care about is who owned slaves and who slept with Jefferson. I mean actually read their writings concerning the founding of this nation. Christianity was a huge part of this nation. It was, until we had our own cultural revolution in the 1960's. Not quite as bad as China's but close when you look at the disasters liberals caused. Replacing daddy with the welfare check, teaching pride is more important than actually learning a skill. Family values means nothing.

                  As far as Plame, I don't believe she was covert. The CIA wouldn't use such a scam or losers like Joe and Val. They had an affair while married to other people. Again, the Agency wouldn't put up with it.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    Goppy3 months ago

                    Are you talking about the BOOK 'Founding Fathers' by Joseph J. Ellis?

                    Prollally not ... you are prollally talkin bout the Founding Fathers as defined by Rush Limbaugh.

                    And really ... the only disasters that liburals caused is Neru Jackets.

                    Plame WAS covert ... as much as you wish to defend the indefensible.

                    But I understand. To us Christian Conservatives ... Politics is a Religion. And the Sacrament of that Religion is PROPAGANDA.

                    Reply

      • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

        • 0%

          GWHayduke3 months ago

          Aww, scrimey you said that before but you keep on coming back.

          Does this mean that you wont be responding with such incomprehensible drivel such as:

          -"reason lack of reasoning like Hoser and the "G" word"-?

          If so, I wil truly miss the astute and adriot counterpoints balanced by your clever wit and charm!!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Goppy3 months ago

            Dont be too alarmed Haydukey!

            Im shure Scrimey just needs to carve himself another Scrimshaw Pipe to smoke his own brand of God Crack.

            You know ... he's not really a BELIEVER.

            None of us Christian Conservatives is a Believer.

            We threw Jesus under the bus in exchange of the promise of Political Power with the Neo-Cons!

            I mean really ... is there ANYTHING bout the Neo-Con ideeologie that is REMOTELy connected to Jesus?

            Reply
    • 0%

      Codi69343 months ago

      One of the guys charged in the Eve Carson case is being charged with possessing a WMD. A saw-off shotgun! I am sure a dirty bomb can be classified as a WMD also!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Codi69343 months ago

        Here is the list of charges against the perps in the Eve Carson murder. And people want to say a dirty bomb isn't a WMD!

        http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3161089/

        Reply
    • 0%

      BB643 months ago

      A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon which can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures, natural structures or the biosphere in general. The term covers several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons. There is controversy over when the term was first used, either in 1937 or in 1945. Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The phrase entered widespread usage in relation to the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical warfare (ABC warfare), nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) after the invention of the hydrogen bomb, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN), recognizing the threat of subcritical radiological weapons.

      Reply
• 0%

  GLee3 months ago

  You won't see this one headlined on Propeller.

  Great find PC!

  Reply

  9 Replies

  • 0%

    BB643 months ago

    Of course not. Propeller is a group of lefty commies who support Obama. Anything that might show good for the American military or President Bush is terrible for the DNC. Watch, you'll see a new "scandal" that will be used to hide this. Where's Joey Wilson and his "secret agent" I mean clerk wife Val Plame? What's that, no comment?

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • ScrimshawComment removed: User banned.1 Reply

      • 0%

        BB643 months ago

        She's working the bar crowd as a call girl? If she really was a "secret" agent, no legitimate business can or would hire her. She's tainted by her connection to and association with the CIA. I still think she was a cover story to hide something far larger. No one has yet answered why for over 10 years the CIA reports insisted Saddam had the capabilities for building nukes. Bush 41 and Clinton both talked about this as did Gore when he was running. Where's the outrage at the billions they've spent that clearly was wrong or bad intel? Oh, that's right, the CIA has been a haven for the DNC since Clinton left office.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Goppy3 months ago

      Not so shure bout that BB.

      The story is right there on the front page. Guess that makes you a pretty pathetic prognosticator ... or else ... just another whiner Rightie.

      HEY! Maybe BOTH!

      And really BB ... LOL ... are you serious ... 'lefty commies'?

      Man Alive! YOu must REALLY hate AMerica! All you want are lies to support GW's lies.

      Remember, Neo-Cons HATE the AMerican soldier! REpublicans have fought against the soldier for 10 years now. They just recently voted down a bill that offered education benefits to soldiers returning from Iraq.

      The only thing bout the Military the GW and the Neo-Cons support is spending BILLIONS on weapons systems.

      Course, I can see by this an other comments you have made that you don't really care bout AMerica. YOure one of them kinda poeple who only care that you skate through life payin as little taxes as possible.

      Of course, that means you are a REpublican ... cause Republicans screw the goverment too ... and pocket the change.

      Reply
    • 0%

      djn3nunez33 months ago

      BB64- wrote: "Where's Wilson and his "secret agent" I mean clerk wife Val Plame? What's that, no comment?"

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/60min...

      "Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons," Plame Wilson explains.

      By the time her name was leaked in 2003, she was chief of operations for the CIA's joint task force Iraq, in charge of dozens of officers and analysts. It was before the Iraq war, and she was trying to find evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your alternate reality.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        BB643 months ago

        Disgraced ambassador & the naughty CIA operative? You're kidding right? Plame was not really undercover. She had not served abroad since 1997. In fact, the investigation which just ended with Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald issuing an indictment for Lewis Libby confirmed that no Bush administration official had outed anyone. Robert Novak, in this Washington Post article, is the person responsible for making Valerie Plame's CIA status public.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          djn3nunez33 months ago

          Beleive what you want. I believe it came from Darth's office and President Bush knew all about it. They are traitors to this country.

          Reply
  • 0%

    ConquerorWyrm3 months ago

    I found this on the front page

    Reply
  • 0%

    djn3nunez33 months ago

    "You won't see this one headlined on Propeller.

    Great find PC!"

    Becasue it's a non story about a supply of yellow cake that was not under Iraq control since the first gulf war, but it was still in Iraq so I guess that makes the lives lost in the debacle called the invasion and occupation of Iraq worth while. Well maybe to the neo-clown mind it does......

    Reply
• 0%

  aniokly3 months ago

  How can this be? Didn't the husband of the lame Plame dame swear to us there was no yellowcake? If I didn't know better, and know the President is much to nice to do it, I would swear he holds onto information just so he can rub Democrat noses in it.

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 0%

    JamesMarcus3 months ago

    No, Wilson didn't say that Iraq possessed no yellowcake--he said there was no deal to buy the stuff from Niger. Since that claim is still reliant on clumsy forgeries and not much else, Wilson appears to have been right. The fact that Saddam already had 550 tons of yellowcake sitting in a warehouse in Tuwaitha was widely known back in 2001. That purchase had been authorized by the AIEA and was part of the public record. Of course I'm glad the yellowcake now been transported out of the country and secured. But it's not a dramatic discovery by any means.

    Reply

    18 Replies

    • 0%

      BB643 months ago

      Actually, which version of Joey's report? The one he did for the press, the CIA or his crappy book deal? Saddam had over a million pounds of yellow cake, so even if the Niger report was bad intel, Saddam still have over a million pound of the stuff. Only a fool fails to understand that if he was left in power, especially with a guy like Obama in office, he would try making a dirty bomb or more.

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        JamesMarcus3 months ago

        As far as I know, Wilson never claimed that Iraq had no yellowcake, only that the Niger deal was nonsense. Can you point me to a source where he made those additional claims? As for Saddam's plans to make a dirty bomb, I quote from the original AP article cited by the American Thinker piece: "While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called 'dirty bomb'--a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material--it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast."

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          BB643 months ago

          And there were only 10 letters with Anthrax, look at the wide spread panic. All you need is one sensor showing radiation and you'll have mass panic.

          On the yellow cake, it's not impossible to convert that into a nuke product. Saddam had the money and the desire to do just that. He simply ran out of time to acquire the tools.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Goppy3 months ago

            YOu missed your callin in the military.

            You should have been in the Ministry of Propaganda.

            Now, tell me again how it's okay to blow the cover off CIA agents...

            I know it might sound liek Im pickin on you BB. BUt believe it or not ... I liek you! I liek how you provide more than ample evidence why our nation has Civilian Control over the military.

            Course, that system kinda broke down with this last Commander in Chief ... and just think ... it worked for 225 years ... until the Neo-Conservative ideeologie of makin us a perverted Military Nation came into being ... with GeeDub as their A-Number-One-Stooge.

            YIPPIE!!!

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              pc253 months ago

              http://wizbangblog.com/content/2005/07/15/the-u...

              The USA Today Gets a Clue... A Year Later

              The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

              "Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

              Reply
      • 0%

        djn3nunez33 months ago

        BB64- pssst

        FTA-That yellowcake stockpile pre-dated 1991, and had been under the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency "safeguard" from then until 2003 under

        Meaning that Saddam no longer controlled it. So basically he aquired the yellow cake while he was GWHB and Rayguns valued trading partner. Thanks for clearing that up. Or it may have been aquire to supply fuel for their nuclear reactor(which is of course destroyed)

        I think the neo-clowns are grasping at straws, again.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          Codi69343 months ago

          That stockpile was still in Iraq. Unless the IAEA had a small army guarding it, Saddam still had control of the material. Don't think for a minute he was going to let that go.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            djn3nunez33 months ago

            Right, it was under lock and seal. But he still controlled it. But didn't have the necessary equipment to refine the ore either. Certainly not a reason to spend lives in an invasion and occupation. Certainly not vendication of the Bush Adminitration decision to invade by any stretch of the imagination.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Codi69343 months ago

              Time and money was on his side. Saddam still had the people that had the knowledge, and WHEN he got the sanctions lifted, NOTHING was going to stop him. The U.S. and its allies took care of a problem BEFORE it got out of hand. Iran now, WOULD HAD BEEN Iraq in 10