Bush comment...

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Again, care (ANYONE) to prove the statement that the yellow-cake story has been verified ? Put up or shut up

Monday, June 28, 2004
Niger: Iraq-Niger yelow cake story ... revived?
The story was published in today's Financial Times ...

The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.

The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was investing in Niger's uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine export plan. These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.

One nuclear counter-proliferation expert told the FT: "If I am going to make a bomb, I am not going to use the uranium that I have declared. I am going to use what I acquire clandestinely, if I am going to keep the programme hidden."

This may have been the method being used by Libya before it agreed last December to abandon its secret nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, there are 2,600 tonnes of refined uranium ore - "yellow cake" - in Libya. However, less than 1,500 tonnes of it is accounted for in Niger records, even though Niger was Libya's main supplier.

Information gathered in 1999-2001 suggested that the uranium sold illicitly would be extracted from mines in Niger that had been abandoned as uneconomic by the two French-owned mining companies - Cominak and Somair, both of which are owned by the mining giant Cogema - operating in Niger.

"Mines can be abandoned by Cogema when they become unproductive. This doesn't mean that people near the mines can't keep on extracting," a senior European counter-proliferation official said.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Should I continue?

Nah, that's ok.....I have no doubt you could continue to post unfounded and unproven accusations 'til the cows come home. the simple fact is that NOBODY in the United States government can offer a shred of proof of any of it.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Let me ask you two questions. Answer honestly and ease way up on the sarcasm.

Do you think that the majority of Iraqi's would want to turn back the hands of time and be back under SH's rule?

Do you think that once this initial turmoil is over (and that may take some time), they'll be better off than they were before?

I'll answer and won't add any sarcasim:

1. No

2. Yes

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy

Probably not. But the important question to ask is, was it OUR responsibility to do that FOR them ? If so, why haven't we invaded Sudan yet...or any number of other countries ?

Good, I agree with the first part of your answer. Using the "if we did it there, why don't we do it over there" argument was irrelevant to my question but since you brought it up.

Was it our responsibility to help France and Britain beat back the Germans? After all, Germany didn't attack us.

Probably, but again, how is that our responsibility any more than it is anywhere else in the world ? Couldn't you say the same about nearly every country in the middle-east and Africa ? Why is t ok in one instance and not in any others ?

Good, we agree again but I didn't ask if it was our responsibility or not. But since you mentioned it, I'll repeat myself:

Was it our responsibility to help France and Britain beat back the Germans? After all, Germany didn't attack us.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Nah, that's ok.....I have no doubt you could continue to post unfounded and unproven accusations 'til the cows come home. the simple fact is that NOBODY in the United States government can offer a shred of proof of any of it.

It's pretty funny how you ignore all the information I provided, but zero in on my last sentence.

How about that yellow-cake story I posted? Or are you taking your recommendation to "shut up?"

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Monday, June 28, 2004
Niger: Iraq-Niger yelow cake story ... revived?
The story was published in today's Financial Times ...

Oh, c'mon...The Financial Times is the best you can do ? After the huge blow-up surrounding this story, you don't think it would have been covered by every major news outlet in the country ?

Again...you're awfully good at conjecture, but not quite so long on facts, We3...

 

[bsears]

Do you think that once this initial turmoil is over (and that may take some time), they'll be better off than they were before?

Shouldn't the question be " are you willing to die, or have your children die for this ?" These arguments too often stray into the abstract. Let us not forget the cost of this war should always go into the equation.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Good, I agree with the first part of your answer. Using the "if we did it there, why don't we do it over there" argument was irrelevant to my question but since you brought it up.

Was it our responsibility to help France and Britain beat back the Germans? After all, Germany didn't attack us.

I'm sorry, was Iraq attacking someone ? I wasn't aware that we were discussing the first Gulf War (which I supported). My answer was more relevant to the situation than your original question, since the reasoning behind the war and the "Bush Doctrine" are what we're discussing.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Good, we agree again but I didn't ask if it was our responsibility or not. But since you mentioned it, I'll repeat myself:

Was it our responsibility to help France and Britain beat back the Germans? After all, Germany didn't attack us.

See above...But nice job of "easing off on the sarcasm" there, elwood

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, c'mon...The Financial Times is the best you can do ? After the huge blow-up surrounding this story, you don't think it would have been covered by every major news outlet in the country ?

Again...you're awfully good at conjecture, but not quite so long on facts, We3...

How about from the Washington Times, dated July 02, 2004?


A scam and a sham

The debate pendulum in Washington at times swings by the winds of politics, not, as it should, by evidence. Consider the quandary over President Bush's assertion in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy enriched uranium, "yellow cake," illicitly from Niger. Yellow cake is required in a nuclear development program. When it was discovered last summer that some of the documents the administration had used as evidence were forgeries, the pendulum quickly swung to the opposite extreme. Never mind that British intelligence insisted, and still does, that Iraq was doing precisely what Mr. Bush had said it was. As far as Washington was concerned, the case was closed: Iraq never tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger.

As reported Monday in the Financial Times, however, senior European intelligence officials now say, "Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the U.S.-led invasion" in 2003. This isn't exactly news. A 2002 British dossier on Iraq's weapons programs asserted the same thing, while providing evidence that an inquiring Iraqi official had visited Niger in 1999. In a follow-up story, the Financial Times reports, "three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq." The other countries were North Korea, Iran, Libya and China.

The newspaper reports the forged documents erroneously used by the Bush administration might in fact have been a "scam" to cover the real evidence that negotiations had taken place. If this is true, we must concede that it worked. Not long after the administration backed down from the State of the Union claim, Democrats were in full cry for an investigation, all but convinced that the administration had deliberately lied about uranium sales to Iraq. Sen. Ted Kennedy took a lead role in the condemnation, saying, "It's bad enough that such a glaring blunder became part of the president's case for war. It's far worse if the case for war was made by deliberate deception." John Kerry chimed in: "The Bush administration doesn't get honesty points for belatedly admitting what has been apparent to the world for some time — that emphatic statements made on Iraq were inaccurate." Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe huffed, too: "This may be the first time in recent memory that a president knowingly misled the American people during the State of the Union Address."

Critics of the Bush administration have been so eager to discredit every argument used to justify war in Iraq that when evidence does come along proving the administration's case, it has to be ignored. It's not clear how such kindergarten logic enhances national security. Mr. Kerry was right about one thing: Mr. Bush didn't win any points for being forthright about his mistake. We would add as well that he won't win any points for being right all along.

 

[wvrevy]

So, a right wing paper quoting the same article is supposed to prove something ?

The whole of this story can be summed up pretty simply:

"European leaders still claim that this happened."

That's pretty much the whole thing. There is no proof, nor any refutation of the existing facts.

Maybe I should have said, find a CREDIBLE source...that would have certainly disqualified the Times

 

[Eeyore1954]

I wonder if anything close to a "credible source" actually exists... that is, a "credible source" that both sides of the political spectrum would agree on as truly credible at the same time. From what I've seen, what one side considers a credible source the other side dismisses as too liberal or too conservative. Finding a source that both sides would agree to accept at the same time may be an impossible task. Then again finding any source that is totally unbiased may be virtually impossible.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, c'mon...The Financial Times is the best you can do ? After the huge blow-up surrounding this story, you don't think it would have been covered by every major news outlet in the country ?

How about the The Florida Times-Union?


TERRORISM: Evidence uncovered

Last modified Sun., July 04, 2004 - 02:23 AM
Originally created Sunday, July 4, 2004

Although it has become an article of faith among highly partisan liberals that President Bush "lied" about uranium sales in his State of the Union speech last year, new evidence to support what Bush said has appeared.

The Financial Times of London reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq long before the liberation of Iraq. It quoted senior European intelligence officials.

British intelligence already had arrived at that conclusion. In fact, all Bush did was quote the British, who have stood by their state- ment. Therefore, even if the information was wrong, what Bush said was 100 percent accurate.

What muddied the water was the subsequent conclusion that letters referring to the sales, apparently from a Nigerian official to an Iraqi official, were fake.

However, human intelligence sources have provided sufficient information for the Europeans to conclude that Niger was the center of clandestine international uranium trade, the Financial Times reported.

In addition to Iraq, Libya, China, North Korea and Iran were making deals for the refined ore, called yellow cake.

Libya, a terrorist state that has undergone a transformation, has agreed to give up its secret atomic weapons program.

French and Italian intelligence services were picking up the same buzz indicating efforts by Iraq to acquire uranium secretly.

Iran currently is believed to be engaged in an atomic weapons program, and its officials are making bellicose statements toward the West.

Partisan voices in the United States might be well advised to consider the evidence objectively, because any nuclear weapon deployed against this nation will not selectively kill Americans based on the political party they follow.

 

[wvrevy]

You know, you can continue to cite newspapers all you want, but they ALL refer to the same original story in the "London Financial Times", and it STILL doesn't say what you want it to say. These aren't "new" findings, it's the same one over...and over...and over...and none of them prove a single thing. You can't count two sources when one is simply citing the other

 

[goudaman40]

The thing that everyone is forgetting is Saddam is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Look at what Saddam did against the Kurds in the eighties - look at how he treated the people that did not agree with his point of view - He was/is a Weapon!

I had to write a paper in my Psychology class (professor was a Liberal) and pretty much what he wanted was an Anti-war point of view on the paper and it was talking about the WMD. Like I said earlier, Saddam is the Weapon - Saddam is just like Charles Manson - even though Manson didn't kill anyone, he was the Master mind. Saddam may not have the stockpiles, but he is the mastermind of the WMD!!!!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, c'mon...The Financial Times is the best you can do ? After the huge blow-up surrounding this story, you don't think it would have been covered by every major news outlet in the country ?

How about the New York Times?


Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium
By Mark Huband in Rome

Published: June 27, 2004

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture gathered from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

According to a senior counter-proliferation official, meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries, including Italy. Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, thereby circumventing official export controls. "The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation said.

The UK government used the details in its Iraq weapons dossier, which it used to justify war with Iraq after concluding that it corresponded with other information it possessed, including evidence gathered by GCHQ, the UK eavesdropping centre, of a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official.

However, the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made.

 

[wvrevy]

What part of simple english are you having a hard time understanding, We3 ? All of these other articles are simply referencing the initial article from the Financial Times...THERE IS NOTHING NEW THERE, not is there any cooberation of that story. You can feel free to keep posting them, but it's just proving my point...Not a single major news agency has reported anything about this story being true.

TO goudaman Umm....Sorry, but "fists of fury" isn't really enough to justify the loss of nearly a thousand American lives. Saddam was NOT a threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Period. HE WAS CONTAINED...and had been since the end of the 1st Gulf War.

 

[goudaman40]

WV - you know, you are really striking a nerve with me . . . I will make the same comment to you that I made to my Draft dodging Psy. Professor . . .

You are speaking of the President of the United States . . . The gentleman that pays my bills, because my husband believes in him and stands behind him 100%. You are speaking of a noble gentleman that has to make some of the most stressful decisions anyone could make.

You know, there are plenty of people that are out there that make negative comments about the President, but they never do anything about it. Have you served your country and put your life on the line? My husband put's his life on the line everyday so you and everyone else in this country can say what they want, when the want, without having to worry about the reprocussions.

GWB is doing a great job and has brought Pride back to the United States after 8 years of shame. Did you know, that thanks to the Clinton's years the Military received the lowest amount of pay raises and that military families were having to live in housing that HUD wouldn't even approve of?? Thanks to Bush, young E1's starting out, are having an eaiser time paying their bills than they did during the Clinton years.

There are alot of things that the media does not report . . . because happiness doesn't sell! If you report the bad, hateful, things, then it fuels the fire that everyone has to read the negative in everything. It's the rubber neck effect . . . people drive by slow when there is an accident, because they want to see the carniage and the bad!

So, when you have stepped up to the plate, and taken the oath necessary to defend this country, and put your life on the line, then you can continue this argument with me . . . until then Saddam is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
You know, you can continue to cite newspapers all you want, but they ALL refer to the same original story in the "London Financial Times", and it STILL doesn't say what you want it to say. These aren't "new" findings, it's the same one over...and over...and over...and none of them prove a single thing. You can't count two sources when one is simply citing the other

Yes, they all refer to the London Financial Times, but a minimum of 3 national news groups picked up on the story.

You started this issue by stating, "remember the "yellow cake" fiasco?"

Douglas Dubh responded, "Actually, that "yellow cake" scenario has been verified. Iraqi and Nigerian officials did meet; Iraqi agents did try to buy yellow cake in Africa."

You responded with, "Really ? Care to back that up with a national news story stating this ?"

I listed stories from the following news groups:

London Financial Times
The Washington Times
The Florida Times-Union
New York Times

I understand english very well, but I think you were one of those kids that use to get mad, take your ball and cry home to mommy.

The information is there, but now you now crying because someone provided the stories to back up the Iraqi/Nigerian scenario. Based upon your comments, you're the type of individual that would not be happy with any information

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by goudaman40
WV - you know, you are really striking a nerve with me . . . I will make the same comment to you that I made to my Draft dodging Psy. Professor . . .

You are speaking of the President of the United States . . . The gentleman that pays my bills, because my husband believes in him and stands behind him 100%. You are speaking of a noble gentleman that has to make some of the most stressful decisions anyone could make.

You know, there are plenty of people that are out there that make negative comments about the President, but they never do anything about it. Have you served your country and put your life on the line? My husband put's his life on the line everyday so you and everyone else in this country can say what they want, when the want, without having to worry about the reprocussions.

GWB is doing a great job and has brought Pride back to the United States after 8 years of shame. Did you know, that thanks to the Clinton's years the Military received the lowest amount of pay raises and that military families were having to live in housing that HUD wouldn't even approve of?? Thanks to Bush, young E1's starting out, are having an eaiser time paying their bills than they did during the Clinton years.

There are alot of things that the media does not report . . . because happiness doesn't sell! If you report the bad, hateful, things, then it fuels the fire that everyone has to read the negative in everything. It's the rubber neck effect . . . people drive by slow when there is an accident, because they want to see the carniage and the bad!

So, when you have stepped up to the plate, and taken the oath necessary to defend this country, and put your life on the line, then you can continue this argument with me . . . until then Saddam is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

I totally agree!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by goudaman40
blahblahblahblah.....

So, when you have stepped up to the plate, and taken the oath necessary to defend this country, and put your life on the line, then you can continue this argument with me . . . until then Saddam is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did...Might want to do a little more research before making that kind of statement ...Besides, last time I checked, your hero didn't exactly "put his life on the line for his country", and you don't seem to mind that too much, huh ?