US Removes 550 Tons of “Yellowcake” From Iraq
July 6th, 2008 at 02:40pm Mark Noonan
Which was totally harmless and, naturally, Saddam and his peaceful, secularist country would never, ever have dreamed of using the stuff for a WMD:
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.
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. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What’s now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
“Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq,” said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
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.
Prior to the left deciding that the whole WMD argument was a lie (and part of the larger BUSH LIED!!! meme), there was this 2003 news report:
In the suburbs about 18 miles south of the capital’s suburbs, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings — workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors, libraries and barracks — that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.
Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago…
…Yesterday, Hamza expressed great surprise that the underground site could even exist. The ground there is muddy and composed of clay, he said. The water table is barely a foot and a half below the surface of the ground. During construction of one of the former nuclear reactors there, French engineers spent a fortune pumping water from the foundation area, only to see buildings crumble when the water was removed.
Hamza said the French built a reactor at Al-Tuwaitha that Israel destroyed in 1981. The Russians built a reactor that was destroyed during the Gulf War. Both had the muddy ground to contend with.
So the Marine’s discovery makes the former atomic inspector wonder if the Iraqis went to the colossal expense of pumping enough water to build the underground city because no reasonable inspector would think anything might be built underground there.
Nobody would expect it,” Hamza said. “Nobody would think twice about going back there.”
Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
“The plutonium processing was dispersed on-site by the bombing in 1991,” said Michael Levi, the Federation’s director. “But the Iraqis started to rebuild it. And they continued building there after 1998, when the Iraqis ended the inspections.
Lots of people have lied about Iraq. Saddam lied. The French, German, Russian and UN bureaucrats who were bribed by Saddam lied. Plame lied. Wilson lied. The anti-war movement lied. President Bush, though, didn’t lie - not even once, and not even slightly. Remember: Saddam wasn’t supposed to have anything which could be used as part of a WMD program…but, amongst other banned things, he had 550 tons of yellowcake and post-Gulf War nuclear facilities undetected by the agencies charged with keeping tabs on him. Unless you want to assert - against all evidence - that Saddam was hiding entirely innocent and peaceful programs, the only logical conclusion is that he was, indeed, violating the 1991 cease fire vis a vis WMDs. Added to all the other justifications for liberating Iraq what we have here is that back in 2003 the only logical course of events for us once Saddam had re-thumbed his nose at the UN inspectors was to remove him from power.
The anti-Bush effort vis a vis Iraq has been a sick combination of stupidity, deception and cowardice…all of it done for purely political reasons by people on the left (joined by a few on the right) who wish to harm the United States in general and President Bush in particular. That millions of people have fallen for it just shows that Lincoln’s adage is correct - you can fool some of the people all of the time. There is, unfortunately, no way for us to immediately repair the damage - President Bush will leave office with millions of people having the conviction that he lied about Iraq and Saddam’s WMD programs. Only as this generation dies away and those personally identified with creating the lies are gone will an entirely unbiased treatment of this issue be possible.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left, President Bush, War on Terror
100 Comments
1. Magnum Serpentine | July 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Nothing to see here. george just shipped in the yellow cake and then shipped it back out. Plenty of people both republic and democratic said there was nothing there before. makes you wonder to what ends george will go to save his failed miserable and lie infested so-called presidency.
2. yekepyt | July 6th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Talk about having “fallen for it” — this literally made me laugh out loud. Mark, you can’t possibly believe this — it’s got to be a joke, right? Please tell me you’re being tongue-in-cheek:
“The anti-Bush effort vis a vis Iraq has been a sick combination of stupidity, deception and cowardice…all of it done for purely political reasons by people on the left (joined by a few on the right) who wish to harm the United States in general and President Bush in particular.”
Paraphrased: “if you don’t support this war, you’re a stupid coward who wants to harm the US.”
There can be no other reason that a patriotic American may have opposed this war. Mark says so! Any rational argument that the war was premature, disproportionate, unwarranted, unjustified, or mismanaged is purely a reflection of how much you hate America. And the troops — you must hate them, too, if you don’t support Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. Because Mark says so, you stupid coward! Shut up before the terr’ists follow us home and get you while you sleep!
Mark, every passing day makes your arguments look more and more foolish and pathetic.
3. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
yek,
No, you can also be a person who has been fooled by the anti-Bush effort. If you really think that the liberation of Iraq was a deception - as opposed to a bad policy - then you are either a slanderer or someone who falls for slander. You’ve got three choices - you just think liberating Iraq was the wrong thing to do (but otherwise respect President Bush and don’t believe he lied); you agree with liberating Iraq; you are a knave/fool.
Pick one of the three.
4. Dragonfly | July 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I love this part…
Yikes! It’s a great big conspiracy against dear old Preznit Bush.
Everybody lied EXCEPT him.
And YOU want to talk about being a knave/fool?
Bbbhhaaahhaaahhaaa! Stop it Noonan, you’re killing me…
5. Evergreen | July 6th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Sorry Dragon I had to repeat Mark’s comments again. “Lots of people have lied about Iraq. Saddam lied. The French, German, Russian and UN bureaucrats who were bribed by Saddam lied. Plame lied. Wilson lied. The anti-war movement lied. President Bush, though, didn’t lie - not even once, and not even slightly.” This is to much Mark simply too much. You should give this material to McCain.
Mark do you think Scott McClellan and Colin Powell would agree with you? It was they who had to push Bush’s so called TRUTH.
6. My Name | July 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Deleted - mindless insults, obscenity.
7. phnx | July 6th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
You leftist are really a pathetic BDS infected lot.
U.N. inspectors documented and “safeguarded” the yellowcake, which had been stored in drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. (BTW: Yellow cake has no shelf life)
You can’t accept this fact can you? In you delusion you actually believe that President Bush shipped it in to then ship it out. So the UN must be in on the conspiracy right?
You also refuse to accept the fact that the only purpose for yellow cake is as a base element for nuclear enrichment.
You also seem to still dwell in the dream state that some how, that Saddam’s stockpiling 450 TONS of yellow cake was for peaceful purposes.
So tell us how are things in your alternate universe where reality has no meaning?
8. joyce | July 6th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The Left lies for purely political reasons…this is news to someone?
They have been doing it since the 60’s…and probably well before that too.
Of course Joe Wilson and the Euros lied. Anyone who reads already knew that.
9. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
The anti-war left is running out of valid talking points as the US Military and the ISF take control and the Iraqi government continues to meet benchmarks.
Even their messiah is “refining” his views.
Their MO now is simply to attack the messengers. Be ready Mark, you’re one of the lightning rods.
have a denial kind of day
peace, neocon
10. yekepyt | July 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Mark, your “you must (1) agree with me, (2) hate America, or (3) be a fool — pick one” logic gave me another laugh-out-loud moment!
So the logic goes like this: Mark gets to define three mutually exclusive “bins,” into exactly one of which anyone who disagrees with Bush must fall. Next he’ll ask if I’ve stopped beating my wife.
Gee, I guess you’ve really argued me into a corner there, Mark — I’ve looked and looked but I just can’t find the flaw in your logic. You win, hooray!
I honestly wonder if you realize how foolish you appear, or whether you assume that your audience here is lazy or intellectually incurious enough that they don’t apply any critical thought to what you write. Any first-grader could easily deconstruct and reduce your “arguments” to the nonsense that they are.
11. FmrMarine | July 6th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Mark
Lying is one of the tenants of marxism.
We see it here on this site by the moral, and intelligence bankrupt trolls who post here.
12. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
yek,
You failed to provide a 4th or 5th alternative, so please submit those other options so the “intellectually incurious” crowd here can see the other alternatives.
And have you stopped beating your wife while smoking crack?
have a paranoid day
peace, neocon
13. Fredrick Schwartz | July 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Come on people it is not the fault of Liberals that George W Bush is not Ronald Wilson Reagan. He [Bush] bit off more than he can chew, listening to the wrong people’s opinions, in Iraq and it may have been the foreign policy blunder of the century no matter what happens in the next 92 years on Terra.
Progressive bloggers like us beat this story to pieces to make sure the full AP report was represented and still a few people shouted “Saddam had WMDs!” What you fail to mention is a couple of paragraphs down in the AP article:
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam’s nuclear efforts.
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.
Also this June 2003 Pentagon briefing about the status of Tuwaitha Location C and the SAFEGUARDS that were in place since 1991 explains by people in the know that the yellowcake there was out of Saddam’s control yet another thing Mark Noonan failed to point out.
I have no doubt that Bush fought a political and economic war that he felt he could win to secure resources for America’s future, to remove Saddam from the playing field early rather than have his passing and the eventual overthrow of his sons create an Iranian satellite Shi’ite state and to boost the US economy through a works project which would have actually rebuilt the Iraqi infrastructure and created jobs.
This would have worked just fine if the permanent campaign was not so in fear of the casualty numbers being much higher. There was no fear of WMD because Feith, Addington and Cheney knew based on Feith’s work with intel gathering and writing counterproposals for analysis that there were no viable weapons. Politically that didn’t mean there were NO WMDs just not ones that could be deployed against ground forces. So for political reasons “capabilities” as Colin Powell pointed out became “actionable” in the name of protecting the troops and the American people.
I don’t think Bush lied but I do know that Bush knew the truth and the variation that they told was the version that would cushion them politically just in case any part of their plans failed. The long term problem is all of it failed in pieces and war that seems to have no benefit in CONUS is always going to be unpopular with the voters both in the ivory towers of Eastern elites as well as in the flyovers and the Left Coast coffee houses and Hollywood coke party set.
Valerie Plame and her husband both lied? I doubt it because they have both been the best distraction the neoconservatives could have ever wanted. They’ve kept real historians like Larry Sabato from asking the right questions for years as the right has spun that they lied for personal gain, political gain whatever kind of gain. And here we are back where the Mark Noonan’s of the world want you to be looking at all the trappings and pageantry and not act the vicious actions that have caused over 4K troops deaths and 3 MM dead or displaced in Iraq. As my good friend Hoops [Robin Green] would say, “Just more bread and circuses man.”
14. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Evergreen,
Some day, I guess, you might figure out what a lie actually is and then understand that Wilson lied, Bush didn’t.
15. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Frederick,
What you have “no doubt” about is, unfortunately, not supported by even an iota of fact…you’re on the grassy knoll, looking for the second shooter.
Be that as it may - no one is asserting that this yellowcake was unknown…what we’re noting is that it did, indeed, exist and, furthermore, as was noted in news reports in 2003, Saddam had greatly extended his nuclear facilities unknown to the outside world since the end of the Gulf War. In short, this proves conclusively that the WMD aspect - as a species of concern - of the justification for liberating Iraq (and this was, after all, just one of very many justifications) was true. What you’ve got left is we didn’t find the large stockpiles of chemical weapons the entire world figured existed…but not finding them doesn’t mean that (a) they didn’t exist at one point or (b) that President Bush deliberately or even unintentionally lied.
16. yekepyt | July 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hi Neocon,
Define a box number 4 for people like me:
I am a patriot and I love my country, and I believe that George W. Bush planned this war in Iraq from his first weeks in office. The evidence is clear that he deliberately deceived and manipulated the press to build support for, and weaken resistance to, the war (remember when 71% of Americans thought that Saddam was connected to 9/11).
Since that time, he has mismanaged this war beyond belief and squandered the respect that America used to command on the world stage. The war will end up costing trillions of dollars, all of which will be borrowed from our children. The value of the dollar continues to drop. Deaths of Americans and Iraqis in Iraq continue to rise.
What is truly amazing is that some people — although they’re becoming more and more isolated — continue to defend Bush’s actions even in the face of overwhelming evidence of his dishonesty and incompetence.
Peace …
17. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
yek,
No, you must agree with me, disagree with me without considering Bush dishonest or be a fool/knave. You see, opposing the liberation of Iraq is a reasonable position to hold - in fact, I can probably come up with more genuine arguments against liberating Iraq than most anti-war people…but I happen to disagree with the anti-liberation argument due to the revealed nature of the world post-9/11. The unreasonable opinion - unreasonable because there isn’t any fact behind it - is to hold the view that the liberation was cooked up as part of some nefarious plot and/or that President Bush deceived us into supporting the liberation of Iraq.
18. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
neocon,
True - but I have to hand it to Yek, Fred and the rest of the lefties today, they’ve kept on subject and haven’t degenerated into obscene rants. So, this is a lot of fun - always fun for the guy who’s got the winning argument, huh?
19. Evergreen | July 6th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
The unreasonable opinion - unreasonable because there isn’t any fact behind it - is to hold the view that the liberation was cooked up as part of some nefarious plot 17. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
The release of the Downing Street memo pretty much put an end to any thought the neocon’s would get away with their plot. Pick a hot spot in the world and you will have conflicting intelligence data. What the Downing Street memo showed (Bush Jr. was working on war plans in 2002) was the pro war data needed to be massaged and handed over to the American people, Congress and the world via Colin Powell. Intelligence data not supporting the necon’s nation building plans for oil and revenge for papa needed to be discredited; a la Joe Wilson. Yes we all saw the data. The data the necons wanted us to see. As it stands now approximately 73% of the American people see the plot for what it was.
20. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Evergreen,
I know that is what you’ve convinced yourelf the “Downing Street Memo” says (or, alternately, you’ve just accepted someone else’s interpretation), but it doesn’t actually say that.
21. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Mark, I missed it. Where is the report that Saddam was reconstituting his ability to enrich uranium? He would have had to have at least the components of a working calutron to make any of this a threat. You also have to have a lot of these machines, their principle of isotopic separation requires a lot of energy and time. He would have needed scores running 24/7.
After that, he would have had to built a plutonium production reactor. It is doubtful that he would have been able to produce enough HEU to build even a single uranium device. If he were attempting any of this clandestinely, it might take significantly longer, well into the Uday and Qusay joint presidency, which even I would be afraid of. After producing significant amounts of plutonium, The Iraqi’s would have to do what the North Koreans failed to do, which was build an functioning atomic bomb. As you no doubt know, the North Korean bomb fizzled. Iraq would have no ability to test their bomb before it became the smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud. They would just have to pray to Allah that it worked. Uranium bombs are extremely hard to build and you have to have a huge industrial complex like we did at ORNL. Plutonium bombs are slightly easier to get the material for, but they are very difficult to engineer and construct.
I realize that you believe there were compelling reasons for invading Iraq, but this, at lest in my opinion, does not rise to the level of a reason for such a trillion dollar adventure that has cost the lives of 4000 of our fellow Americans, the limbs of 15,000 more, the burn wounds of even more and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that we “liberated.”
I am getting a little feed up with people on the right questioning my intelligence and my patriotism just because I think this war was a senseless waste and at the very least could have been handled better at almost every step and at every level. Equally disturbing to me is the length people will go to defend absurdity and incompetence, just because it has an (R) after its name. I know that you and you compatriots will dismiss me by labeling me a loony or a liberal or a lefty, but it speaks far more of them than it does of me. This is not about winning arguments based on rhetorical merit. We eventually need to know if all this cost and suffering was in vain. You obviously think that it was because Saddam was a butcher and paid the families of suicide bomber etc. I think that he was a 68 year old man with two indolent sons and a gutted political structure that would have been in real trouble the day he died, by what ever means. I also think that no matter how you spin this, the Mullahs in Tehran sing praises to Allah for the 2000 and 2004 US election results. They now know whose side He is truly on.
22. bongoman | July 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
As long as we get our permanent bases!!! Screw Iraqi democracy, we want our bases!!
23. CanadianObserver | July 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
What is your interpretation of the Downing Street Memo, Mark?
24. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
CO,
That it was a lot of short hand by a British official which does not say “we’re cooking the books”.
Its actually a very useful document in that it shows why we did the UN song and dance - I had expected us to move against Saddam in August of 2002; the Downing Street Memo showed that the Bush Administration was, indeed, moving along those lines and listed the basic objection Tony Blair’s government had to immediate action: the contention that without UN sanction, removing Saddam would be in violation of international law.
Blair and Co were wrong about that (the first time Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire we became fully justified in applying the full military might of the United States against Saddam’s regime), but Bush apparently decided to humor Blair - who did, after all, want to do the right thing - and went along with the UN nonsense…which, of course, delayed action until March of 2003 and gave Saddam and the terrorist groups plenty of time to plan for our arrival and what to do after we reached Baghdad.
As for how to read the memo - it would be useful if those who overheatedly interpreted it had at least a cursory familiarity in the way these things - informal reports, that is - are written, especiall those - like this memo - which were never intended for public consumption.
25. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Ken,
In the fact that he built nuclear facilities under ground after 1991 without the knowledge of the IAEA. Like I said - you can assert, against all facts, that there was nothing sinister in Saddam doing this, or you can admit that whatever the condition of Saddam’s WMD were in 2003, he was clearly still in the WMD business.
26. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Mark,
I agree and I think we are actually rubbing off on our liberal friends, not ideologically mind you, but definitely civilly. Maybe the ideological component will follow.
I commend all of them for their posts.
That being said, I disagree (what a shock).
Yek,
I don’t believe for a second that Bush planned this war from the first few days but I agree completely that this war was badly managed. However, what war has been managed well?
The rest of your post is really just talking points. If you’re concerned about the money, there is plenty of domestic waste that has gone unchallenged by liberals for decades, so that’s a bit disingenuous but it does beg the question: How much blood and treasure are you willing to sacrifice to ensure someone elses liberty?
Frederick,
Your attempts to minimize this article and to somehow atrribute it to Mark Noonan just embarrasingly exposes your BDS and NDS (Noonan derangement syndrome).
Furthermore, your presumption of Bush’s hedonistic vision of events of the war is just comical.
Is Carl Goron your alter ego? Kind of like Batman?
I can only hope so considering your grounding here on “terra” is certainly suspect.
have a multiple personality day
peace, neocon
27. dan | July 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
- yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb”.
- yellowcake is an ore, a rock. You can’t ban it. it’s not illegal, it’s trade is monitored by the IAEA, not restricted.
- Iraq like any other country was and is allowed to buy and sell this stuff from other nations and it is no business of the USA.
- Enrichment is a seperate matter from the commodity trade. It seems that the enrichment program was widely known about for a long time, it was bombed twice!
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/tuwaitha.html
- It is supposed to be legal for nations to undertake enrichment for power generation.
- The ore is an asset which belonged to the nation of Iraq. The sale price should not be kept secret from the Iraqi people who, in a democratic society, own the ore. The current market price should be 71.5 Million us Dollars.
28. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
dan,
Thank you for objective overview. But it’s really not the point, is it?
In other news:
July 6, 2008
Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece
And the UAE forgives over $7 Billion in debt and plans on opening an embassy.
peace, neocon
29. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I think the following observation is an indictment on the MSM and more importantly, a very sad reflection on the current state of politics in Amercia.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Victory in Iraq … Yawn [Andy McCarthy]
Al Qaeda’s being crushed in Mosul, its last holdout in Iraq. You need to go to the British press to learn about it.
30. Evergreen | July 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
28. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
If this were true then it has to be said 4000 American lives and 3 trillion dollars in debt to come full circle in Iraq. Great job cons great job.
31. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Mark,
That is not adequate.
Are you a nuclear specialist?
What are the steps in taking yellow cake and producing an atomic weapon capable of poising a threat to either us or Israel that would justify the cost of this war?
What is the total infrastructure needed to be in place before such a WMD threat would emerge? This was a country under sanctions. Give me the links that describe the underground facility. Make sure that they aren’t just plans that curveball provided too. I used to work at ORNL, the infrastructure cannot be confined to a small set of basements. Since you are so sure about this, I am certain you know what would be required to go from yellow cake to bomb and could draw it out nicely on a white board. You could thus judge independently the veracity of the information you will provide and are not so intellectually dishonest as to pass off information as fact just because is supports your hypothesis.
Lets just suppose that he got an atomic bomb. Would he have to test it? If he tested it, wouldn’t he have to have enough material to make at least two, with only one left over? If he had tested it, would anyone have noticed. If it was a dud and blew up a couple buildings would his ass be grass with nothing to show for it? Do you really build a bomb and use it without a test? I don’t know much about these things but I think not.
What do you do with one atomic bomb? If you blow it up in Tel Aviv, what happens to you in the next 15 minutes?
Do you think anything they made would be better than the North Korean’s attempt?
Do you think that if they had other WMD and gave them to terrorist or use them directly that the consequences wouldn’t have been obvious even to him and the people who he needed to agree to carry out his orders?
Do you think he and the people who he would have given the order to were that crazy and the threat was that large that we had to go in on the time table that we pursued?
The answer to these questions will justify the deaths of people and the loss of national treasure. Ideology? give me a break, it is way beyond that.
32. Evergreen | July 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
That it was a lot of short hand by a British official which does not say “we’re cooking the books”.Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
This is straight from the widely published Downing Street notes. I will have to agree they did not say Bush Jr. was cooking the books they said the facts “were being fixed”, our error. Keep spinning Mark if it allows you to sleep at night.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
33. Kahn | July 6th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Evergreen, we must have been “cooking” the books on all those tons of yellow cake. It can get pretty warm.
34. Ricorun | July 6th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Mark: Be that as it may - no one is asserting that this yellowcake was unknown…what we’re noting is that it did, indeed, exist
So you’re asserting what everyone already knew. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But not exactly news.
…and, furthermore, as was noted in news reports in 2003, Saddam had greatly extended his nuclear facilities unknown to the outside world since the end of the Gulf War.
News reports from 2003 aren’t usually considered exactly late-breaking news in 2008 either. But that appears to be the kernel of your argument Mark — that a single news report from 2003 constitutes a late breaking revelation 5 years later. I think it’s fair to ask… why?
More importantly, if these revelations are indeed conclusive proof, as you referred to them, why hasn’t the Bush administration at some point in the last 5 years siezed upon this report to reinforce their argument? Heaven knows they could have used something conclusive. But they didn’t. And the fact that they didn’t suggests one of two things: (a) they don’t believe these reports are conclusive, or (b) they’re incompetent. Maybe there are other alternatives, but I can’t think of any. If you can, please let us know.
35. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Mark,
Let’s not beat around the bush (no pun intended), whether this war was necessary or not, our actions caused untold misery and streams of unintended consequences. One of your responses was that there is no such thing as a well managed war. Since you know this, you also know that going to war is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Do not evade that fact that we are responsible for the misery presently in Iraq, Saddam or no Saddam, justification or no justification, WMD or no WMD. It doesn’t matter, the responsibility for what goes on there and everything that goes on there is ours, yours and mine and everyone else in this country. The thousands of deaths are on us, me an opponent of the war and you a fervent supporter of it. You have defended its conduct to, brushing aside missteps as inevitable and some how excusable. All I am asking is, is the evidence for this yellow cake’s existence, and the information on the enrichment facilities which you hold up as evidence of a clear and present danger necessitating the attack in 2003 up to the test of being worth the cost in lives and treasure? You and I, we both bear some responsibility for this, I would like to wash if from my hands while you appear to plunge yours in deeper and deeper. I really believed that at this late date a supporter of this war would be hard to find. I was very disappointed tonight. Call it an ideological difference if you like, most people will see it for what it is.
36. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
ken,
What’s your role with the UN? Also, thank you for confirming my opinion that liberals really do think that terrorists are rational people.
Evergreen,
So full circle is an elected representative gov’t and a trained military and police force securing the peace and protecting their sovereignty?
37. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Neocon, Derangement is not a part of Noonan syndrome. Mild retardation is. It’s interesting that at one point you discuss your own sense of civility in a characteristic superior manner and then you call it into question. I have no delusions of myself. Do you personally take any feeling of responsibility for the amount of misery we have caused in Iraq, or do you just brush it aside because this is all just an intellectual construct and an argument to be won to assuage your ego?
38. Balynda Diceman | July 6th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“550 metric tons of yellowcake,” was one of the reasons cited why the Niger documents were forgeries. Why would Saddam need to buy yellowcake from Niger when he already had 550 metric tons?
This proves Bush lied.
This was the yellowcake Saddam bought from President Reagan in the 1980s.
39. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Why do you think that I am connected with the UN and what would that matter?
Do you think that Saddam was this irrational and if you do why should I trust your judgment? He was a player in a game you couldn’t handle.
See Mark, these are the guys you travel with.
Congratulations you must be proud.
40. Fredrick Schwartz | July 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
What exactly are you afraid of Noonan? The truth?
41. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Rico,
I honestly think Bush and Cheney don’t give a shit about the partisans, and I don’t blame them. Just like you said, this is an old report, and the intelligence that Bush used was the same intelligence shared around the world at the time, so if people want to dishonestly ignore that and partisanly attack them, they just ignore them.
That’s not incompetence, that’s just not playing their game.
ken,
You completely ignore the current environment of Iraq and denigrate the efforts of the Iraqi Government and the ISF. Your desire to wash your hands of this exposes your selfish lack of concern for others and your complete unwillingness to expend any blood or treasure to secure their liberty.
And let me guess, you’re one that believes we need to improve our world image, right?
And abandoning 27,000,000 people in the process of securing their new liberated country is going to accomplish that how?
42. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
ken,
How do you know so little about Saddam and so much about me?
Considering your statement you obviously, and immaturely deem yourself judge and jury of my abilities and beliefs. Isn’t that what liberals oppose?
If you don’t work with the UN, you should.
have a paranoid and judgemental day
peace, neocon
43. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
isnt it atypical of lemmings to come out and deny deny deny even in the face of unflinching truth?
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960424/65540_01.htm
– REMAINING BUILDINGS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT
ENRICHED URANIUM RECOVERY OPERATIONS INCLUDE ONE OF TWO
SOVIET-SUPPLIED RADIOISOTOPE LABORATORY BUILDINGS AND THE
ITALIAN-BUILT RADIOCHEMISTRY LABORATORY. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE
LARGELY INTACT, WE BELIEVE THESE BUILDINGS SUSTAINED AT
LEAST SOME COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
ROUGHLY 43 KILOGRAMS OF WEAPONS-USABLE SAFEGUARDED HIGHLY
ENRICHED URANIUM FUELS–LAST ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE NOVEMBER
IAEA INSPECTION-WERE PROBABLY PRESENT IN THE TWO RESEARCH
REACTOR BUILDINGS AT TUWAITHA AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL AIR
RAIDS.
43 kilo’s of weapons grade uranium…..you lemmings are really way out left on this issue….totally ignorant of facts…..
STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents — or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/cia071103.html
44. neocon | July 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
ken dear,
I will take full responsibility for Iraq.
Does make you feel better?
You can rest now
peace, neocon
45. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Neocon, don’t change the subject. I am denigrating you, not the Iraqi government, don’t conflate the two. My desire to wash my hands of this is only due to the fact that I bear the responsibility of the mess we made in Iraq. You are on record as saying that this was in aggregate a good thing because it got rid of Saddam. His brutality to his people had been bothering you for a long time and it was good that we were finally putting an end to their suffering. You were very bothered by the Regan administration’s support and couldn’t believe that Reagan would cozy up to such a bastard. If you honestly believe that we went in to Iraq to liberate them, I can not address your delusions of your willful ignorance. If that is truly your motivation, you’re a better man than I am. I apologize if you are truly this much of a humanitarian. If you are just saying this to gain an upper edge in an argument you are simply a liar. I can’t say and I won’t say for the sake of your much vaunted civility.
I am not for withdrawing from Iraq. Count how many times I have said we are responsible for this situation. Where did you get this, or have you simply applied a label to me and assumed all the answers will simply flow from it?
Now, rather than avoid the subject and talking about the present, was the decision to go in 2003 worth it given the cost. Saddam, do you really think that you have a lock on this? He cut off the hands of people who didn’t do anything against his just so that those who were thinking about it would think twice? Is this the guy?
I have to get back to work so this will have to be the last word. I was hoping Mark would get back to me with the link he promised.
46. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“This proves Bush lied.”
It also proves that Donald Duck is your father.
47. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Neocon, don’t change the subject. I am denigrating you, not the Iraqi government. My desire to wash my hands of this is only due to the fact that I bear the responsibility of the mess we made in Iraq. It you honestly believe that we went in to Iraq to liberate them, I can not address your delusions of your willful ignorance. If that is truly your motivation, you’re a better man than I am. I apologize if you are truly this much of a humanitarian.
I am not for withdrawing from Iraq. Count how many times I have said we are responsible for this situation. Where did you get this, or have you simply applied a label to me and assumed all the answers will simply flow from it?
The above cut and paste is from the very early 90’s just after the Gulf war. The UN was subsequently all over that place. Do you have something more relavent to the discussion since additional data has been obtained since then?
48. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
maybe we should have taken the cowards way out ken, and forgot saddam and what he was doing…and what he did….america isnt guilty of anything in iraq except doing the right thing….
49. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
do you really think that there were no WMD in iraq ken? are you another one of the lemming from the left? a typical demoncrat with a hollow head?
fact is, the gulf war never ended….saddam never complied with the cease fire….and kuwait, not the un….was responsible in the end….for insuring its security….
50. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
early 90s my arse ken….the second is verification after 2001…wake up
51. Sarah Bloch | July 6th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
If Sadam had this secret underground facility [I say they were hot cells that were broken into by the Marines and that's why their dosimters went off in April 2003] and all this portugese yellowcake why would he need more yellowcake from Niger?
Where’s all that “weapons grade plutonium” Carl Prine wrote about?
Why wouldn’t he be trying to get gas centrifuges instead? Why would he be trying to buy something he didn’t need and couldn’t use without more sophisticated equipment?
52. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
(and the first one is dated 96-after saddams in law ratted him out ken…you really are not up to speed here)
53. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
he wanted more yellow cake because the uN was sitting on his…
after saddam figured out that he could smuggle just about anything into iraq he wanted he did try…he got pissed off and kicked out the UN Inspectors….if you dont remember that…whats the use of joining the debate?
simple
54. Sarah Bloch | July 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
50. js | July 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Where are the WMDs js? Where are the midsiles full of anthrax and VX where are the “mobile trailers?” Where are the aluminum tubes and the mushroom clouds?
Where js? Show me one shred of proof that this was anything other than a big boat ride for suckers like you and I’ll defend you forever. But you got duped js because you wanted to be a WINNER. the facts are too confusing to you because you are easily deluded and cannot resist authoritarian declarations. You’ve been convinced like your forbears were that cigarettes were good for them by Reagan.
55. Sarah Bloch | July 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html
go there and read the truth
56. Casper | July 6th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
You know, you could feed an awful lot of wedding guests with 550 tons of yellow cake.
57. Ken | July 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Yeah, I’m trying to get things finished up here so I can go home. Sorry, I missed the date on the last document.
So let me ask you this, you are diagnosed with cancer and you have two drugs that are on the market. How much data would you want before you risked your survival on choosing one vs the other? I look at the language here and they don’t know where the uranium has gone. I look at the Tenent passages and it is complete here say. Because of these two documents you are convinced that everything is all right. This is not a diagnosis of cancer, this is war and war if not a little game where people run around with guns and shout. Its about tearing up the body and destroying families. Read these and ask if they are sound enough, if you believe them enough to risk your life on. How about your parents or your children’s? You have to have a hell of a lot more than this. I’m a lemming?
And why does neocon think I’m paranoid?
interesting discussion, but after this little exchange I can see it’s a waste of time.
Mark I won’t be back for the link, this is just too weak and my time is too valuable.
58. Kahn | July 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Sarah:
“The reports cover all Agency activities in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. “
59. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Sarah,
Its a rather large document - can you direct us to the exact location in the report detailing the underground facilities discovered by the Marines in 2003?
60. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Ken,
I can’t begin to tell you how devastated we are that we wasted your valuable time.
61. Kahn | July 7th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Mark,
Not likely. Since the report covers 1991-1998. (Sarah, I made not be good at math - but that’s before 2003… I think). AND, it missed the existence of the facilities completely.
Ken,
Thanks. Nice rant. You’re right, it’s not about cancer. It’s about a reasonable belief that a tyrannical maniac was working on weapons that in a single instance could kill more people than you have seen in your entire life including those you’ve seen in person, in movies, and on television. That many.
62. What? | July 7th, 2008 at 3:41 am
This is such a stretch, Mark.
Before you post things like this do a mild amount of research on what it takes to turn yellow cake into a actual working weapon.
No one disputed Saddam at one time had a nuclear weapons program. The dispute was whether he had an active one. Given the state of the uranium and the state of the facilities, he clearly did not.
Do you even remember what the Bush Administration was pushing in 2003? The message was he HAD WMDs. This has been proved false.
That means one of two things:
Bush knew there were no WMDs and lied; or
Bush made a reckless statement he did not have enough evidence to support. I tend to think it is the latter.
I want you to also realize numerous members of the administration, including Bush, have conceded they did not find WMDs.
You argument here re-imagines what was told to the country. If Bush had said: “Saddam has the base material for building a nuclear weapon. It will take him many years to develop this weapon. At this point we don’t even know if he is trying to make a weapon or has the resources to do so” I don’t think the country would have been so enthused about going to war.
63. Sarah Bloch | July 7th, 2008 at 5:15 am
61. Mark Noonan | July 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
What the Marines stumbled into where the “hot cells” where the yellowcake and other materials were safeguarded at Location C.
64. Balynda Diceman | July 7th, 2008 at 6:55 am
js,
“maybe we should have taken the cowards way out ken, and forgot saddam and what he was doing…and what he did….america isnt guilty of anything in iraq except doing the right thing….”
Since when is murdering 600,000 civilians, torturing suspects, and driving 1.2m people from their homeland the right thing?
65. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don\'t-mess | July 7th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I really don’t know about any of this and I really don’t care.
I’m hedged against everything but McCain nuking Iran and Medvedev incinerating the USA in response. We all go to the same place then, anyway. That’s your worst case McCain scenario.
If McCain wins, the world can expect 4-8 more years of what has been, except for a couple of more shooting wars and US stagflation. And he gets lucky and China continues to be a sponge for USD. A nice slow march down of the USD and at the end of 12 or 16 years of this, I’ll be buying up all the oceanfront I can at 7c-on-the-USD.
The likely scenario is the above with China eventually crying “uncle!” That means massive shortages and riots everywhere in the USA — not just in Newark and Watts. When the dust clears, I’ll buy up all the oceanfront I can at 3c-on-the-USD.
Obama? He’s probably committed at least to Iraq and Afghanistan for the duration and it’s up to him and his advisors whether he wants to keep throwing gasoline on the fire or to step in and try to save the dollar, monetarily if not fiscally. I’ll be there to buy up oceanfront at 9c-on-the-dollar.
Or Obama will prove to be a true fiscal and monetary conservative, declare “victory” and get out of the Middle East. It’ll still take a generation to undo the last 8 years and I’ll be buying up oceanfront at 13c-on-the-dollar.
Or Bush will impose his executive order of May of 2007 and continue his 2nd term indefinitely. I’ll borrow USD to buy developed oceanfront at 11c-on-the-dollar to sell at par to American retirees who can’t afford tar-paper shacks in El Salvador.
Argue away about yellowcake if you like. I’m going to have a beer for breakfast and watch some TV.
66. Fredrick Schwartz | July 7th, 2008 at 7:55 am
66. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don\’t-mess | July 7th, 2008 at 7:37 am
As Uncle Walter would have said, “And that’s the way it is.”
67. js | July 7th, 2008 at 7:59 am
64. Balynda Diceman |
do you think posting rhetorical drivel and lies impresses anyone?
sorry…you are flat out of luck on that one….if you ever learn to count it would be amazing!!
68. js | July 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am
54. Sarah Bloch | July 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Where are the WMDs js?
if they were up your…ahh….you get the idea….its obvious that you….along with the rest of the liberal lemmings….havent figured that out yet either….i didnt see you post that they didnt exist…thats a big plus…..because stuff just doesnt go poof and disappear….so about the only thing for sure is….
they did exist…they were in iraq….and nobody is fessing up to where they are today….
but….
israel already told us….
An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel’s Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon stated, “Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.” The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as “completely untrue,” and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.
Syria shares a 376-mile border with Iraq. The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/
and then to boot….syria already used them….
Syria chemical arms
tested on civilians?
Report of mutilated bodies in Sudan
where U.S. says genocide underway
Posted: September 15, 2004
1:00 am Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40454
so tell us….you getting any closer to a clue where they are?
69. js | July 7th, 2008 at 8:34 am
55. Sarah Bloch | July 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
go there and read the truth
LOL!! are you joking? the IAEA couldnt find its own butt with both hands…..Saddam was laughing at them for a decade…..you want the TRUTH? dont tell me you have been sucked in to the lies that you are telling us….oh….NEVER MIND….you were!! you are so stupid…..then again…you asked for it…because when the truth was right in front of your eyes….you denied it…
Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment’s notice. At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large “agricultural supply” area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a “camouflaged bunker complex” that was shown to reporters — with unpleasant results.
“More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent,” Hanson says. “But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The ‘agricultural site’ was also colocated with a military ammunition dump — evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
70. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess | July 7th, 2008 at 8:54 am
JS: In re-reading what I wrote, I realize I owe you a big apology and 1000 thank-yous, if I was ever offensive or unkind in anyway.
You really want the USA to make it THIS EASY to make money, huh? Sounds good to me, buddy.
I don’t know what I’ve been doing on my blogs the last 4 years. I got to learn a whole new vocabulary. Saddam Hussein? Worse than Hitler! Definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Very good move of US to fight in Iraq under-manned and under-equipped while fighting in Afghanistan at the same time. Strategic brilliance at a level Patton couldn’t have worked out.
The Surge has been a brilliant success. There’s no civil war in Iraq but a second Surge might not be a terrible idea, regardless.
Now, on to Iran. Did you know that Iran was in league with the Sunni, Shia and Kurds as well? It’s true.
This is a Holy War and there’s no amount of USD large enough to commit to it. I’m thinking $4 trillion over budget for fiscal 2009.
No guts, no glory. Go for it.
71. Sarah Bloch | July 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
69. js | July 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I don’t think you are any closer to reality that the Unabomber if you believe any of that. The United States of America can literally watch every square inch of Terra’s surface and you expect me to take a WND article as true about WMD being moved to Syria?
I say the Iraqis shot it all into space. That argument is about as “true” as yours. But you do admit America went to war to keep Saddam from using his WMDs?
72. js | July 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
did you ever wonder Tampa, if we could afford NOT to fight it? our economy is under attack, and oil is being used as a weapon….free market economy and our own congress drove industry from our nation….and a concerted effort to ridicule everything america is being orchestrated world wide to turn the voice of freedom into the voice of a tyrant…filled with lies…and inuendo….conspiracy theories that lemmings believe now to be true…even in the absense of fact…iran is proof that islam is not a religion…but more a governing organization…not intent on good will….or peace…or equal rights for all….no guts no future…no option…
and sarah…you evade legitimate issues like the UN evades finding its own butt….stop wasting my time
73. Kahn | July 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Balynda Diceman - WE murdered 600,000 civilians? That number smells funny. Kind of like you pulled it out of your ass.
74. HeyHey | July 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
If you check into this, you’ll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam’s government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.
I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as “proof” that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.
GWB had admitted we haven’t found WMD or the capability in Iraq to launch said WMD.
“QUESTION: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How do you square all of that?
BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I — part of the reason we went into Iraq: was — the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.
But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of — the “stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were –
QUESTION: What did Iraq: have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq: have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq: was a — Iraq: — the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. ”
So he admits to Iraq not having WMD but says they have the capability to do so. This capability has yet to be found or he wasn’t being truthful. You decide.
Also, bush also states above that the main reason we went into Iraq was WMD, not liberation.
Now, either he lied or a bunch of you are. You decide.
75. js | July 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“Now, either he lied or a bunch of you are. You decide”
you remind me of the south end of a north bound donkey son….
of course he didnt lie…he has to take the official position that saddam didnt have the WMD that the UN and most of the worlds intelligence agencies said existed….yet…with you playing nuance with words…the most obvious excaped your pea brained explanation….
he didnt say saddam never had them…just that…he didnt have WMD…not that he didnt have them before we invaded…nor that they never had them…nor that they were not moved to syria..or another country…nor that we just failed to find them because the might be still buried in the massive iraqi desert…just that he didnt have them (only because we didnt find them…) making your liar liar accusation a charade of an idiot liberal lemming stooge ….elementary addition…you failed to provide a link to the whole Q&A routine…so effectively, you could be the only liar here…through the omission of facts that, if displayed, would lead us to a different conclusion than what you provided…lol…
76. js | July 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182932,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/
one of saddams generals said he had WMD…and they were moved to syria…
what are you liberals…suckers for punishment? cmon…there is no dispute
77. Fredrick Schwartz | July 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
76. js | July 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“of course he didnt lie…he has to take the official position that saddam didnt have the WMD that the UN and most of the worlds intelligence agencies said existed….yet…with you playing nuance with words…the most obvious excaped your pea brained explanation….”
You playing nuance with words, huh? Now the American people have to divine what their President tells them so he can come out of any press conference smelling like a political rose?
And to Hell with the Syrian story and the Iraqi general and all that bunk. You know that’s a lie just like what Bush said was political cover.
The President said that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. If your own President whom you revere so greatly that all Liberals and the media are supposed to be deranged about says something and that it still is not so because somehow the “libruls nuanced’ what he said then I have to call Bullshit.
I know all of your Souls are somehow at stake if you ever back down about Bush but come on it is so obvious that Saddam did not have any WMD and even George W Bush himself admitted it in a press conference:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
I think for me this ends the debate about the WMD reason for going to war now I need to find out what the REAL reason was so that inforamtion could be passed on to INTERPOL for presentation to the ICC. This is the only way to solve this problem with any certitude.
78. Pain | July 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
76. js | July 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
So Bush was confused then We take it js?
The leader of the free world stumbling over his words was confused by a reporter who asked him a direct question?
Which is it Saddam did not have WMD or Bush is so intellectually challenged that a simple and direct follow up made him stammer into ground where he gave up the sole nugget of truth every peace loving Soul on Terra wished to hear in a White House press briefing on 21 August 2006?
79. fartotheright | July 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Liberals tend to believe what we want to about Iraqi insipte of the facts are that contradict their position. (Of course we all are not free from making this error. But it seems that liberals are more guilty.)
People Believe a ‘Fact’
That Fits Their Views
Even if It’s Clearly False
By SHARON BEGLEY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 4, 2005
Funny thing, memory. With the second anniversary next month of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it’s only natural that supporters as well as opponents of the war will be reliving the many searing moments of those first weeks of battle.
The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. U.S. troops firing at a van approaching a Baghdad checkpoint and killing seven women and children. A suicide bomber nearing a Najaf checkpoint and blowing up U.S. soldiers. The execution of coalition POWs by Iraqis. The civilian uprising in Basra against Saddam’s Baathist party.
If you remember it well, then we have grist for another verse for Lerner and Loewe (”We met at nine,” “We met at eight,” “I was on time,” “No, you were late.” “Ah yes, I remember it well!”). The first three events occurred. The second two were products of the fog of war: After being reported by the media, both were quickly retracted by coalition authorities as erroneous.
Yet retracting a report isn’t the same as erasing it from people’s memories. According to an international study to be published next month, Americans tend to believe that the last two events occurred — even when they recall the retraction or correction. In contrast, Germans and Australians who recall the retraction discount the misinformation. It isn’t that Germans and Australians are smarter. Instead, it’s further evidence that what we remember depends on what we believe.
“People build mental models,” explains Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, Crawley, who led the study that will be published in Psychological Science. “By the time they receive a retraction, the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view, and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles.” Therefore, he and his colleagues conclude in their paper, “People continue to rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and understand a subsequent retraction.”
For the study, the scientists showed more than 860 people in Australia, Germany and the U.S. a list of events — some true (the first three examples above), some reported but retracted (the second two), some completely invented (”Iraqi troops poisoned a water supply before withdrawing from Baghdad”). Each person indicated whether or not he or she had heard of the event and rated its likelihood of being true. People were pretty good at weeding out the invented reports. Then, for each report they said they had heard, they noted whether it had subsequently been retracted.
If the report had been retracted, surely people would no longer regard it as true, would they? Here is where memory parts ways with reason. The Germans and Australians responded as you’d expect. The better they recalled that a claim had been taken back, the less true they judged that claim. They did not believe in events they knew had been erroneously reported.
But for the Americans in the study, the simple act of remembering that they had once heard something was enough to make them regard it as true, retraction be damned. Even many of those who remembered a retraction still rated the original claim as true.
That comes as no surprise to memory researchers. Time and again, lab studies show that people have an astonishing propensity to recall things that never happened. If you read a list of words such as pillow, bed and pajamas, and are later asked whether another word was there, you may well “remember” related words that were never presented. “Sleep” was on the list, wasn’t it?
In this case, people’s mental model is “words about sleep.” In the case of memories about Iraq, people’s mental model is why the U.S. invaded. The Germans and Australians in this study were skeptical of the official justification, namely, to find weapons of mass destruction. The Americans were more credulous on that point. How suspicious or credulous people were strongly affected whether they judged a retracted claim to be true or not.
“People who were not suspicious of the motives behind the war continued to rely on misinformation,” Prof. Lewandowsky said, “believing in things they know to have been retracted.” They held fast to what they had originally heard “because it fits with their mental model,” which people seek to retain “whatever it takes.”
In contrast, those who were suspicious of the WMD justification believed the retractions. The reason is probably that they weren’t sold on the original, erroneous reports — all of which cast the U.S. in a good light and Iraqi forces in a bad one. These people “are more willing to discard elements of a mental model that turn out to be wrong,” says Prof. Lewandowsky.
The news media would do well to keep in mind that once we report something, some people will always believe it even if we try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. For instance, six months after the invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed. The findings also offer Machiavellian possibilities for politicians. They can make a false claim that helps their cause, contritely retract it — and rest assured that some people will nevertheless keep thinking of it as true.
80. HeyHey | July 7th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
js,
I could use the Righty defense here on the George Sada claim.
“He was simply cashing in to promote his book”
One could call Sada’s claim ‘ hearsay’ as well. There is nothing to corroborate his story besides his ‘pilot’ friends which. It is very much disputed js. This guy says he knew about the WMD being transported and doesn’t say squat about it until he releases a book? Sounds fishy…
81. HeyHey | July 7th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“You failed to provide a link to the whole Q&A routine…so effectively, you could be the only liar here…through the omission of facts that, if displayed, would lead us to a different conclusion than what you provided…lol…”
js,
One Google search would have brought you to the evidence you seek. Here is the link to the WH press conference(which was provided above as well by F.Schwartz POST #77)…Feel free to call the site a leftwing rag…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html
82. fartotheright | July 7th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I know that what I posted was long and that you ,liberals especially, may not read it because of that nor comment on it. But I encourage you to read it and make a comment on it.
83. js | July 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
ignorance is a disease of liberal lemming mentality….obviously…
you can tell by reading all the halfwitted replies that are void of intelligence and substance….far from lessons on essential debate tactics learned in high school debate clubs…..these lemming liberals seem to be impervious to intellegent and logical abstracts as evidenced by their constant barrage of diarhea that they so profusely regurgitate on every topic they engage….and the nips at the ankles are evidence of such immaturity…
it may be that the liberal lemming is associated with the defective mentality of a child that cant progress past a certain level on cognizance…as indicated by thier driveling posts…..
84. fartotheright | July 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
js, They willfully refuse to be open minded about the facts even when they are presented to them when the facts are against what they have decided to believe. I for one am willing to listen to facts and change my mind. I am skeptical of “facts” presented by partisan liberals. I wait for facts that stand on their own free of partisan politics.
85. Tractatus | July 7th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
They willfully refuse to be open minded about the facts even when they are presented to them when the facts are against what they have decided to believe.
If you’re talking about the wingnuts of the world, I agree. This blog is a prime example of that dynamic in action.
For instance, six months after the invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed.
Hell, we’re five years into the invasion, and Mark Noonan still believes this. So…you were saying about people willfully refusing to be open-minded about the facts?
86. js | July 7th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
wow tract…you offer so much information…filled with facts and dates and…and…uh…
well…lets just say your lips flap lots in the wind….but as far as content goes…your about as shallow a lemming as they come….
“Hell, we’re five years into the invasion, and Mark Noonan still believes this. So…you were saying about people willfully refusing to be open-minded about the facts?”
what are you, stoopid too tract? you actually think we didnt find any wmd? even the did they call out for mental midgets and you put both hands up for double dose or what!!
so tell us tract….what credible information do you actually have that proves that just because we didnt find them….that there are no wmd still in iraq??….its like saying that just because you cant see it….the exhaust fumes from your car are harmless…but in a real sense…just like the fumes from your car…denying the existence of wmd in iraq really doesnt require alot of intelligence…ecspecially since we actually did find wmd in iraq…..really.
87. CanadianObserver | July 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
President Bush, though, didn’t lie - not even once, and not even slightly.
July 6th, 2008 at 02:40pm Mark Noonan
———————————-
86. js | July 7th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
wow tract…you offer so much information…filled with facts and dates and…and…uh…
ecspecially since we actually did find wmd in iraq…..really.
——————————-
The denial response of the right-wing element to the awesome failure of the Bush administration is something to behold.
Presented with fact after fact, they continue to cling to the party propaganda, deliberately closing their eyes and their minds to the unvarnished truth.
Luckily, for the survival of United States of America, there is still a segment of the population willing to admit, however hard it may be, that their leaders have been proven to be incompetent, even criminal in their actions.
Hopefully, in 2009 the world will see a new and better America.
88. Pain | July 8th, 2008 at 9:39 am
88. CanadianObserver | July 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
That is because they are suffering from a disease that is worse than ignorance which can be cast off by the light or reason and drowned out by the song of education; they are arrogant. They know they are both wrong and losing yet their pride will not allow them to seek a new path. We, Ourselves, of the Collective recall Pride being a deadly sin one for which many hang from crosses in Hell for today and shall for all time.
89. Tractatus | July 8th, 2008 at 11:24 am
your about as shallow a lemming as they come
Geez, man, what did that metaphor ever do to you?
90. fartotheright | July 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
js: Wow, I can’t believe that these moonbats actually exist! They are a bunch arrogant jerks. I can see why you are so frustrated with these closed minded arrogant jerks, not a shred of decency in them. They are just stuck in their delusion of grandeur. Of course in their diluted minds what I posted only applies to conservatives and they are sooo enlightened (fools). No wonder I don’t frequent here as much as I used to. There is no way I’d have any desire to be like them! I knew that they would come back with the foolish comments after I posted what I did, so predictable. I’d be surprised if they came back with a mature respecting response.
91. \'08ama | July 8th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
HURRAY !!!!!!!!
Those 4187.. oops, 4188, oops, 4189… oops, 4190….ooops, 4191…. oops, 4192 …… :( Americans did NOT die in vain !!!!!!!
I feel soooo much better now.
92. zone labs&hellip | July 9th, 2008 at 9:10 am
[...] two oceans. The removal of 550 metric tons of ???yellowcake??? ?? the seed material for higher-grahttp://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/06/us-removes-550-tons-of-yellowcake-from-iraq/Read “RE: Zone Alarm PC hangs for few mins” at Windows XP?, 2000, 2003, NT Forum…4.8.1.7217 [...]
93. Fredrick Schwartz | July 9th, 2008 at 9:26 am
84. js | July 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Nothing but bloviating.
Pitiful.
js your president said that Saddam didn’t have WMD.
Game over.
You lose.
Want to try double or nothing?
94. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess | July 9th, 2008 at 9:36 am
72. js | July 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
“…did you ever wonder Tampa, if we could afford NOT to fight it? our economy is under attack, and oil is being used as a weapon….free market economy and our own congress drove industry from our nation…”
Your economy is only under attack by the forces of the free-market. Not by OPEC. You cannot run such high deficits, carry such an enormous government and private debt load, fight two wars, and commit to a weak dollar all at once and expect everything to turn out great.
You cannot run such large minus real interest rates and expect any demand for physical dollars or for the right to lend them. You haven’t felt how bad things can get because China has been a dollar sponge. At some point, China will cry “Uncle!” With a growing economy they are likely to float their own currency and that’s an American holocaust.
You are far less vulnerable to Islamic radicals than you are to Chinese bank practice. And really to your own fiscal and monetary policies But you’re the one who has to live there, not me.
If you are happier fighting these wars and letting your economy rot, who am I to tell you you’re on a dangerous path?
95. DonIndie | July 14th, 2008 at 1:13 am
I for one have become increasingly cynical about our involvement in Iraq until I read these posts. I am still cynical but the onslaught from the bush haters almost makes me rethink the validity of the “liberalism is a mental disorder” quote. The underreporting of tons of yellowcake which finally has been shipped out of Iraq even if it was acquired from us when we viewed Iraq as a pawn does not mitigate the fact that IT WAS THERE. I for one don’t know whether Iraq would’ve eventually developed a nuclear bomb but I do know that the Arab culture views time as an ally and patience is measured in decades which is why Iran, if it remains a Islamic theocracy, will eventually succeed in reducing Israel to an uninhabited nuclear wasteland. Hey even Chamberlain was the darling of the “beautiful people” in England when he came back with an “agreement in hand” from good old Adolph. Today he would’ve been the toast of Hollywood “elite” and Ms Speaker Pelosi’s cadre of moonbats.
Yes and just to be tweaking uniformly, Karl Rowe, Dick Cheney, are Right Wingnuts. Still, I’m convinced the left leaning media would’ve crippled our efforts in WWII. Germany was on a track to also have atomic weapons. But perhaps we would’ve been too distracted by the people who said Roosevelt lied. Wake up people. There is a concerted effort to yoke the West under Islamic law and it cannot be solved by better understanding why they hate us.
President - “What do you want from us”
Martian - “We want you to die”
Mars Attack - 1996
96. Philip | July 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Mark,
Remember, the majority of those that you will hear from on this blog are those opposed to your writing. Trust that there are many of us out here that agree with you that don’t jump to your support. Passions rise when people disagree with your posting and the yare more likely to respond. I stumbled across your blog, but will visit again. It’s always refreshing to see people that believe the way I do.
We have a great moral President, but I fear the world is leaning left and so is America. People buy into a false peace notion. While the Saddam’s and the Mullah’s of Iran are in power, there will never be world peace. When the one country that can help provide world peace is criticized and hated for trying to help, it just emboldens our enemies within our own country and outside.
America can be such a beacon for good in the world, but the Left opposition weakens us as well as world security. If Obama was President in WWII, we would be speaking German. I truly believe that. Pacifism never won a conflict.
Keep up the fight, you’ve got supporters!
Rock
97. grimychaz | July 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Duelfer Report. Read it. Shows Saddam was impeding the IAEA’s work and only being subjected to fly-over inspections of the facility. Combined with his acquisition of weapons systems from China and Russia, seems like it was a good idea to take this stuff from him.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
98. Day Trading Market Liams &hellip | August 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Day Trading Market Liams Software Trading As Liamssoft
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me
99. Pirate Ship Models&hellip | September 14th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Pirate Ship Models
I have been searching for sites have content related to radio control racing hobbies to tell them about the Engine Analysis Software for tuning all Nitro RC Engines.
100. viking ship models&hellip | October 6th, 2008 at 2:23 am
viking ship models
The term is used colloquially for any kind of Linkback.A Trackback is one of three types of Linkbacks, methods for Web authors to request