The last of the yellowcake has been removed from Iraq.
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
[quote]lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.[/quote]
And why did he have it?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
And why did he have it? [/quote]
The same reason we have it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
Zap Branigan wrote:
And why did he have it? [/quote]
To make Indiglo watches, duh.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
Zap Branigan wrote:
And why did he have it?
To make Indiglo watches, duh.[/quote]
Don’t be an idiot!
Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That’s not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That’s something any country can do.
We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn’t be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.
To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for.
This story is here to tell us one thing: Washington is realizing that, for a multitude of reasons, it can’t maintain the occupation indefinitely. And it is certain that Iraqis will vote for governments that are friendly towards Tehran. So instead of risking that Baghdad hands out these tons of material to their neighbor in the East, they’re ensuring that everything is gone out of the country as soon as possible.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
Zap Branigan wrote:
And why did he have it?
To make Indiglo watches, duh.
Don’t be an idiot!
Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That’s not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That’s something any country can do.
We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn’t be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.
To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for.
This story is here to tell us one thing: Washington is realizing that, for a multitude of reasons, it can’t maintain the occupation indefinitely. And it is certain that Iraqis will vote for governments that are friendly towards Tehran. So instead of risking that Baghdad hands out these tons of material to their neighbor in the East, they’re ensuring that everything is gone out of the country as soon as possible.[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
Zap Branigan wrote:
And why did he have it?
To make Indiglo watches, duh.
Don’t be an idiot!
Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That’s not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That’s something any country can do.
We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn’t be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.
To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for.
This story is here to tell us one thing: Washington is realizing that, for a multitude of reasons, it can’t maintain the occupation indefinitely. And it is certain that Iraqis will vote for governments that are friendly towards Tehran. So instead of risking that Baghdad hands out these tons of material to their neighbor in the East, they’re ensuring that everything is gone out of the country as soon as possible.
Wrong[/quote]
Please elaborate.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
Zap Branigan wrote:
And why did he have it?
To make Indiglo watches, duh.
Don’t be an idiot!
Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That’s not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That’s something any country can do.
We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn’t be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.
To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for.
This story is here to tell us one thing: Washington is realizing that, for a multitude of reasons, it can’t maintain the occupation indefinitely. And it is certain that Iraqis will vote for governments that are friendly towards Tehran. So instead of risking that Baghdad hands out these tons of material to their neighbor in the East, they’re ensuring that everything is gone out of the country as soon as possible.
Wrong
Please elaborate.[/quote]
Wilson lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence commitee. (I know that is an oxymoron).
It appears Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
This has been beaten to death already on this forum but the lies from lixy never stop.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
lixy wrote:
That’ll be the same yellowcake everybody knew they had since the UN inspectors bagged and tagged it a decade and half or so ago.
Zap Branigan wrote:
And why did he have it?
To make Indiglo watches, duh.
Don’t be an idiot!
Iraq had an active nuclear research program in the 70s and 80s. That’s not exactly a secret. Israel bombed the (very primitive) reactors as early as 1981. Yellowcake is extremely easy to make. You just dig it up and have a chemist crudely process it at the ore to yield mainly uranium oxide. That’s something any country can do.
We all knew he had this pile of yellowcake. We also all knew that his nuclear program was unsuccessful and that he wouldn’t be able to enrich it for a regular reactor (let alone weapon-grade!) anytime soon. UN inspectors found these back in the days of the 1st Gulf War, tagged it all and left it in some hangar.
To refresh your memories, there has never been mention of this yellowcake by the White House prior to the invasion. There was, however, plenty of talk about Saddam buying uranium from Niger. Turned out to be concocted evidence that gullible and/or unethical journalists fell for.
This story is here to tell us one thing: Washington is realizing that, for a multitude of reasons, it can’t maintain the occupation indefinitely. And it is certain that Iraqis will vote for governments that are friendly towards Tehran. So instead of risking that Baghdad hands out these tons of material to their neighbor in the East, they’re ensuring that everything is gone out of the country as soon as possible.
Wrong
Please elaborate.
Wilson lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence commitee. (I know that is an oxymoron).
It appears Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
This has been beaten to death already on this forum but the lies from lixy never stop.[/quote]
Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.
At the least, both sides of the story should have been presented and it should have been disclosed that U.S. investigations failed to confirm Britain’s findings. Presumably we conducted our own investigations for a reason, that reason being that we weren’t content to rely on Britain’s findings. I’m not saying that Bush was necessarily particularly worse than other politicians. Politicians of both parties often only tell us HALF the story to drum up support for the agenda THEY think is right based on ALL the evidence.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.
[/quote]
Did you actually read the link?
But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.
They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.
So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?[/quote]
Presidential Superpowers?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.
Did you actually read the link?
But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.
They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.
So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?[/quote]
Yes, and the State Department interpreted his findings as confirmation that the Niger report was not credible.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090007
A Senate Intelligence Report also concluded a few years later that the report could be read in different ways. The point is that there was NEVER a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But we were not informed of this for years. We were solely and exclusively told about evidence and interpreations that they did.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wilson lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence commitee. (I know that is an oxymoron).
It appears Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
This has been beaten to death already on this forum but the lies from lixy never stop.[/quote]
Don’t be a tool.
SIC didn’t say wilson lied. The additional minority view did…signed by Burns, Roberts, and Hatch.
Stop making an ass of yourself.
Also, please retitle thread as Well Known and Documented Yellowcake Removed From Iraq. (See: your own freaking link).
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wilson lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence commitee. (I know that is an oxymoron).
It appears Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
This has been beaten to death already on this forum but the lies from lixy never stop.
Don’t be a tool.
SIC didn’t say wilson lied. The additional minority view did…signed by Burns, Roberts, and Hatch.
[/quote]
They are on the Commitee and they not only rejected his report they said he outright lied.
Now go away you partisan hack.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yes, and the State Department interpreted his findings as confirmation that the Niger report was not credible.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090007
A Senate Intelligence Report also concluded a few years later that the report could be read in different ways. The point is that there was NEVER a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But we were not informed of this for years. We were solely and exclusively told about evidence and interpreations that they did.[/quote]
Well at least your linking to a liberal spin group. We can always trust them.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wilson lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence commitee. (I know that is an oxymoron).
It appears Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
This has been beaten to death already on this forum but the lies from lixy never stop.
Don’t be a tool.
SIC didn’t say wilson lied. The additional minority view did…signed by Burns, Roberts, and Hatch.
They are on the Commitee and they not only rejected his report they said he outright lied.
Now go away you partisan hack.
[/quote]
But they are partisan hacks, (hint: they were lying)
[quote]The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Yes, and the State Department interpreted his findings as confirmation that the Niger report was not credible.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090007
A Senate Intelligence Report also concluded a few years later that the report could be read in different ways. The point is that there was NEVER a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But we were not informed of this for years. We were solely and exclusively told about evidence and interpreations that they did.
Well at least your linking to a liberal spin group. We can always trust them.[/quote]
Which hilariously is totally accurate in this reporting. Meanwhile like Fox’s Angle…Zap is also wrong and yet silence from you.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.
Did you actually read the link?
But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.
They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.
So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?[/quote]
Uhmmm…senior most CIA did not think it was happening and said so ( “Remove this from speech please”) tools at WINPAC CIA were pushing the unlikely notion. After the SOTU, CIA totally walked away from it. Zap never got the memo though.
[quote]100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.
Did you actually read the link?
But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.
They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.
So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?
Uhmmm…senior most CIA did not think it was happening and said so ( “Remove this from speech please”) tools at WINPAC CIA were pushing the unlikely notion. After the SOTU, CIA totally walked away from it. Zap never got the memo though.[/quote]
You mean Wilson the liar’s wife wanted it removed from the speech. The Brits and Italians thought it was accurate.