Is Al Gore a traitor or has he simply lost his mind?

[LuvDuke]

Gee I'm sorry the 12 hours of tapes that ABC news has been playing of how he lied to the inspectors, actually had more stockpiles than previously known mean nothing at all too.

More stockpiles?!?! Are you saying there are more non-existent stockpiles in addition to the stockpiles that we now know don't exist?

Interesting theory.

 

[LuvDuke]

Well, at least you attempted a deflection. Nice try, but no

I'd have to grade it an F.

Who gives a crap?

 

[Planogirl]

More stockpiles?!?! Are you saying there are more non-existent stockpiles in addition to the stockpiles that we now know don't exist?

Interesting theory.

Interesting sentence.

Actually, I understand that there are countless non-existent stockpiles and that they're located next to the other non-existent stockpiles that have already been found. This doesn't include those non-existent stockpiles that were moved to every nation on earth right before the U.S. invaded of course.

 

[bsnyder]

Who gives a crap?

In an early post, you did:

The truth means nothing to these people.

And I guess this means you only rely on factcheck.org when they support your position, but when they don't, who gives a crap?

 

[LakeAriel]

In an early post, you did:



And I guess this means you only rely on factcheck.org when they support your position, but when they don't, who gives a crap?

No. Who gives a crap what grade you give it!

 

[Mugg Mann]

Clever MugMan, but scroll down a bit further. You know the part that says, "Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the internet" is justified is a subjecgt of debate. It goes on further to say that much of what Gore took credit for existed before he even became a congressman. But hey, if Gore is your man. Go for it. It would be entertaining to watch him run again.

And keep going even further down in the same article:

"In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf(often referred to as the "father of the Internet")"

So let's review...we have a non-partisan source saying the claim is false, and that "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.", and then we have Dawn, trying to cherry pick something to make it seem the opposite of what the article is trying to claim even though the article goes to great lengths to place the statement in the proper context.

So I'll now ask you for the 4th time on this thread, Dawn. By the standards that a non-partisan source has established, are you unreasonable, or are you wrong about what you said about Al Gore?

 

[DawnCt1]

And keep going even further down in the same article:

"In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf(often referred to as the "father of the Internet")"

So let's review...we have a non-partisan source saying the claim is false, and that "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.", and then we have Dawn, trying to cherry pick something to make it seem the opposite of what the article is trying to claim even though the article goes to great lengths to place the statement in the proper context.

So I'll now ask you for the 4th time on this thread, Dawn. By the standards that a non-partisan source has established, are you unreasonable, or are you wrong about what you said about Al Gore?

A "Webby Award" confirms that Algore is the hero of the internet?

I don't think so.

 

[LuvDuke]

No. Who gives a crap what grade you give it!

Bingo!

 

[bsnyder]

It's okay. Dawn has a long history on these boards of ignoring facts that don't fit into her worldview. Just for giggles, I'll give her the snopes link that debunks the whole Al Gore internet myth that she desperately wants to hold onto, and give her the opportunity to say that a non-partisan source such as snopes is not a valid source because it goes against what she desperately wants to believe. Her response should be quite interesting....

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Funny. The exact same thing seems to be happening with the link I posted to Factcheck.org concerning the oft-repeated accusation that Bush lied in his SOTU address.

Here's the link again, in case you missed it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

The (non) responses have been quite interesting....

 

[TCPluto]

Wow, you've pointed out a real Bush distinction: He doesn't even know he's lying when he's lying.

What President Bush was doing was relying on the intelligence provided by agencies decimated by the Clinton administration. If the information wasn't accurate, you have to consider what the previous administration did to our intelligence gathering capabilities.

To refuse to do so, which the detractors in the world (and on this thread) will chose to do, is a product of partisianship. Or ignorance on the part of the liberal left, as I see it.

Everyone beleived it at the time and many still do, with good reason.

 

[Judge Smails]

What President Bush was doing was relying on the intelligence provided by agencies decimated by the Clinton administration. If the information wasn't accurate, you have to consider what the previous administration did to our intelligence gathering capabilities.

To refuse to do so, which the detractors in the world (and on this thread) will chose to do, is a product of partisianship. Or ignorance on the part of the liberal left, as I see it.

Everyone beleived it at the time and many still do, with good reason.

Everyone did not believe it at the time and those that still do are easily duped...just the way Bush likes 'em.

Arms Control Today September 2003




Back to Normal
Bush's Claims About Iraq's Nuclear Program
Paul Kerr
Vice President Dick Cheney stated three days before U.S.-led coalition forces invaded Iraq this past March that Iraq “has reconstituted nuclear weapons.” At the time, however, intelligence and other U.S. officials already disagreed about the evidence behind his statement, and events over the last few months have deepened doubts among the general public and members of Congress.

The international community discovered after Iraq’s defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War that Iraq had a much more advanced nuclear weapons program than either the United States or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had suspected. The IAEA was charged with undertaking inspections to ensure that Iraq complied with disarmament requirements mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 687, but the United Nations withdrew the inspectors in December 1998 after Iraq stopped cooperating with them. The agency, however, reported in 1999 that, based on the inspectors’ work until that time, there was “no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.”

The IAEA also cautioned that this statement was “not the same as a statement of [the weapons] ‘non-existence.’” A 2001 Department of Defense report added that Iraq “still retains sufficient skilled and experienced scientists and engineers as well as weapons design information that could allow it to restart a weapons program.”

The absence of inspectors, combined with the remaining uncertainty regarding Iraq’s nuclear program, created concern that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. The Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in November 2002, requiring Iraq to comply fully with its disarmament requirements under relevant Security Council resolutions. Inspections resumed later that month. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the Security Council March 7 that the inspectors had “found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”

The administration’s contention that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program has several components. President George W. Bush cited three pieces of evidence in an October 7, 2002, speech that “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program”: meetings between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Iraqi nuclear weapons scientists, Iraq’s reconstruction of buildings at sites where its nuclear weapons facilities had previously been located, and Iraq’s attempts to obtain components for gas centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium for use as fissile material in nuclear weapons.

The State Department issued a fact sheet December 19 asserting that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger. Bush and other administration officials repeated the claim several times after that.

On February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a presentation about U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the Security Council. His presentation only mentioned efforts to acquire centrifuge components and Hussein’s meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists.

An October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) cites all of these factors in its judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. The NIE states that “most agencies” agreed but includes an alternative view from the State Department’s Bureau for Intelligence and Research (INR) stating that “available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities” but that the evidence is “inadequate” to support the claim that “Iraq is currently pursuing…an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.”

The following chart looks at the administration’s public claims about Iraq’s suspected nuclear weapons program.

NUCLEAR CLAIMS

Uranium Imports
Bush Administration Claim The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger.


Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium were considered an important step in its suspected nuclear weapons program because Baghdad’s lack of fissile material was one of the most serious constraints on its ability to produce nuclear weapons. Even if Iraq had acquired lightly processed uranium ore from Africa, however, it would still have needed to enrich it to obtain weapons-grade uranium.


Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said in an August 11 statement that claims regarding uranium importation were not central to the National Intelligence Estimate’s judgments about Iraq’s nuclear program because “Iraq already had significant quantities of uranium.” Iraq had more than two tons of low-enriched uranium under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

The Controversy Intelligence officials expressed reservations about this claim several times. Tenet told National Security Council staff and White House speechwriters not to include a line about Iraq’s attempts to import uranium from Africa in a speech Bush gave October 7, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said July 22. Additionally, Tenet said July 11 that the CIA expressed “reservations” about the claim to British intelligence in September 2002, and INR characterized claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa as “highly dubious,” according to the October NIE.

The CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger in February 2002 to investigate reports about Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium. Wilson wrote in The New York Times July 6 that “it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place” because Niger’s uranium industry is closely regulated by its government and is controlled by a consortium of foreign companies monitored by the IAEA.


Tenet said July 11 that Wilson also reported to the CIA that a former Nigerien official described a businessman’s attempt to arrange a meeting between the former official and an Iraqi delegation as “an attempt to discuss uranium sales,” but Wilson told Arms Control Today August 18 that the official mentioned uranium as an afterthought.


ElBaradei told the UN Security Council in March that U.S.-supplied documents ostensibly supporting this claim were forged.


Nigerien Prime Minister Hama Amadou denied in an interview with the London Sunday Telegraph that Niger ever discussed uranium with Iraq, according to a July 27 article.

Centrifuges
Bush Administration Claim The October NIE claimed that Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes and magnets for use in a gas centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment program.
The Controversy Aluminum Tubes
An IAEA investigation concluded that “[t]here is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question,” ElBaradei told the Security Council March 7. He added that “field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these…tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets.” According to the October NIE, both INR and Department of Energy (DOE) centrifuge experts concluded that the tubes were most likely for rockets, although three other intelligence agencies concluded they were for use in centrifuges.


Tenet said August 11 that U.S. military intelligence experts concluded that the tubes were “poor choices for rocket motor bodies,” but Greg Thielmann, former director of INR’s Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs Office, argued in a July 9 press conference that the DOE experts were the most knowledgeable about the subject.

Magnets

ElBaradei told the Security Council March 7 that there was “no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.”


Administration officials have also cited an Iraqi scientist’s June 2003 handover of blueprints and components for gas centrifuges that he had hidden on his property as evidence that Iraq had a centrifuge program. The scientist, however, had hidden those components since 1991 and IAEA Iraq Action Team Leader Jacques Baute said the component set is incomplete and the documents appear to contain errors, according to a July 15 Associated Press article.

Scientists/Personnel
Bush Administration Claim The administration claimed that Hussein was meeting with top nuclear weapons experts and that Iraq maintained the scientific know-how to produce nuclear weapons.
The Controversy Thielmann said that “there was no solid evidence that indicated Iraq’s top nuclear scientists were rejuvenating Iraq’s nuclear weapons program,” according to a June 20 Associated Press article. IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming added that Iraqi nuclear personnel were “aging…[and] weren’t working collectively.”
Infrastructure
Bush Administration Claim Bush said October 7 that Iraq was reconstructing buildings at sites where its nuclear weapons facilities had previously been located.
The Controversy ElBaradei reported March 7 that “[t]here is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.”











The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization.
If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution.
Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor.

© 1997-2006 Arms Control Association,
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 620
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273

 

[Judge Smails]

What President Bush was doing was relying on the intelligence provided by agencies decimated by the Clinton administration. If the information wasn't accurate, you have to consider what the previous administration did to our intelligence gathering capabilities.

To refuse to do so, which the detractors in the world (and on this thread) will chose to do, is a product of partisianship. Or ignorance on the part of the liberal left, as I see it.

Everyone beleived it at the time and many still do, with good reason.

Oh and the "agencies decimated by the Clinton administration"....the facts are that these were being cut by Reagan, Bush I and your very own Vice President Dick Cheney as a response to the end of the Cold War. Blaming it on Clinton might make you feel good about "W" but it is painfully incorrect.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Everyone did not believe it at the time and those that still do are easily duped...just the way Bush likes 'em.

Liar Joe Wilson has been discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lord Butler's Commission.

I wouldn't rely on the IAEA for our country's (or the world's) future.

http://websearcht.cs.com/cs/redir?s...za&invocationType=-&fromPage=CSroll&ampTest=1

 

[Judge Smails]

Liar Joe Wilson has been discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lord Butler's Commission.

I wouldn't rely on the IAEA for our country's (or the world's) future.

http://websearcht.cs.com/cs/redir?s...za&invocationType=-&fromPage=CSroll&ampTest=1

But you'd rely on Bush...so much for common sense.

I suppose allowing the UAE to operate our Ports is a good idea as well.

Another stellar decision from "the gang that can't shoot straight"

 

[LuvDuke]

I wouldn't rely on the IAEA for our country's (or the world's) future.

This must make sense to you.

Fact is, when it came to "reconstituted nuculer (pardon me, nuclear) weapons programs, the IAEA was right and Bush was wrong and as a result of Bush being wrong, 2276 Americans are dead and 16742+ are wounded.

If you're going to pick a horse, at least pick one with a winning track record. Then again, the bad gamblers are all that's left of Bush's support.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

This must make sense to you.

Fact is, when it came to "reconstituted nuculer (pardon me, nuclear) weapons programs, the IAEA was right and Bush was wrong and as a result of Bush being wrong, 2276 Americans are dead and 16742+ are wounded.

If you're going to pick a horse, at least pick one with a winning track record. Then again, the bad gamblers are all that's left of Bush's support.

I blame ALL the deaths on the enemy. The war on terror -- remember??

The IAEA is just as toothless and head-in-the-sand as the UN. The article in quite clear on the IAEA abilities. They've waited too long on Iran too.

I'll take President Bush's track record anyday.

 

[eclectics]

I blame ALL the deaths on the enemy. The war on terror -- remember??

And just how many 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi? Iraq was never a hotbed for terrorist cells. Thanks to our "liberation" it most certainly is now. They are coming in from all the open borders to plan havoc and to harm our troops. Why won't you admit the President opened up a pandoras box with this ill thought out invasion?

 

[cardaway]

I blame ALL the deaths on the enemy. The war on terror -- remember??

Their enemy lately has been their Commander in Chief.

 

[DawnCt1]

Their enemy lately has been their Commander in Chief.

The troops don't see it that way.

 

[Judge Smails]

The troops don't see it that way.

Every Iraq veteran I've ever spoken to has said that bush is full of horse crap and that every keyboard jockey that advocates them getting killed should either sign up or shut up.

BTW I'm very happy that your husband is in Iraq. Now how about the rest of the clan shipping out.

You can lead the parade.