Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 11, 2008
Christopher Merola :: Townhall.com Columnist
Have Your Yellowcake and Eat It Too
by Christopher Merola
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq. The opening paragraph is as follows:

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.

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, “Bush lied.” Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story? Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush’s war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said, 

The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment – was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.

Closing the book on Saddam’s nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied? As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.

Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki’s remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.

Outraged by Bush’s insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki’s claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister’s statements.

It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush’s credibility and give them more cause for asking what other “lies” he may have told.

Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister’s statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong." Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the  yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.

Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration “outed” her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration -- who leaked Plame’s identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam’s uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don’t count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam’s uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get.

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that,

“Bush lied,” we should tell them to, “Have the yellowcake and eat it too.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Christopher Merola is the Political Director for Political Media, Inc, a political advertising and public relations firm in Washington, DC.

read the facts for yourself...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 71076


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.h tml?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377443,00.html


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0 6/08/AR2008060801687.html


http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/33147.html


http://www.americandaily.com/article/22191

read the whole article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334
What they removed had been there since 1991 and the UN knew about it the whole time.
This has nothing to do with the Nigerian scandal. If it did, I'm quite sure someone credible would have jumped all over it.

HAVE YOUR YELLOW CAKE AND EAT IT TOO
AMAZING THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THIS IN THE NEWS ANYWHERE. ISN'T THIS A GREAT PIECE FOR AT LEAST DEBATE AS TO WHAT IT MEANS. WHY HAVEN'T THE TALKING HEADS BROUGHT IT UP?

Have Your Yellowcake and Eat it Too
I love that title!  Christopher Merola is brilliant.  He gets to the heart of the matter and shows just how juvenile the left is.

Man, what a great read.  Keep up the good work Merola.  I will be forwarding this article to my friends.

Thanks.

Truth in the media.
It is amazing how unreported an event like the 550 lbs of yellow cake not reported, but than again they would actually have to admitt that our President did know what he was doing. I am so thankful we have President Bush making the decisions, can you just imagne what would have happen if Big Al or Swave John would have been elected. We had already been attacked 4 times, and nothing was done, they felt they could do anything to the US, because the president wouldn't fight back. President Bush has kept us safe for over 7 years, but heaven for bid that anyone on the Left would give him any credit. Now we have Obama who has made up his mind, and he hasn't been to Iraq or talked to the leaders there in several years, but than again he would attack a country that has actually been helping us. Iraq help terrorists train, gave them money, worked with the leaders. We have fought the enemie on their soil, not ours. This is totally different than Vietnam, they just killed their own people. If we leave Iraq unfinished they have said they would first wipe out Isreal and than us. Obama should go over there with an open mind, but I am pretty sure he has made up his mind, and heaven for bid he would admitt he could possibly be wrong.

Try to remember folks...
The reason we Resumed Hostilities (note the action...) was that Saddam refused to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441 as well as many others. He was given a timetable, failed to comply, and therefore we followed the stated path of consequences voted on and passed by the United Nations. We did not threaten him with "oh yeah? you've got WMDs!" and simply invade. The Liberals are succeeding in diverting the entire debate to a false premise. Stay on track folks...

Wah, Wah, Wah
Every time a liberal is proven wrong, all they can do is whine.

After that, they sling mud and attack the messenger instead of asking themselves if maybe they were wrong all along.

Cry yourself a river big baby! Then have the guts to face the fact that you have been wrong all this time.

Wah, I am taking my ball and going home.

Responsibility in Reporting II
I'm amazed at the utter and shameless disregard of fundamental facts of this story, as cited in many of the excellent responses preceding me denouncing this so-called journalism. There can be no doubt that Mr. Merola's intention was to mislead and inflame with half-facts. The original AP article couldn't have said it clearer: "There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991." Mr. Merola's statement that "It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq." can be construed as nothing less than intentional misrepresentation of the facts. If there was even a shread of factual evidence supporting or vindicating the current administration, you can be sure Dana Perino would have long ago been trumpeting it. As low as I believe the Bush administration has stooped in pursuit of their maniacal, egotistical and arrogant ambitions, even they chose not to go as low as Mr. Merola. This is my first and last visit to this site. Anyone who recognizes the wide disparity between the facts and what Mr. Merola attempted to foist on his readers will quickly dismiss Mr. Merola as a fraud and an enemy to decent Americans. To all who remain patrons to this blog: my greatest sympathies. Shame on you!

Facts are a stubborn thing, Part II.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/1/10075 0.shtml


WASHINGTON -- In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.


The report claims Wilson misled the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.

Best known as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.


In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.


The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.


Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

Facts are a stubborn thing.
http://patriotpost.us/

Critics of the Iraq War have been quick to point out that the UN already knew about Saddam’s yellowcake, and that it was purchased before the 1991 Gulf War, but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program.

In addition, there was Saddam’s penchant for throwing out UN weapon inspectors. Had sanctions been lifted with Hussein still in power, no honest person can dismiss the likelihood of a nuclear arms race between Iraq and its primary enemy, Iran. Moreover, British and U.S. intelligence agencies still maintain that Iraq was interested in buying more yellowcake from Niger in 1999, despite the denials of Leftist celebrity Joseph Wilson.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion. Somehow we doubt that the Democrat-controlled Congress will call Plame back in to explain herself. But no matter: The world is safer without Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, and America is no doubt safer with

The progress in Iraq is "overwhelming"

Subject: Progess in Iraq "Overwhelming"

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50499

Security progress in Basra is “overwhelming” and Iraq’s second-largest city could be “another Dubai in the coming decade,” the commander of Multinational Division Southeast said today, referring to the bustling international business hub.

The Truth About Iraq WMD's
The Truth about Iraqi WMD's is Out There


1 The Terrorist Watch, Ronald Kessler

2. Shadow Warriors, Kenneth Timmerman -- Nobel peace prize nominee

3 Saddam’s Secrets, Georges Sada)

4 The Bomb in My Garden, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi

5. Saddam’s Bomb Maker, Dr. Khidir Hamza

6. Disinformation, Richard Miniter

When???
"Progess in Iraq Overwhelming. Victory declared! So, when are the troops coming home?"

Maybe 50 years, the same time the 100,000 come home from Japan & Germany - WWII, and Korea - 1950, not to count those in Bosnia and all the other facist battlegrounds of the past century.

The United States maintains a proactive international peacekeeping strategy designed to work in concert with the diplomatic and economic efforts of other governments. Anti-military liberals think we should bring them all home, and line them up along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, defending us only on our own soil. Liberals view the world as a chess board. Once the game is won, put all the pieces back on the board and get ready for a new game. After WWII we should have given Germany and Japan back their weapons, allow them to rebuild their armies.

UN Safeguard, an oxymoron
"Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

He had it, who cares when he got it. I do not recall any media telling us about this, or any UN discussion on how they would get it out of the country and dispose of it. UN SAFEGUARD? What does that mean? At least it is now out of the hands of the middle east.

Responsibility in reporting
Conveniently, I guess it was just an "oversight", you neglected to mention this well hidden paragraph from the AP article:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

I can understand how you'd be confused. Information like that is extremely hard to find when you don't actually read more than you want to in order to "prove" you point.

Is life difficult for you, i mean, knowing that you aren't capable of understanding what you read?

Move along, nothing to see here!
That fissile material has been there since before the first war with Iraq and had been sealed by the IAEA, so, Herrs Bush and Cheney are still NOT vindicated.

to jeff
I always get concerned when people say that an individual is a "Nobel peace prize nominee". The process is secret and the nominees are never known before or after the selection process. So saying that Mr. Timmerman had beena nominee is like saying Rush had been nominated. Just a thought.

Great!
Progess in Iraq "Overwhelming"

Victory declared! So, when are the troops coming home?

Obama Now Admits Surge Worked
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/14/2008-07 -14_barack_obama_purges_web_site_critique_of.html

Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation"...

Progess in Iraq "Overwhelming"
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50499

Security progress in Basra is “overwhelming” and Iraq’s second-largest city could be “another Dubai in the coming decade,” the commander of Multinational Division Southeast said today, referring to the bustling international business hub.

How Much More Proof Do You Need?
The War the Left was Desperate to Lose is Now Won -- And Don't You Forget It

http://frontpagemag.com/blog/Default.aspx

The Truth about Iraqi WMD's is Out There


1 The Terrorist Watch, Ronald Kessler

2. Shadow Warriors, Kenneth Timmerman -- Nobel peace prize nominee

3 Saddam’s Secrets, Georges Sada)

4 The Bomb in My Garden, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi

5. Saddam’s Bomb Maker, Dr. Khidir Hamza

6. Disinformation, Richard Miniter


Just Read It
http://patriotpost.us/

Critics of the Iraq War have been quick to point out that the UN already knew about Saddam’s yellowcake, and that it was purchased before the 1991 Gulf War, but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program.

In addition, there was Saddam’s penchant for throwing out UN weapon inspectors. Had sanctions been lifted with Hussein still in power, no honest person can dismiss the likelihood of a nuclear arms race between Iraq and its primary enemy, Iran. Moreover, British and U.S. intelligence agencies still maintain that Iraq was interested in buying more yellowcake from Niger in 1999, despite the denials of Leftist celebrity Joseph Wilson.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion. Somehow we doubt that the Democrat-controlled Congress will call Plame back in to explain herself. But no matter: The world is safer without Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, and America is no doubt safer without Valerie Plame at the CIA or Joseph Wilson at the State Department.

More Facts
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/1/10075 0.shtml


WASHINGTON -- In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.


The report claims Wilson misled the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.

Best known as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.


In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.


The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.


Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

The Truth Hurts
http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

Plame's Lame Game

What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 12:27 PM ET
Two recent reports allow us to revisit one of the great non-stories, and one of the great missed stories, of the Iraq war argument. The non-story is the alleged martyrdom of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson, supposed by many to have suffered cruel exposure for their commitment to the truth. The missed story is the increasing evidence that Niger, in West Africa, was indeed the locus of an illegal trade in uranium ore for rogue states including Iraq.

The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)

Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.)

wake up call
Investor’s Business Daily:

“Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn’t fit the media’s neat story line that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003.

It’s a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel—thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a ‘significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.’ Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush ‘lied’ about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon...Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff...

That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush’s decision to invade.”

read it and weap

http://patriotpost.us/


...but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion.

Facts About Iraq
The War the Left was Desperate to Lose is Now Won -- And Don't You Forget It

http://frontpagemag.com/blog/Default.aspx


A must read
Read: The Bomb in My Garden. It's a book written by Mahdi Obeidi, the man who headed Iraq's successful uranium enrichment effort.

Obeidi turned over all of Saddam's nuclear secrets to the arms inspectors and CIA. He also tells how Iraq shopped the world markets and university research programs for technology and materials to build their bomb.

Patriot Post continued
Critics of the Iraq War have been quick to point out that the UN already knew about Saddam’s yellowcake, and that it was purchased before the 1991 Gulf War, but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program. In addition, there was Saddam’s penchant for throwing out UN weapon inspectors. Had sanctions been lifted with Hussein still in power, no honest person can dismiss the likelihood of a nuclear arms race between Iraq and its primary enemy, Iran. Moreover, British and U.S. intelligence agencies still maintain that Iraq was interested in buying more yellowcake from Niger in 1999, despite the denials of Leftist celebrity Joseph Wilson.

from the Patriot Post

The latest chapter of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program came to a close on Saturday when 550 metric tons of Iraqi “yellowcake” uranium arrived in Canada on a U.S.-flagged ship. In a secret operation that lasted several weeks, U.S. and Iraqi authorities removed the uranium from the Tuwaitha nuclear complex 12 miles south of Baghdad. A Canadian uranium producer purchased the yellowcake from the Iraqi government for “tens of millions of dollars.”

Once enriched to a sufficient level, the uranium will be used to generate electricity, which is not exactly what Saddam Hussein had in mind for it. The uranium removed from Tuwaitha was enough to build approximately 142 nuclear weapons.


And this ...
"The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ('CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,' June 12, 2003) which said, 'among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.' He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents."

Continued ....
" ...The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [redacted] intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no 'documents' circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from [redacted] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report"

And this ...
"When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. ..."

Frey
"Where does it say this? ..."

In chapter 2-b (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm) you will find the following:

"...Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,([redacted]) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that 'although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.' ..."

Lies and deceit?
Bob:

"Oh sure, it's all just innocent wording, like when President Bush said in his State of the Union address in 2003:

'Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.' ..."

Which was followed by:

"...But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. ..."

But even without that clarification, a fair-minded person could see where this argument was going. The alternative interpretation sounds to me rather paranoid.

I've heard that 70% figure tossed about before. Could you tell me where it came from? I'd like to research it for methodology, because something about that number doesn't pass the smell test: 1) This would mean a fair number of liberals and Democrats who were ideologically hostile to the president's position believed Saddam was behind 9/11, given that you can't get to 70% without including some of them. I find that rather astonishing to believe. 2) Given the intense debate among my own ideological fellow travelers, I find it equally hard to believe that conservatives and Republicans monolithically held this belief, especially since our own opinion-makers have been very explicit in stating that this wasn't the case. You would need all of them to get to 70%, and there was too much disagreement among conservatives to even go to war for all of them to have this erroneous belief. 3) This leaves you with the "undecided" middle, who would also have to believe this virtually in a block. 4) It is incredible to imagine support for the war in Iraq ever falling below 50% if fully 70% of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. The missing WMD argument would never have gained any traction.

Ron
The question is not, nor was it ever, "Did/Does Hussein have WMDs?" The Democrats thought he did, I thought he did, even Joe Wilson thought he did (check his pre-war op-eds). The question was "Are Hussein's WMDs and WMD program enough of a threat to go to war over?" And not just a missile-strike campaign, but a full-on ground war and occupation.

Ahenobarbus
"First of all, I was quoting what Merola said,"

Sorry, should've said, "That's wrong."

"Secondly, there has been a great deal of information that has come out about this trip since Wilson's op-ed. First of all, there was a trade delegation to Iraq and though yellowcake was not specifically named, it was the only possible commercial export product that Niger had to offer that Saddam could possibly have been interested in."

None of which contradicts what I said. Wilson mentioned the meeting in his op-ed, yellowcake was never mentioned at the meeting, and there were no subsequent meetings.

"Wilson gave only an oral report when he got back (extremely curious for a CIA mission, and very fishy),"

Unusual, but the CIA said that Wilson's trip added no new information (beyond what they'd already heard from the ambassador); that might be the reason.

"and the CIA drew the conclusion, even if Wilson himself didn't, that Saddam was attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger."

Where does it say this? A firsthand account would be nice. A reference to a page or paragraph of the Senate report would be OK; I've got it on the computer.

"All of this came out in the Senate Select Intelligence committee, which came to the conclusion that Wilson LIED in his op-ed and in his other accounts of the occasion to the press."

Would this be from the main body of the report, or the partisan "Additional Comments" section?

And have you actually read the op-ed?

"Lastly, this was not the "thread" on which the war was hung."

Fair enough, although seeing how much of a fuss you guys continue to make of it, you can understand how that mistake could be made.

Some People Never Learn
Investor’s Business Daily:

“Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn’t fit the media’s neat story line that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003.

It’s a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel—thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a ‘significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.’ Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush ‘lied’ about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon...Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff...

That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush’s decision to invade.”


Frey #134
Don't forget that before 2001, Kennedy and other liberals told CLINTON that Iraq had WMD's and that he should do something about them; and that CLINTON said that Iraq had WMD's.

Lies and deceit
Oh sure, it's all just innocent wording, like when President Bush said in his State of the Union address in 2003:

"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."

Only someone who is completely disingenuous, or an absolute simpleton, could fail to see the deceitful intent in statements like those continually made by the Administration. The fact that as many as 70% of Americans have thought that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy shows that the campaign of deception worked.

Merola explicitly links the 550 tons of yellowcake with the question of whether Bush lied about later uranium charges. What else could he possibly mean by:

"We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, 'Bush lied.' Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy."

Certainly everyone, including Joe Wilson and "the far-left," knows that Saddam once had a stockpile of uranium ore. So how does it in any way affect their credibility? Again, how does it in any way "vindicate" fraudulent claims that the administration made 10 years later? Why is anyone owed an apology?

But of course, you're only interested in pushing your propaganda. You don't care if it's true or false, honest or dishonest. It's just partisan politics with you guys as it has been all along.

The fun and easy part ...
about arguing with someone who has locked their mind into a narrative and simply refuses delivery of contradictory evidence is that the argument need only be repeated:

"As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife. ...

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. ...

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki’s claim."

I know it's convenient to believe that all the knuckle-draggers out there are incapable of distinguishing between two different cases being made using separate sources of evidence, but Merola did, in fact, separate the sources in his column.

The argument that Bush attempted to tie 9/11 to Saddam Hussein betrays a confusing failure of imagination. I can think of no way anyone drew this conclusion other than making false assumptions because they heard him use the words "9/11" and "Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence. His administration's argument was that Saddam Hussein had WMD and relationships with terrorist networks and therefore he was the most likely party to pull of the "next 9/11," only this time with far more deadly weapons. At no time did his administration promote the idea that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Merola intends to deceive
The fact is, the wording that Merola uses intends to deceive. He insinuates that the "550 metric tons" was a recent discovery, and that it therefore bears on Joe Wilson's report about more recent (fraudulent) yellowcake allegations. Merola says,

"It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq."

But the uranium stockpile was not "found" in 2003. Our troops knew that it was right where it had been since 1991, and they moved to secure the site as quickly as possible.

Since the uranium stockpile had been known since 1991, how can it possibly be "vindication" for claims that the Bush administration made 10 years later? Everyone knows that Saddam once had a nuclear weapons program, and that it was shut down at the end of the first gulf war. Everyone knew that Saddam had a stockpile of uranium in various forms that was taken out of his control in 1991. This is Saddam's true "nuclear legacy" that nobody EVER tried to deny. It has been common knowledge all along.

Merola intends to dishonestly conflate this "550 metric tons" with more recent fraudulent claims by the Bush administration that Saddam had re-started his nuclear weapons program. However, as every American should know by now, there has never been a shred of proof for those baseless allegations. Just as the administration dishonestly tried to link Saddam and 9/11, so Merola attempts, in a sneaky and underhanded way, to link this uranium stockpile with baseless administration claims about Saddam's more recent weapons programs. It's sneaky and dishonest, and needs to be pointed out for what it is.

Frey
First of all, I was quoting what Merola said, and making the case that he wasn't pinning his case about Wilson based on the 550 tons of yellowcake found in Iraq. My argument was correct, in that the quote clearly shows that Merola was basing his claims about Wilson on the information from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

Secondly, there has been a great deal of information that has come out about this trip since Wilson's op-ed. First of all, there was a trade delegation to Iraq and though yellowcake was not specifically named, it was the only possible commercial export product that Niger had to offer that Saddam could possibly have been interested in. Their only other major export is cowpeas. Wilson gave only an oral report when he got back (extremely curious for a CIA mission, and very fishy), and the CIA drew the conclusion, even if Wilson himself didn't, that Saddam was attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger. All of this came out in the Senate Select Intelligence committee, which came to the conclusion that Wilson LIED in his op-ed and in his other accounts of the occasion to the press.

Lastly, this was not the "thread" on which the war was hung. It was one point in a very long laundry list which was presented to build the case against Saddam. It stands out only because it was disputed and that disputed was so highly publicized for so long.

Mass Media and Yellow cake.
The New York Times is the bell ringer. Unless the old grousing lady says it, no one else will.
She did not admit the shoot down of the Swift program which could and did provide much information to our CIA/FBI/et al.
It is to our sorrow that the truth of what Pres. Bush says will not come out until research in the future is able to study his papers.

Just like we found out LBJ also recorded any and all in his office. Later.

Interesting also
that the story of why we went into Iraq keeps changing. First it was an immediate (or near-immediate, within six months) threat of WMDs unleashed on American soil. Then it was Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda (barely existent, as it turns out, and yes, I have read Stephen Hayes, who's an idiot or thinks we are). Then it was for regional stability (?!). Recently, McCain said it was for the oil (at least partly). Now, it seems we went into Iraq not for a within-six-months threat of WMDs deployed in the US, but a within-five-to-seven-years threat of WMDs existing in the region (good thing we went in when we did). And I've read a couple of posters here that say we did out of the goodness of our hearts to rescue the Iraqi people from a dictator (probably the one reason that would make sense if not for the bungled occupation). What next, I wonder?

Ahenobarbus
"During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake"

Actually, you're wrong. According to all accounts of the meeting, yellowcake was never discussed and the "interest in expanding commercial relations" was never followed up on in the four years since. That's an awfully weak thread to hang a war on.

And what Wilson was sent to check out were claims of a done deal, signed by officials of the Niger government. He and the then-ambassador to Niger, who was asked to check it out before Wilson, not only found no evidence of such a deal, but also found that it would be almost impossible with the sanctions and the oversight of Niger's mining industry. Read his op-ed.

Further proof
I guess I didn't even give the AP enough credit for getting the details straight. Their original story, from which Merola cherry picks the most helpful bits and leaves out the inconvenient ones, says the following:

"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

Why do you suppose Merola didn't mention such a crucial piece of information, one that indicates that this yellowcake couldn't have had anything to do with any alleged attempt by Saddam to obtain uranium after 1991? Is it because it renders the issue completely irrelevant to the later fraudulent claims about Saddam's WMD efforts made by the Bush administration, which in turn makes it irrelevant to the Wilson/Plame case?

All of this was known in 1991 and then re-confirmed again in 2003. So how does it "vindicate" any later dishonest claims made by the Bush administration, and why does it require anyone to apologize? Are some of you people really as stupid as these guys take you to be?

Clarification
Since the AP story (mostly likely on purpose) did such a lousy job of explaining the origins of the uranium that was shipped to Canada, let's consult a different source on the matter, World Nuclear News (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_Iraqi_uranium_removed_to_Canada_0807081.html), who said:

"The Iraqi uranium originated from mines at Ukashat [in Iraq] and was originally intended for use in Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, which was discovered and halted in 1991 after the first Gulf War.

Peter Rickwood of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) told WNN that the materials were catalogued and sealed by IAEA officials and kept under safeguards from that time. This situation continued until immediately before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when IAEA staff had to leave. Upon its return in the summer of 2003, the IAEA re-sealed the complex and re-catalogued its contents. It was found that local people had entered the site and taken contaminated barrels for their own use during the security vacuum. Although no significant amounts of uranium went missing, some high explosives did."

So every last ounce of this material was catalogued by the IAEA in the early 1990s, and was re-inventoried in the summer of 2003. It was all accounted for. This is not news. This has all been known about for over 15 years. It's just another attempt of dead-end Bush supporters to mislead the American public.

@ Ray (re: reply #124)
Ray, you said, "thus 'this uranium' fails to account for the 66 missing metric tons, which certainly could have come from Niger in 1995 or later."

The quote I provided from the ISG said specifically that the 486 tons was just what Iraq had acquired from the international market. It's also known that they had their own domestic source of uranium ore, which contributed to their stockpile. The ISG also said specifically (in my earlier quote) that "There is no evidence that this material had been produced after Desert Storm."

How could it be any clearer? The 486 tons was all acquired from foreign sources, and the ISG and the IAEA said explicitly that none of the additional material had been produced since Desert Storm. Therefore, you don't have a shred of evidence to base your ridiculous claim that Niger secretly supplied the balance.

Even the most disingenuous neocons had only alleged that Saddam had tried in recent years to procure yellowcake from Niger, WITHOUT SUCCESS. Even they didn't try to claim that he actually obtained any. Now Mr. Merola and you are kinda sorta alleging that they did. Where's YOUR proof? Or are you just making it up as usual?

Iraq and yellow cake
Don't you recall when the troops went in that they reported that they did indeed find small amounts of unrefined uranium but there was no facilities to develop it into bomb material. Can't refine it so it there was nothing to worry about. And recall the UN had Hans Blix and his team there inspecting the facilities on a regular basis. It would have been very difficult for the Iraqi's to hide a refining facility. Blix was making statements there is nothing there all the time Bush and Cheney were was beating the drums of war, yellow cake and the rest of of it.
Blix was right! but we are now 9 trillion in debt and no end to this war in sight.

Senior Chief: Exactly!!!
.

Oops
*Evan should be Even

Oh well.
So much for an honest press. Ha!
Evan O'Reilly has been carping about not having gone to Iraq. I wonder what he has to say now?
It's no surprise that the press hasn't said anything. They probably won't. It would hurt the Obamessiah's campaign. You know the one that uses as one of it's main talking points that he was against the war in the first place because there wasn't anything there?

No intentional deception
Bob:

"Mr. Merola, you owe your readers an apology for insulting their intelligence. Your piece was written to intentionally insinuate that the yellowcake in question related to the alleged attempt to acquire uranium ore from Niger that Joe Wilson's mission showed to be a fraud. ..."

I already responded to johnh1 about this same thing. You apparently did not read the column very carefully:

"As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife. ...

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. ...

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki’s claim."

This is the case that Merola made with regards to Wilson. His argument is based on the information that came out of the Senate Committee investigating the matter.

Correction to Reply #120
Mr. Merola reported the last of 550 metric tons of yellowcake arriving in Canada.

Bob of CA reports "In May 2003, coalition forces visited the former yellowcake extraction plant at Al-Qaim and discovered 16 drums of yellowcake and radioactive waste—materials we believe were associated with the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. These drums were transferred in late June 2003 to the yellowcake storage facility located at Tuwaitha. There is no evidence that this material had been produced after Desert Storm.

[ ... ]

[Comment: the 16 drums found in 5/2003 do not weigh 550 metric tons.]

"During the 1970s and early 1980s, Iraq bought uranium in various forms from the international market. These materials included about 486 tons of yellowcake, 33,470 kg of “natural” uranium dioxide, 1,767 kg of “low-enriched” uranium dioxide (2.6 percent 235U), and 6,005 kg of “depleted” uranium dioxide from Portugal, Italy, Niger, and Brazil."

[Comment: 486 tons of yellowcake is 66 tons short of the 550 tons delivered to Canada.]

"Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honest knows that this uranium has been known about for more than 15 years, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Yet you insinuate that somehow it does. Shame on you, Mr. Merola."

[Comment: thus "this uranium" fails to account for the 66 missing metric tons, which certainly could have come from Niger in 1995 or later. A fair conclusion is that Bob apparently was not intellectually dishonest, just a little careless with his math in his anger over the lie he believed for so long being exposed. And he doesn't come off too well in ignoring the implication of the Bush administration being silent about the magnitude of the find for so long, despite taking big political hits over it.]

Yellowcake
If the yellowcake was removed and sent to Canada then it was there and Saddam could have access to it. Who cares about all the other baloney and inuendo liberals are trying to come up with. Liberals always have a hard time facing the TRUTH.

Incomplete article - and questions
1. Did the U.S. have anything to do with the initial yellowcake purchases? It would make us look rather culpable if true. According to the AP story, none of it post-dated 1991. No evidence was found that any of it had been processed for either nuclear power or nuclear weapons. No mention of any refining capacity either. What good is yellowcake if you can't refine it?

2. Why, if the UN inspectors left in 1998, would Saddam want to buy any more yellowcake? He already had 550 tons of the stuff...isn't that more than enough for making a few nukes?

3. Why did it take so long to dispose of this stuff? If the yellowcake was discovered in 2003 and was adequately secured, it would only make sense to at least get it out of the country as soon as possible. The fact that it took so long to remove it suggests that the U.S. didn't consider its presence as an ovverriding security concern.

4. If this is such a resounding vindication for the Bush administration why haven't they publicly announced it? I mean, the stuff is safely out of harm's way, right? One would think that Dana Perino at the least would be touting this evidence of Saddam's intentions off the highest rooftops. A "leaked" story is just too convenient...

stedes: I COULD argue and debate until

the cows came home, and believe me, I'D WIN!!! I ALWAYS WIN!!! Because I know of what I speak.

But at some point any intelligent person realizes when it's just folly and fruitless.

You have you mind closed that is made up... and therefore there is no reason to have any further dialogue with you.

And you can spare me the "oh, no come back" and "she has nothing else to say so I won the argument" nonsense.

I simply choose NOT to talk to a brick wall, or someone with the approximate intelligence of a brick wall.



More intentional deception
Mr. Merola, you owe your readers an apology for insulting their intelligence. Your piece was written to intentionally insinuate that the yellowcake in question related to the alleged attempt to acquire uranium ore from Niger that Joe Wilson's mission showed to be a fraud. In fact (and I'm sure you know this), the uranium that was removed to Canada was known to have been sealed by the IAEA after the FIRST gulf war, and was most likely obtained during the 1970s and early 1980s.

As the Iraq Study Group final report stated in 2004,

"In May 2003, coalition forces visited the former yellowcake extraction plant at Al-Qaim and discovered 16 drums of yellowcake and radioactive waste—materials we believe were associated with the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. These drums were transferred in late June 2003 to the yellowcake storage facility located at Tuwaitha. There is no evidence that this material had been produced after Desert Storm.

[ ... ]

During the 1970s and early 1980s, Iraq bought uranium in various forms from the international market. These materials included about 486 tons of yellowcake, 33,470 kg of “natural” uranium dioxide, 1,767 kg of “low-enriched” uranium dioxide (2.6 percent 235U), and 6,005 kg of “depleted” uranium dioxide from Portugal, Italy, Niger, and Brazil."

Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honest knows that this uranium has been known about for more than 15 years, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Yet you insinuate that somehow it does. Shame on you, Mr. Merola.


Most Americans
think that 'yellow cake' comes in a box from Pillsbury. If the leftists among these public school brainiacs understood this proof of Saddam's WMD plans, they'd simply call the report a lie. "Bush lied, people died." That's how idiots argue. They either deny reality and fact, refuse your right to speak or drown out your message with jeers.
How wonderful it is to think of the next 8 years, (if we're lucky) filled with leftist hog trough dwellers screaming at us to be happy with an end to our good health care and our new tax impoverishment.
"After all," they will tell us. "Rationed $50 dollar gas, mandatory government-controlled home thermostats and $10 dollar rebates on bicycles are proof that our masters really do love us. Never you mind the daily riots and the terrorist attacks."

Anne - A Correction
"I've heard that bold face lie countless times! In fact, he said this would be long and difficult struggle"

Yes Bush did say that, but he was referring in general to the overall war on terror, not the Iraq war.

Specifically to Iraq, we heard they will Welcome us as liberators, with flowers, Total cost of $60 billion, We do not need a lot of troops. We can start with drawing troops in July (2003), Oil revenues will pay for reconstruction, and of course my personal favorite.."Mission Accomplished".

johnh1: And something else to ponder....

How many times over the past five years or so you heard that Pres. Bush said this would be a quick war???

I've heard that bold face lie countless times! In fact, he said this would be long and difficult struggle. He was right up front and honest, as much as he could, from the beginning.

Yet, we hear lie after misrepresentation, after lie.

The NYSlime alone has printed more than enough to prove that.

In fact, I check out http://www.mrc.org on a regular basis. You'll learn a lot about the MSM lies and misrepresentations.


Anne: After reading my question again
I agree it didn't make much sense - and I apologize for it. It was meant to be lighthearted and I also realize this is not a lighthearted subject, and certainly inappropriate here.

johnh1: Sorry. I stand corrected...

But, that really was not a very intuitive question.

And, it does appear that you've buying into a lot of what the Bush haters have been spewing for a long time.

AGAIN, as I said to Allen and you above, in today's world, if we... the American people know something, THE ENTIRE WORLD knows it, and sometimes you just don't want the WORLD to know what information you have.

No doubt, as time goes by, we will learn a LOT of things that were not prudent for the enemy to know... and therefore WE were not told.

Why is that a big deal??? I'm pretty sure that our "right to know" is trumped my our "need to know" when it comes to our national security.

And, we DON'T KNOW that Pres. Bush lied about anything. All we do KNOW is what the libs... the confirmed Bush haters, have and will say ANYTHING to make him look bad. (How about Plame and Wilson just for starters?)

I posted a whole list of sites anyone can get (google) about the WMDs buried in Syria. Yet, people still pig-headedly refuse to believe it.





Not a lib
Anne - you are getting personal again. I'm not a lib - but I don't like being lied to by individuals in the party that used to represent me.

Aside from destroying our currency by lowering taxes then starting a war with no money to pay for it, this administration has delierately let the southern border be overrun by illegals. To add insult to injury, they prosecute border patrol agents trying to stop illegal alien drug smugglers, and give the illegal immunity and the option to sue us. Maybe in your insulated neighborhood of a DC suburb you don't see much of it, but it is beginning to destroy much of the rest of the country

I voted for G.W.Bush in 2000. I was ecstatic when we entered the war in Afghanistan, but when we stopped the the bombing at Tora Bora and let Bin Laden escape, I began to lose faith in the determination of this administration.

Like may other conservatives who supported W to begin with I have come to be suspicious of anything he says.

But, and I mean this seriously, I do respect your point of view.

Have your yellowcake and eat it too.
One of the VERY best headlines ever! Excellent article.

Syria
johnh1:

"Syria? If we KNEW that Iraq was really toothless, and the real threat was buried in sands of Syria why didn't we invade Syria? ..."

Well, besides the false premise of Iraq being "toothless" -- if they had an agreement with Syria, I'm sure the plan would have been to bring the materials back once the heat was off -- the question nearly answers itself. Work this scenario in your head: No obvious WMD are found in Iraq up front. The administration immediately puts out the message that it believes the materials were moved to Syria and starts to make the case for an invasion of Syria. How is that going to look from a public relations standpoint? What are the chances of getting popular support? Your choices are to monitor the area closely and operate "under the radar" if someone attempts to move the materials or to attempt to invade and occupy two large Middle Eastern nations at the same time. You absolutely have to think this scenario through before you assume that the logical course of action is to turn around and invade Syria.

johnh1 asks: "So how come we invaded
Iraq instead of Syria?"

Clearly, johnh1, you are yet another limited lib troll who was told that "there is no such thing as a stupid question" and you actually believed it.

Well, whoever told you that, lied to you!!!

Not only is that a STUPID question, it actually ranks right up there... probably among the top fifteen.

Wilson Lied...People Died
Wilson and Plame are both liars and will be tried for treason at the same time Bush is being tried for impeachment. Of course,neither will ever happen.

For some strange reason,President Bush just keeps quiet and lets us think the left are telling the truth,when he could refute some of the BS we hear. His popularity may not be in the tank if he did.



Ahenobarbus: When it comes to Valerie

Plame, johnh1 does have a point....

And it might also include some of the Bush/Republican haters in the Pentagon... since we KNOW what they've leaked......


So how come we invaded Iraq instead of
Syria? If we KNEW that Iraq was really toothless, and the real threat was buried in sands of Syria why didn't we invade Syria? My God, if all that stuff is really there aren't we courting potential disaster by leaving it there? Or maybe the CIA has already covertly sneaked into Syria and secretly removed it.

CIA employees
johnh1,

Your concern is legitimate, but this is "avoiding the question."

Actually johnh1: You'd be far better off

to be worried, and I mean REALLY WORRIED, about all the lies and misinformation the MSM and demo-cretin Congess is telling and not telling you....


johnh1: You're ill informed.

Covert information... obviously, but otherwise no..

And besides, this was already known infomation... except the MSM paid no attention...

Nice try... but sorry!


Mark J
Mark J, your argument defeats itself. You argue, correctly, that the facilities to convert natural uranium to yellowcake, and then to convert yellowcake into usable power-reactor grade fuel (about 3 percent U235) are very expensive. But to convert yellowcake into weapons grade uranium (over 90 percent U235) is more expensive yet.

So, you are saying that it's just too expensive to build facilities to make power-grade uranium, but that it's not too expensive to build facilities to make weapons-grade uranium.

Incidentally, Iraq (like Iran) was a signatory to the NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, under which they had every right to enrich uranium for power plant purposes. Iraq also (like Iran) allowed comprehensive inspections of its nuclear facilities at Osirak. Those inspections never turned up any evidence of a weapons program. So, the Israelis figured they better bomb Osirak anyway, just to show everyone who's boss.

You're way too smart to swallow the Neocon Kool-Aid. Read the articles by Gordon Prather at LewRockwell.com if you want more information regarding these issues. Prather, by the way, is a nuclear physicist who has worked on actual nuclear weapons programs.

MRC #99
"even certain kinds of insane people can somehow function in the modern world as long as we make many many allowances for him"

Look who's talking!

Tony Snow has died
Off Topic but Fox News just reported that Tony Snow has lost his battle with Cancer.

America has lost one of it's rare HONEST newsmen.

Anne's source
I was under the impression that CIA employees, covert or otherwise, had a responsibility to keep what they knew or didn't know to themselves. I am kind of concerned to learn these guys not only reveal they work for the CIA, but get liquored up at cocktail parties and start blabbing about what they know.

And another thing ...
The suggestion that Saddam had yellowcake for generating electricity is absolutely absurd. Why on earth would an oil-rich nation (much like Iran), that is among the few nations that can pump oil so cheaply that they are a factor in how expensive oil has to be before it is profitable to obtain it from available resources, invest the tremendous amount of capital it would require to generate nuclear power, which is more expensive to produce?

And what on earth does the known date of a yellowcake source have to do with its usefulness in enrichment? "We already knew this existed," and therefore it no longer has fissile potential? What on earth sort of logic is this? So we knew it existed and it was under IAEA seal; can someone explain to me what sort of magical protection this affords? Are IAEA seals impenetrable? Since this "known" source was "discovered," do we know whether it was stored in the same place it had been left in 1998 or if it had been moved around? And what guarantee would this have given us once sanctions were lifted unconditionally, as was becoming increasingly likely prior to 9/11?

Does anyone recall that one of the things Saddam was supposed to account for was the destruction of "known" WMD and potential WMD materials? The "known" sources were very much a factor in our decision to go to war. How short are people's memories here? How many people recall that many, many pundits and writers were concerned about Iraqi WMD from the time the inspectors were kicked out in 1998? Bush didn't drive this narrative; he was a latecomer.

good ole savage
michael savage isnt he that stand up comic that is heard every once in a while on right wing radio. to find him just twist the dial until you hera someone insanely babbling at the top of his lungs about " Im right , about everything and everybody else who doesnt believe me is (fill in the blank) as long as its derogatory. . he really is a pitiful character who i hate to admit holds a certain fascination fo me. I emember as an under grad in psych class discussing abnormal psych. thinking how fascinating it would be to take a trip to a closed ward at a mental institution. im sutre i would have been ill for it but it would have been facscinating. so it is with michael. he is not a joke, he is somewhere beyond that but i dont think we have the word for it yet.he is definite evidence that even certain kinds of insane people can somehow function in the modern world as long as we make many many allowances for him.

Farmers wife
I agree about the conspiracy theories. Guess I'll just have to buy the book and see what he has to say. The videos are kinda long and rambling. But there is some info there.
Keep up the good work.

Stedes: No, I'm NOT making it personal!!

I'm saying that there are PLENTY of FACTS posted on THIS THREAD that CONFIRM there are WMDs buried in the sand in Syria....

And you STILL either WON'T or CAN'T comprehend it.

So much is your DENIAL, is why I said that someone could take you to Syria, and push your head into the sand, nose to WMD and you'd STILL not believe that THAT WAS EVIDENCE.

Now, start at the top of the thread and READ... and read with an OPEN MIND, because YOU DON'T KNOW for sure that this is not fact. You just want or need to believe it's not fact.


Anne's source
I've heard many times about truck and air traffic into Syria in the months leading up to the invasion. I'm not sure enough of the information to believe it without qualification, but so far it has been sufficiently compelling that it cannot be dismissed. Unless I see evidence that countermands or unequivocally discredits Georges Sada then I have then I have to be open to the possibility.

As far as Anne's source: a family member quotes two members of the CIA. Sorry, stedes, but that would be sufficient sourcing for many a journalist to go on. How many stories have you heard or read that began with, "[fill in the department here] officials told [fill in the new organization here] that ..."? Is your objection that the information came from here daughter? Sorry again, but she knows her source intimately, and the information passed along was not vulnerable to misinterpretation or inexact recollection. "Your mother is right." is pretty simple and straightforward.

bush apologists
ill bet ive heard 500 different responses which tell us in one way or another that iraq really did have WMD s. the latest as i understand it is in book coming out next week, which seems to take every single instance of what bush and company said about
their reasons for entering the war and prooves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the administration was right but were someohow bufaled by the CIA and numerous other agencies from telling the american people about the evidnce that they had proving that they were right . dont you realize that evry time you "proove" that the administration has and had documentray evidence proving theor case for entrance into the war, but didnt use it you are confirmning our opinion about the utter incompetance and stupidity of this administration. if you had such evidenc would you use it. or do you prefer as does the administration getting bonked on the head 5 times aweek

The Senate Select Committee on Intell
They proved Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, his wife, lied.

That was Mr. Merola's point. Think people, think.

read some more

http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

Plame's Lame Game

What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens

Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 12:27 PM ET
Two recent reports allow us to revisit one of the great non-stories, and one of the great missed stories, of the Iraq war argument. The non-story is the alleged martyrdom of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson, supposed by many to have suffered cruel exposure for their commitment to the truth. The missed story is the increasing evidence that Niger, in West Africa, was indeed the locus of an illegal trade in uranium ore for rogue states including Iraq.

The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)

Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.)


half-life of uranium - Mark
A bit late, but we need to keep this forum factual, if possible.
"uranium-234: half life = 244 thousand years, 0.0055% of all uranium.
uranium-235: half life = 704 million years, 0.72% of all uranium.
uranium-238: half life = 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium.

Half-life is the length of time required for half of a given number of initial number of atoms of that isotope to decay."

Bobby, I had not seen...
anything about this until recently and am just curious to know more about it. I do remember that about Kissinger now that you bring it up.

I try not to be a conspiracy lunatic but you have to wonder why it was hushed up and suddenly we had ANWR instead of one of the largest producing oil fields in the world.

Merola's use of facts
johnh1:
"...The issue is that this revelation does not suddenly justify Bush's statement that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake from Niger in 1999. And it does not by extension incriminate Wilson and Plame. That was point this guy Merola was trying to make."

No, it was not. You need to read the column more carefully. Merola doesn't use the discovery of yellowcake to make that argument. He uses the information that came out of the Senate Committee investigating the matter.

"As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife. ...

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. ...

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki’s claim."

read people read
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/1/10075 0.shtml


WASHINGTON -- In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.


The report claims Wilson misled the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.

Best known as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.


In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.


The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.


Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."



Anne
Now you have run out of arguments and you are making it personal...

How am I being resistent to fact, when you have not presented fact?

Again - I ask, has WMD's been found in Syria? So what facts do you have that I do not see?



Farmers Wife
I went to your article page and saw the post about Lindsey wilson. I think I hav e seen these also. It has been 8 or 10 months since I saw it. I have not reviewed it since. But it seems I remember something about an agreement between Henry Kissinger and the Saudis that if wqe do not use the Anwar oil that the Saudis will continue traiding oil for US dollars. Is this what you were refering to in your article.

Do you believe
Had Al Gore won he would have said sorry no proof of WMD go on killing civilians? That was the reason for setting up the no fly zones and Hussein sent in troops on the ground. Talk about bone head use of force. Clinton wouldn't let them use aircraft to do the killing but army was ok?

Sadaam was contained because of no fly zones so it would have been safe to have him continue? France was already showing signs of normalization by signing trade agreements.

Why did Bill Clinton say he tossed cruise missiles into Iraq? Check out CNN report. Was that just an oops or did everyone think Hussain had WMD?

Why would Bush think Hussein had WMD
But that is not the issue here. Obviously if the UN inspectors had locked up the yellowcake they had found from before the 1991 war, Bush and the CIA knew it was in Iraq. The issue is that this revelation does not suddenly justify Bush's statement that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake from Niger in 1999. And it does not by extension incriminate Wilson and Plame. That was point this guy Merola was trying to make.

Stedes you say...
"Yes the majority of countries believed he had WMD's, but they all did not support war as the solution. Bush could not get UN backing."

No, those countries like France and Germany and Russia did not support us and No, the UN did not back us. The reason is simple, they had too much to loose. The UN had the Oil for Food scam going and those other countries didn't want to loose their source of cheaper oil.

So oil and greed was the reason they wouldn't fight.

There is still more to this story and maybe someday we will hear the rest of it. Any President and CIC would be grossly irresponsible if he laid out all the sensitive information to the American public before deciding how best to protect us.

Saddam had plenty of time to prevent the invasion if he had nothing to hide and he did nothing because he judged President Bush to be no more dangerous than President Clinton was.

If President Bush had been lying for some deceptive purpose, don't you think massive amounts of WMD's most certainly would have been found in short order?

The President wasn't lying and the terrorists haven't hit us again because they have been otherwise engaged. That may change in light of the evidence they see that the next Administration will be all talk and no bite.

stedes whines: "But all you presented
was hearsay. No facts..."

Excuse me??? Don't think so, cupcake!

Clearly, you are, as Bob Mook, delusional...

"a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact."

Get that part... RESISTANT to..
1. Reason
2. Actual fact

I bet someone could actually TAKE YOU TO SYRIA, push your FACE right into the sand so you're note to WMD, and you'd STILL NOT BELIEVE IT.

You'd come up with some stupid reason why that isn't so.


The world did not begin with Bush
Why would Bush think Hussein had WMD?

The previous administration said he had them.
Check what Madelain Albright, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Bill Clinton were saying in regards to weapons prior to Bush. You can see for yourself how the democrats at the time were linking weapons to possible terror groups.

Clinton's policy was to protect Iraqi civilians by having the no fly zones. Protecting civilians was the reason we had to go into Bosnia. So Bush was to change the policy and let them die?

Do you happen to recall the phrase "boots on the ground" in relation with stopping Hussein?

Anne
I know hindsight is 20/20, but the point I am making is we were wrong on the WMD threat.

Yes the majority of countries believed he had WMD's, but they all did not support war as the solution. Bush could not get UN backing.

Second the evidence made public was proved wrong. The mobile labs, aluminum tubes. Powell's UN speach was all wrong. David Kay said "we got it wrong".

And you still have not presented one fact to support the rumor WMD's were moved to Syria. You speak of it as fact.

I understand you supporting the war at back in 2003. I do not understand how you can still agree it was the right decision looking back in 2008.

WMDs in Syria
One of Saddam's generals told us after the invasion that the WMDs were moved to Syria. See Anne's 8:59p AM post above.

The fact is that the MSM competely ignored this general.

God Bless George W. Bush and his courage. It is more clear than ever that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, it way have been dormant, but he would have resurrected it immediately if the sanctions had been removed. They would have been removed if Germany, France, Switzerland, etc had had their way. I suppose the US could have vetoed it but I am not sure how that would work in the UN. Had we not invaded the UN crooks would have kept up the scam on the Oil for Food and that may have given Saddam the moeny to get the operation back up and running.

Was Saddam a threat, you damn right he was.

Bubba

Some history is necessary.
After 9/11,
After Afganistan,
America and the
American people were aroused.
There was only one place in the world,
Where US planes were being fired at every day-
The “No-Fly” zones in Iraq.

Saddam broke every part of the 1991 ceasefire.
He defied repeated UN resolutions.
He interfered with and expelled UN inspectors.
He corrupted “Oil for Food”
He had undeniable links to terrorists.
He had over a year to come to terms.

The US Congress voted for military action.
Of the 23 “Whereas..” clauses in the resolution,
Only 2 dealt with WMD.

If this country does get hit...
again, it will be because Democrats literally and liberally hate President Bush. They look at evidence of Saddam Hussein's plans to get his hands on some really big weapons as merely pipe dreams of an aging duly elected dictator. They always downplay the really important stuff and fret and worry about how much money some CEO of a successful business is making.

The reason France and Germany didn't stand behind us against Saddam is because they had their hands in his cookie jar.

The love of all that is evil and immoral is evident in the way they have undermined and distorted Constitutional principles to increase and encourage sloth and decadence in our society.

As Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

America is the "good guy" and Saddam was a "bad guy" but if we listen to Liberals long enough as a Nation we will eventually as a people become convinced that it is America's fault that the "bad guys" were bad.

God Help Us!

paranoid mysticical
Did you insert those "facts" into wikki yourself to make your "arguement". Even the most ignorant left/lib knows not to quote wikki.

There was no FRESH yellowcake
Saddam had yellowcake for a reason.
It was discovered and sealed in 1991.
He could not access it while sealed.
He had a reason to want MORE.
In 1999 he TRIED to buy MORE, secretly.
The Nigerians told the British that.
They said he TRIED, not that he succeeded.
British intelligence told Bush that.
Bush simply quoted the British.

Valerie Plame lied, and people cried-
“Bush lied.”
Joe Wilson lied, and people cried-
“Bush lied.”
Armitage leaked and people cried-
“Bush leaked.”
The NYT leaked and cried-
“Bush leaked.”

Do you see a pattern here?

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”


stedes: Pa-lease! Get real!!!

Decisions were made based on what was KNOWN at the time.

Pretty much every leader in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs and was an EMMINENT THREAT.

And, since you didn't even know about those WMDs buried in Syria, how can you question, with any credibility, if they're "old" or not?

And, as I said to Allen above, in today's world, if we... the American people know something, THE ENTIRE WORLD knows it, and sometimes you just don't want the WORLD to know what information you have.


It is absolutely incomprehensible that the libs can't understand this.




Anne
Thank you for your reply..But all you presented was hearsay. No facts...

It seems you are willing to accept this as fact with no evidence to support it. If true, shouldn't we be having a stand off with Syria?

This is just irresponsible rumors and misinformation. It is just a conspiracy theory.

It seems to me you folks who supported the war are desperate to be proven right, so you cite old WMD's and rumors about being moved to Syria as justification.

All You have is Old WMD's
In looking back. The Administration sold the war as an immediate threat.

Rumsfeld: (9/19/02) "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

Mar. 6, 2003
George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people."

Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

What we know is Saddam wanted an active WMD program. There is no doubt in my mind if left unchecked, he would certainly do whatever he can to obtain WMD's.

But we also know that we were successful in curtailing him. These finds of old WMD's not new ones confirm that. Sanctions, Inspections and US forces controlling Iraqi airspace were successful.

The only WMD's found or presented to justify this war are old outdated weapons pre-1991 that were not in any condition to harm us.

The threat was cleraly exaggerated or wrong, and the state of his current WMD program proved wrong as well. But the possibility of him becoming a threat was certainly there.

So - Is old WMD's a justification for war?

How narrow minded can we all be?
I am stunned by the legalistic nature of the debate over Iraq (and North Korea, for that matter.) How many times must a dictator kill innocent people before it becomes legal to depose him? ...so many people decry murder, torture and slavery, but so many more are willing to dance on pin-heads to avoid taking action. What a shame!

Saddam was the most universally condemned dictator since Hitler, yet we argue over a few words in Bush's state of the union address as if they were relevant (let alone decisive) in the decision to restart the invasion of Iraq.

North Korea has held a population of over 30 Million in what amounts to slavery for over two generations, and yet we pretend the dictators there were something more than criminal thugs.

I just don't see how humans can be so inhumane in the name of what? ...politics?

stedes: And this news is not NEW.

Shortly after we liberated Iraq, I happened to be at a cocktail party at my daughters. Attending that party were a number of neighbors who were retired Marines, currently working for the CIA.

During one conversation, my daughter happen to mention that her mother (Moi!) believed that Saddam's WMDs had been taken to Syria, and probably buried in the sand (heaven knows, if Syria has anything, it has lots of sand.)

Two of these now CIA guys turned and said simultaneously, "Your mother is right!"

And these limited libs keep on insisting that Saddam had no WMDs. What idiots!




Saddam's WMDs buried in Syria: FACT
Googe results:

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD in SyriaJan 21, 2004 ... Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, ...
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Atlas Shrugs: 9/6 REPORT: Saddam's WMD in SyriaYou can avoid evil, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding evil.
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/04/saddams-wmd-in.html - 132k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges -- 02/02/2006Feb 2, 2006 ... Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges By Sherrie Gossett CNSNews.com Staff Writer February 02, 2006 ...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/Special Reports/archive/200602/SPE20060202a.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMDThe evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General ...
archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 ...Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, ... "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York ...
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an- israeli-says/24480/ - Similar pages - Note this

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The ...I believe the WMD has either been transfer to Syria and/or back to Russia [302 words] ... Saddam wanted to attack Israel with WMD [242 words] ...
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sa da-says/26514/ - Similar pages - Note this

WMD's In Syria?
Is this a fact or just speculation?

I am reading several posts here in TH making this claim. What is it based on? How do you know this?

No one in the Bush Administration or government agency has made this claim, yet it is spoken as fact in these right wing blogs.


Impeaching Bush
Probably not until after the election though...just about everthing that comes out of his mouth makes him look dumber - he is a valuable unpaid resource to the democrats.

I think he should be impeached for his mistreatment of the border patrol agents. Unfortunately, that is one of the few things he has done that Nancy Pelosi probably admires.

EVEN IF, only those on the oversight
committees knew.. they allowed the now 9% Congress and lying MSM to bash Pres. Bush, and undermine the security of our country.

And now, these treasonous, certifiably insane, flaming idiot liberals are going to review impeachment....

"Pelosi OK with Impeachment Review"
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Pelosi_Impeachment/2008/ 07/11/112032.html

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dropped a bombshell by reversing course and suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might take up the issue of impeaching President Bush.

"Pelosi’s change of heart comes after Rep. Dennis Kucinich moved a “privileged resolution” to force the House to consider whether Bush should be impeached for, according to the Ohio Democrat, lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq."


The worst part is that the lying libs have no clue just how hypocritical they truly are. What fools.


no onesfacts: SIX posts, said nothing!

No FACTS, and nothing of worth... and it took him SIX posts to do it.

I think that's some kind of TH record.


Misleading cloumn
If you will read the entire AP article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ you will find a paragraph that seems to contradict the thrust of this column:

"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

I'm not sure how the reporting of this shipment of yellowcake has anything to do with what happened in Niger in 1999. Or Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson. What is the connection?


History will decide
As the President has said many times publically, (probably not heard on ABC, NBC, and CBS) history will decide about his legacy. He never let media, polls, or anti war demonstrators sway him in his decisions. Thank God for us and my grandson, who has already done three tours, like many others, have this administration in charge of their mission. Where would we be if we had listened to the present negative, political, non-beliers, and had turned our back on the Iraqis? We can say a BIG THANK YOU to our troops, theirs in charge, the veterans, military families, and a special thanks to our fallen. God Bless all the Gold Star Families, and know yours are still watching over us and their troops. They will never be forgotten. Now if only we could only listen to the many good things the President has wanted to do, for one DRILL, for two Private Investing Social Security for our young, so unlike us, they could leave what they have saved to their heirs. They deserve at least what we pay our politicians. It is about time we deserve progress.

WMDs in Iraq
I never doubted Saddam Hussein had WMD materials or intent to use them as weapons of war.
His record of arrogance and aggression speaks for itself in, for example, his war with Iran, use of chemical/biological weapons against Kurds in Iraq, invasion of Kuwait, missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and Israel, imprisonment, torture and murder of Iraqi citizens and others for decades, acquisition of military equipment and supplies from, for example, France, Germany and Russia, harboring of terrorists in Iraq for years leading up to 2003, and continued defiance of UN sanctions including hiding WMD materials from international inspectors - the Mr. Magoos seeking the materials.
Further evidence includes: jet fighter aircraft buried in the Iraqi deserts, movement of WMD materials from Iraq to at least Syria, Syria's subsequent putting down of terrorists with WMD materials from Iraq and intent to use them in Syria, Syria's attempts to obtain launch vehicles (missiles) from North Korea, and the nuclear processing facility in Syria destroyed by Israel in 2007 following closely the pattern of the destruction of the Iraqi facility in 1985.
How much evidence does it take to convince a Liberal of evil intent and simple truth? Obviously way more than any mere human being can present to them.
Why are Liberals intent on compromising U.S. and world defense from terrorists? I don't know. I am a Conservative. I think, not emote. So ask Liberals the why question. I doubt you will get an honest answer.

heck rereading the article it seems that
saddam would have used this for, wait for it wait for it electricity

"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. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said."

Should we be fearful of Canada?
They use the metric system!

this story has nothing to do with facts
it is clear no one knew much about this.
this is not the yellowcake from niger.
this has nothing to do with Powell's
presentation at the UN
this is what Rumsfield would call an
unknown unknown.
there still is no tie as bush stated to
saddam and terrorist groups. is there?
no. thought so.

the liberal media would never report on
this but MSNBC would:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

oh, that's July 5, 2008

fyi for chris, etc.

let me add to that post
yellow cake is for dirty bombs not nukular weapons as george bush
descirbed.
done. owned.

so what?
yellowcake is for dirty bombs not for nukular weapons.
niger was not mentioned?
this surely does not prove that bush told the truth or that american
soldiers did not get killed.

Have your Yellowcake.....
Yeah, and then there has always been the little matter of Saddam gassing the Kurds. Isn't this use of gas considered a WMD? The Communist media has always, to the best of my knowledge, remained silent on that little issue which long antedates the war.

Investors Business Daily
“Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn’t fit the media’s neat story line that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003. It’s a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel—thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region. This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a ‘significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.’ Seems to us this should be big news. After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush ‘lied’ about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S. This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon...Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff... That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush’s decision to invade.”

—Investor’s Business Daily

childish liberals show themselves
This is amazing! Every time someone shows how foolish liberalism is by exposing the truth, their first instinct is to kick and scream like the spoiled little brats they really are.

Plugging their ears with their fingers and stomping their feet, the say you are lying and that you do not know the facts.

Why don't you liberals actually do your own research for a change. If you doubt the message don't attacke the messenger, research it yourself.

Oh, but that would actually require you to work. Sorry, work is something conservatives do to pay the taxes while you lazy liberals sit on your fat butts and smoke dope.


Surreal
Why do I strongly suspect that many Democrats in Congress knew about this secret program - via oversight hearings and intell briefings - yet purposely decided to join in (lead?) the "Bush lied" chorus because they knew they wouldn't be exposed for many years? Of course, we are talking about the most despicable, dishonest politicians ever to disgrace the halls of Congress. Power-hungry traitors.

And who's surprised that the leftist career bureaucrats at the CIA once again ran their own covert ops in direct subversion of the administration whose policies they are responsible for implementing? Why doesn't someone fire these unprofessional, insubordinate jerks?

The leadership of Congress has
been aware of this. It was actually reported several years ago, and got even less attention than it did this time.

The dimcrats just opted to continue to lie about it.

Bob Munck: Like all limited lunatic libs

is delusional...

And the definition of "delusional" is...

"a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact."

Get that part... RESISTANT to..

1. Reason
2. Actual fact

What a pathetic way to go through life!

Anne
"That is just WAY TOO MUCH LOGIC for any 1200 liberals to digest at any one time."

Sorry. I keep forgetting. But I should've known that a fellow Virginian would bring me back to reality.

:-)

Didn't anyone ever tell you that the only thing "liberal" and "logic" have in common is that they both start with "L?"

The L you say!

Check out Chris' post... 8:18PM... he seems to have the liberal "thing" nailed! :-)

Except for one word in his last sentence: "Don't you know, as long as a liberal can think it, it must be so?" Substitute _feel_ for _think_, and it's a bullseye.

Bob Munck
The amazing thing is that the liberal/progressive agenda was so noxious to the American voting public, and Democrat candidates so unappealing, that at least half of the voting public insisted on voting for the 'incompetent, thieving, deadend' conservatives for years. It took years of misrepresented Democrat obstructionism and years of defeatist gloom over Iraq to even begin to swing America temporarily back into the Democrat fold.

And it'll only be temporary, as it always is.

And THAT is what drives many progressive/liberals crazy. They'd like to pretend to love and champion the 'common man', but the 'common man' just WON'T buy into their agenda. Therefore many progressive/liberals despise and distrust at least half of all Americans and make no secret of the fact.

Right
Had Britain and France rolled into Germany in 1933 and toppled Hitler's regime based on reports that he was planning to rearm, we'd probably still have people screeching about how it was a foolish and needless invasion. Thousands of Neo-nazis and ivory tower academics would be denouncing the principle of preemption... and thirty+ million people would still be alive.

Anybody who doesn't realize that Saddam and his regime was eventually going to start Something Big, simply is too foolish to be allowed off momma's apron strings.

This is not a justification for rooting out EVERY troublemaking regime in the world... but we had a particular responsibility in this case because of our previous history with that dirtbag.

Merola Lies, Just Like Bush
This article is a lie.

And, given some of the comments already entered, the more weak-minded members of TH are being taken in by it.

Merola starts the lying right away, with the phrase "550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered ..." As the actual AP article and several of the comments make clear, it wasn't "discovered;" it had been known about for 17 years. He is lying.

I know you guys have to train your liars, thieves, and incompetents somewhere; you did a lot of it with the Coalition Provisional Authority in the early days of the Iraq occupation. (You know, the Young Republicans who misplaced entire pallets of plastic-wrapped $100 bills.) Using TH as a training ground doesn't seem like a very good idea, though; they're too easily exposed as the frauds they are.

Unfortunately, like all your fairy tales this article will reinforce the insane beliefs of the dead-end Bushies. You'll hear only those parts of the story that correspond to your fables and legends.

ally1114
"This yellowcake inventory was known for decades and does not further the WMD argument one iota."

Your statement runs contrary to both the UN and Democratic narratives. Both said that WMD never existed in Iraq, and the UN inspectors in 2002-2003 claimed that it was quite incorrect that Iraq ever possessed Uranium. If what you say is correct, then everybody from Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Kofi Annan, the entire IAEA are pathological liars. I remember Sec State Powell claiming in 2003 that there missing Uranium was one of the reasons for the invasion. He, Bush, Cheney were called liars, and the Dems/MSM quickly joined the chorus, that Bush lied about unaccountable Uranium.

IRAN MISSILE TEST BLUFF

IRAN MISSILE TEST BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO?

WHAT?

Drudge-Many of Iran’s claims related to missile tests during “Great Prophet III” war games — appear to be smoke and mirrors!

The missiles tested DID NOT not have 2,000-kilometer range, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

Iran DID NOT launch a Shahab-3 missile, able to reach Israel.

It was an older missile that was out of production, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

And a video showing what appeared to be many missiles being fired — is actually one missile, filmed from different angles!

NYT’s Bill Broad is planning to quote military insiders.

Developing…

read more


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/iran-missile-test- bluff-old-rockets-bogus-video

Paleocon: Stop it right now!!! :-)

That is just WAY TOO MUCH LOGIC for any 1200 liberals to digest at any one time.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that the only thing "liberal" and "logic" have in common is that they both start with "L?"

Check out Chris' post... 8:18PM... he seems to have the liberal "thing" nailed! :-)


Sorry Mr. Merola,
It doesn't matter if you showed a liberal an actual nuke. They would find some way to downplay it or deny it's existence. That's the upside down, fiction is fact, bad is good, pleasure is pain, ignorance is intellect world they choose to live in. Don't you know, as long as a liberal can think it, it must be so?

Umm, let's see
Why would a country awash in oil develop nuclear power? As MarkJ asked above, if Saddam was interested only in peaceful uses of nuclear power, why did he bother with yellowcake when he could've bought fuel off the shelf? If Saddam had no intention of reviving his nuclear-weapons program after the first smackdown, why did he keep the old yellowcake, and why did he send representatives to Niger looking for new yellowcake? If had no further nuclear ambitions, why did he endure years of ruinous sanctions, frustrate and finally expel inspectors, and court potentially lethal American intervention in order to protect nothing?

Liberal Self-Delusion
No, this isn't new information other than shipping the yellow-cake to Canada.

Liberals have spent the last 5 years completely dodging the issue of the fact that Saddam hand documented yellow-cake in his nation and unfettered access (save airborne monitoring) to it since he kicked the U.N. Inspectors out of his country in the late 90s. He had the means necessary to supply terrorist proxies with at least the materials necessary to build dirty bombs.

He also had a track record of letting these types of people operate in his country (see the First World Trade Cener Bombing).

He has also been documented as violating the terms of his cease-fire by acquiring contraband weapons systems and then bribing opportunistic allies in China, Russia, Germany, and France with illicit funds from oil-for-food fraud.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that this guy was a major security risk. Too bad the Bush Derangement Syndrome people don't have an ounce of sense between them.

Not good for Townhall
Twonhall has very good pundits and bloggers. They are being featured all over the media and big names are associated with them.

This article was not veeted and does not bide well for Townhall as a good source of factual information and intelligent debate.

This yellowcake inventory was known for decades and does not further the WMD argument one iota.

You need to ddo your research before you pen an article that well be well featured on the homepage of Townhall.

Alan Davidson
Clear Away The Fog Blog

Hey MarkJ
"Yellowcake is used in the preparation of fuel for nuclear reactors, where it is processed into purified UO2 for use in fuel rods for PHWR and other systems using unenriched uranium."

Paranoidmystic
See my post above. There is absolutely no reason for a country like Iraq (or Iran) to have yellow cake unless they want to make weapons. There isn't any reason for them to develop their own enrichment program to make nuclear fuel and the stuff is useless on its own, unless Iraq wanted to resurrect the Fiesta Ware industry. You could make an awful lot of pretty orange uranium-based pottery glaze out of that. Or a fair amount of weapons grade uranium.

The British and Eastern European
intelligence agencies always said Saddam's interest (if not acquisition) in Niger yellow cake was always factual.

We all--at least the NYSLimes and crowd and DC partisans--got *distracted*--Dem. word of the present campaign--by Valery Plame and Joe Wilson and the left's desire to get Karl Rove which roars on unabated, as Congress is about to start its FOURTH investigation into Plame's *leak,* which eveyone knew from the start came from Clinton appointee Armitage in State.

Whadda joke

Shelf Life of 100 Years?
Uranium has a half-life of well over a billion years. Even if yellow cake degrades to some other oxide of uranium in a few or even a hundred years, essentially all of the original uranium is still there and will be for millions of years. It would be a trivial matter to chemically process it back to yellow cake or whatever other chemical forms it needs to be in for enrichment (i.e., uranium hexafluoride).

Jimbo
Please please please start paying attention to the news.

Read this article on wikipedia first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery

FACT "further processing, isotopic separation is needed to make depleted uranium or enriched uranium for use in a nuclear reactor or a nuclear weapon"

1981 - Iraq procures yellowcake from Niger.
1980s - Iraq acts as client of US by invading Iran
1991 - Following Gulf War I, UN inspectors locate the yellowcake and seal it.
1990s - Inspectors routinely check that the yellowcake has not been disturbed.
2003 - US Marines unwittingly break the seal and "find" the yellowcake
2003 - 2008 Marines stand guard that the now un-sealed yellowcake not fall into the wrong hands
2008 New Iraqi govt sells the yellowcake to Canada

It wasn't a weapon. We would've known right away if Iraq bought the tech necessary to make it a weapon. We've known how much there was and where it was at since 1991, if not before.

In short, Bush lied and people died.

Wow
I would accuse you, Mr. Merola, of outright lying, if I wasn't pretty sure Townhall is a solid source. I have heard NOTHING about this at all.

This more than any of the other media scandals points me to our sad state: we can't survive when our media don't care about the facts.

Complete and utter vindication for Bush in all areas: the War, terrorism, Hussein, energy, Social Security, and WMD. The media are so invested in the alternate narrative that they will with-hold necessary information. Unbelievable.

Wilson needs now to shut his mouth forever...but he'll be on NPR next week continuing his nonsense.

Not 1981
Right you are Lon it said 1991. That changes the issue of credibility?

Let the facts be the arguement against the left.

When the first premise is false accepting the arguement for other reasons is good reason for starting shouting matches but not much else.

AZPhil
Not sure what is supposed to be new evidence in Ronald's post. Hussein acted like a bully when he was currying favor with the West and when he was dealing with people weaker than himself. He put up token resistance and tried to avoid irritating us too much when he accidentally found himself at war with us after thinking we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait.

Hussein was the paradigm case of someone who was deterrable. The biggest surprise after the invasion was just how far from the line he was deterred. It was pretty clear he was not a threat to us, but I did not expect him to actually destroy preexisting stocks of chemical and biological weapons. And as this story makes clear he did not break the seal on the yellowcake despite years without inspections.

Hussein was a bad man who ruled a state that was decent sized on the middle east scale and weak when compared to us. He was a bully who avoided taking on stronger forces and retreated when faced with that prospect. Why do you giving more evidence that supports that shows him to be a threat?

eat some crow with your yellowcake
Bush said Hussein had materials for making nukes, Hussein had materials for making nukes. 142 nuclear weapons total.

End of story.



The yellowcake takes the cake
Keeping a ruthless dictator from using that yellowcake, which has a shelf life of more than 100 years, makes the war justified.

Think of it this way, if the US did in fact arm Hussein in the 80's, it is only fitting that we remove those same arms once he became a threat, not an ally.

Lon
"But is that the best defense of the invasion of Iraq that is left. Sure it was stupid"

Please read Ronald's post above. He is right - NO amount of evidence produced to liberals will convince them of anything. You all remind me a lot of the OJ jury.

I know this is his hard to digest, but..
In Today's Patriot Post

http://patriotpost.us/


...but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion.

Allen
The AP column does not say that UN Inspectors knew of this stockpile since 1981. It says that Israel bombed the nuclear program in 1981. It then says that later UN Inspectors learned of it when they went in.

This says less about the credibility of the article then it does about your carefulness in reading before questioning something's credibility.

APhil
I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Conservatives may be idiots, but that that is ok because you think liberals are too?

It seems somewhat doubtful that we will wind up devoting resources that are useful in the war on terror to global warming. For example, weaning ourselves off of oil in the way that is useful for addressing global warming would also be helpful in the war on terror by making us less dependent on the middle east.

So while it is true that if global warming is not a real threat, and the moves needed to address global warming prevent us from addressing islamic terrorism, then those moves would be bad ones. But is that the best defense of the invasion of Iraq that is left. Sure it was stupid, but other things are stupid too? Maybe it is the best argument left.

Allen: For pete's sake! The information

just came out. Give it a little time! Geesh!

A little maturity will show you that the best things don't happen overnight....


The Real Headline
"Bush Puts National Security Ahead of Political Interests".

George W Bush is a great American Patriot. Amnesty? So what? No Child Left Behind? Big deal!

Bush put an end to a catastrophic threat to our lives.

WMD Materials in Iraq
I never doubted Saddam Hussein had WMD materials or intent to use them as weapons of war.
His record of arrogance and aggression speaks for itself in, for example, his war with Iran, use of chemical/biological weapons against Kurds in Iraq, invasion of Kuwait, missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and Israel, imprisonment, torture and murder of Iraqi citizens and others for decades, acquisition of military equipment and supplies from, for example, France, Germany and Russia, harboring of terrorists in Iraq for years leading up to 2003, and continued defiance of UN sanctions including hiding WMD materials from international inspectors - the Mr. Magoos seeking the materials.
Further evidence includes: jet fighter aircraft buried in the Iraqi deserts, movement of WMD materials from Iraq to at least Syria, Syria's subsequent putting down of terrorists with WMD materials from Iraq and intent to use them in Syria, Syria's attempts to obtain launch vehicles (missiles) from North Korea, and the nuclear processing facility in Syria destroyed by Israel in 2007 following closely the pattern of the destruction of the Iraqi facility in 1985.
How much evidence does it take to convince a Liberal of evil intent and simple truth? Obviously way more than any mere human being can present to them.
Why are Liberals intent on compromising U.S. and world defense from terrorists? I don't know. I am a Conservative. I think, not emote. So ask Liberals the why question. I doubt you will get an honest answer.

Lon
Here is your sentence with some minor changes:

"And then we tricked him by deciding to devote all of our resources to addressing a non-threat while allowing actual threats to fester."

"And then we f***ed up by deciding to devote all of our resources to addressing global warming while allowing islamofascism to fester."

JPK
The article above gives the existence of yellowcake as the "proof" that Wilson lied. In your response to me are you acknowledging that the article above is nonsense? You certainly seem to be admitting that the information in the AP story does not provide any evidence of that sort.

Of course in reality, the information in this report undercuts the Niger story, as Wilson said it did. A lack of yellowcake was not the problem for the Iraqi nuclear program. They had plenty, although admittedly it was all safely under seal.

Similarly it is silly to think that it was a lack of money that led Hussein to abandon his nuclear program. He had plenty of money for palaces. If he thought the nuclear program was in his interest, he would have pursued it.

The reason for thinking he was not likely to act in threatening ways that would inevitably have lead to his being overthrown was that his entire history was one of avoiding actions that would lead to his inevitably being overthrown. Of course he did not count on the fact that we might choose to overthrow him for irrational reasons. But then I guess one can't think of everything.

He tricked us by not doing anything to threaten us. And then we tricked him by deciding to devote all of our resources to addressing a non-threat while allowing actual threats to fester. It was certainly hard for him to anticipate such idiocy. And I am sure if he had he would have built nuclear weapons.

One more time in case you missed it
See Today's Patriot Post:

(http://patriotpost.us/)

Critics of the Iraq War have been quick to point out that the UN already knew about Saddam’s yellowcake, and that it was purchased before the 1991 Gulf War, but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program.

In addition, there was Saddam’s penchant for throwing out UN weapon inspectors. Had sanctions been lifted with Hussein still in power, no honest person can dismiss the likelihood of a nuclear arms race between Iraq and its primary enemy, Iran. Moreover, British and U.S. intelligence agencies still maintain that Iraq was interested in buying more yellowcake from Niger in 1999, despite the denials of Leftist celebrity Joseph Wilson.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion. Somehow we doubt that the Democrat-controlled Congress will call Plame back in to explain herself. But no matter: The world is safer without Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, and America is no doubt safer without Valerie Plame at the CIA or Joseph Wilson at the State Department.

Credibility
When original A.P. article says the weapons inspectors knew of this stockpile since 81 the credibility of the column is lost despite what the P.M. has to say.

I wish the column had exposed Pelosi et. al. but it does not.

Sounds like the definition of Propaganda piece.

For the double talkers... see this:

In Today's Patriot Post

http://patriotpost.us/

Critics of the Iraq War have been quick to point out that the UN already knew about Saddam’s yellowcake, and that it was purchased before the 1991 Gulf War, but such arguments are meaningless in view of the Duelfer Report’s conclusion that Saddam was trying to get sanctions lifted in order to resume his WMD program.

In addition, there was Saddam’s penchant for throwing out UN weapon inspectors. Had sanctions been lifted with Hussein still in power, no honest person can dismiss the likelihood of a nuclear arms race between Iraq and its primary enemy, Iran. Moreover, British and U.S. intelligence agencies still maintain that Iraq was interested in buying more yellowcake from Niger in 1999, despite the denials of Leftist celebrity Joseph Wilson.

Speaking of Wilson, his lies were further exposed this week with the release of a formerly classified CIA document. According to the document, “super secret agent” Valerie Plame did in fact suggest that the CIA send her husband to Niger to sort out what she called “this crazy report” about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium.

Under oath, Plame told Congress that she made no such recommendation, and Wilson himself has insisted that Valerie had nothing to do with his little excursion. Somehow we doubt that the Democrat-controlled Congress will call Plame back in to explain herself. But no matter: The world is safer without Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, and America is no doubt safer without Valerie Plame at the CIA or Joseph Wilson at the State Department.

JPK: I think you're right about the wiki

However, I do believe that this is JUST the beginning of more information and evidence that will substantiate Pres. Bush's decisions and actions since 9-11.

Do I think Pres. Bush has been a perfect pres.? No!

Do I agree with everything Pres. Bush has done or not done? No!

Do I think that Pres. Bush would have gone to war in Iraq without information and evidence that truly warranted it. Absolutely, I do not!

Each and every time I've heard someone on the left say...."But... they haven't found WMDs...." I thought to myself... "YET!"

In fact, I can hardly wait to see H&C tonight. Alan Colmes' nightly smack down is going to be particularly satisfying. :-)




ParanoidMystic
I seriously doubt that Wiki can be used as an honest source. The IAEA was kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Then in 2002-2003 in order to forestall an invasion they claimed that Iraq had no nuclear material. BTW, we still haven't found all of the WMD material that the UN said Saddam possessed.

Lon
"There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.""

True, as long as you ignore the Niger PM. And the yellow cake is not degraded at all. The Canadians are using it for thier nuclear power plants. THe UN inspectors said in 2002-2003 there was no evidence that Saddam had any nuclear material, and if you choose to believe them now, that is your own business.

The fact remains that Saddam had over 500 tons of uranium which could be weaponized. The Iranians are doing it now, and there is nothing to suggest Saddam if left alone wouldn't do the same. The Oil for Food program brought in over $25 billion dollars in revenue and Europe as ready to do business with Saddam again.


Paul: And then there is the REAL

issue of Saddam's WMDs that are now... AS WE SPEAK... sitting buried in the sand in Syria.

All the WMDs that Saddam had flown and/or trucked to Syria while we were talking with the UN.


dude, way to get the facts wrong
I'll abbreviate the real facts - in 1980, under our supervision, Saddam procured yellowcake to fight Iran.

We knew it was there. The IAEA checked it out and actually sealed the facility after the first gulf war. At this point it's not weapons grade and would require substantial technology to make it so.

Every inspection since 92 the IAEA goes to check the seal. Then we invade and the marines break the seal. Then for 5 years, while US occupies Iraq, we actually are vulnerable to theft of nuclear material. But now it's been sold to Canada.

Facts: ur doin it wrong.


From the wiki:

Between 1980 and 1982, Iraq procured more than 400 tons of yellowcake from Portugal and Niger which remained in a storage complex close to Tuwaitha.[15][16] The facility and its yellowcake were monitored and frequently inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency after the 1991 Gulf War. About 1.8 metric tons of "yellow cake" and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing when the Iraqi guards left Tuwaitha unattended during the 2003 invsion of Iraq.[17] When the facility was first encountered by U.S. Marines, they believed they had stumbled upon an illegal weapons cache; according to nuclear experts, however, they actually wound up breaking the IAEA seals that are "designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands."

Lon: Exactly what one would expect from

anyone on the left....

Allen: Yes, we ALL know all about that!!

BUT, keeping 550 METRIC TONS of yellow cake secret so it couldn't be stolen by the terrorists, and pose a world wide threat, was absolutely the RIGHT decision.

Besides, in all honesty, my evil little twin is getting a bit of a chuckle out of this...

Pelolsi and Reid, et al, as well as ALL the MSM, etc., are now shown to be the reprehensible people and media that they have been, and are, and it makes all the more sweet.

And just wait until the libs start squirming. :-)

Does anyone think that Clinton (or Gore or Kerry) would have taken the beating that Bush took these past years in order to keep, not only the US, but the entire world, safe? Very, very doubtful.



Huh?
The fact that Hussein had degraded yellowcake left over from the '80s somehow shows that Hussein tried to purchse yellowcake from Niger in the '90s?

Even in the usual fact free analysis one gets in this area, this column is a bizarre paean to ignorance. Part of the evidence that Wilson pur forward that Iraq was not looking to buy yellowcake was that it was not a lack of yellowcake that had made his nuclear program defunct.

If the author had read further in the AP article he would have seen that "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

So there is no great secret here. Material of minimal interest which had been well documented before war was removed to Canada. The MSM hid this fact by explaining it fully in an AP article.

MarkJ
Good post. Won't sway any moonbats with facts or logic but keep em coming.

Anne please
The democrats lived on the lie. Did they attempt to support our troops with immediate funding?

Did you not hear Pelosi has said the Congress may act on articles of impeachment?
Do you think it matters to some members of the public that Bush was proved right?
Politics is being played yet some are expecting change?

The Yellowcake Eaters
I had a feeling all along the media was lying and going after GW Bush based on their own biased hate of conservatives. They talk about tolerance, yeah, right!

Just like the fraudulent documents that were supposed to prove GW Bush went AWOL from the Air Guard in the early 1970's. Turns out those documents were made on a computer using Word 2002.

Nice try Dan rather. Glad to see you are gone. You won't be missed.

Bush needs to make a statement about the yellowcake and so does McCain.

Allen writes: "... when one side calls

the other divisive and they are sitting on pertanent facts this upsetting."

Sorry about that... but did you miss this part...

"They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it."

The thing is, if the American Public knows (anything) you can be pretty sure that EVERYBODY in the WORLD knows, and they didn't want the terrorists to know because they had reason the suspect that the terrorists would try to steal it.

Sorry to tell you this, Allen, but you finding this "upsetting" is far less upsetting to me than had the terrorist found out about it and stole it.

THAT would be upsetting to a lot of people.

Yellowcake and Uranium Enrichment
This "should" be prime evidence that Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons but most people will miss the significance. Natural uranium is about 0.71% fissile U-235. Virtually all of the rest of it is nonfissile U-238. Natural uranium can be used to fuel graphite or heavy water moderated reactors to produce Pu-239 which is quite fissile. It's quite expensive to build the very large reactors and the even larger separations plants to extract the plutonium, but it can be done. The other alternative is to enrich the uranium to end up with weapons grade uranium. This also takes large expensive plants.

Maybe the Iraqis were just partially enriching the uranium to make low enriched commercial reactor fuel (about 2% U-235). Well, here's the problem with that argument. It still takes a large expensive plant to do even that low level of enrichment, and THEN it takes an expensive plant to convert the enriched uranium to reactor fuel. None if this is necessary, because there are at least a couple of companies (Areva and Exxon come to mind) whose business is to MAKE commercial reactor fuel to sell all over the world. So, quite simply, there is no good reason why Iraq would have wanted to re-invent the wheel to make commercial nuclear fuel when they could buy the stuff already made with a proven track record on the open market. The only conclusion remaining is that they wanted to enrich it to a level where they COULD NOT buy it on the open market, i.e., they wanted to make weapons grade uranium.

The exact same argument applies to Iran. They have absolutely no reason to enrich uranium to make commercial reactor fuel they could buy for far less on the open market.

Case closed.

Facts Don't Matter
They won't get in the way of certain people's agendas. It's a willful suspension of disbelief, like Wes Clark's belief that Obama possesses keen judgement when he regrets so many things OTHER than dealings with Rezo or 20 years in Rev Wright's pews, or the belief that higher taxes are good for the economy.

The news media does not do justice by the people of this country- they just push their own agenda. I hope FOX news continues to serve as a meaningful alternative.

Near Treason
To this day I still hear even conservatives said we went to war under false pretenses. I read the AP story earlier this week and told a few friends about it; thier response was typical -I must stop reading those Right Wing blog. I retorted that the AP is anything but Right Wing. Thier eyes glazed over, for Iraqi WMD was soooo 2003.

In 2000, Iran's weapons program (WMD) was about on the same level as Iraq's. And now we know that Iraq's was actually farther along, as the Iranians had to spend billions weaponizing thier Uranium, build the plants, produce the centrifuges, and employ thousands of foreigners to supervise and train thier own scientists and engineers.

The UN Oil for Food program allowed Saddam to siphon off at least $15 billions on oil money, of which $2-3 billion is still unaccounted for. The 1990 UN Coalition was falling apart by 2000, and we know now after the fact that French, Russia, German, and Swiss goverment agents were setting up sweetheart deals with Saddam in order to a)procure more oil, b)open up Iraqi markets for thier engineered high tech projects, and c)lobby the UN to lift all sanctions. Two things got in thier way; 1)the 9/11 attacks and 2)Bush's demand that Saddam be removed because of the obvious threat he posed, and not to mention his violation of the 1991 cease fire.

Without the invasion of 2003 it is doubtfull that the sanctions would have lasted much longer. Oil prices were already on the rise even before 9/11, and the petro-dollars Saddam would have gotten would have been put into his own WMD program.

In the coming years, people will applaud Bush for what he did. BTW, will Ftizgerald apologize to Scooter Libbey, and will the Democrats reimburse him for the millions he spent defending himself against false charges?

Not real important
The national media fails to pick up on it must mean it is unimportant to whether we make decisions about the ability of Congressional members, ______heads, to be honest with American public.

Sorry for the expression but when one side calls the other divisive and they are sitting on pertanent facts this upsetting.

It is difficult to believe the leadership of Congress had been unaware of the existance of this material.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*