Bush lied and Saddam had no nuke program!

Bard_PTC's picture

Bush lied about yellow cake from Niger. So what. Saddam didn't need any from Niger. He already owned plenty - hundreds of metric tons. And Saddam was secretly purchasing centrifuge components that could process yellow cake into higher forms of enriched uranium for potential use in reactors and nuclear weapons.

Read on.


Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq - Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada

(updated 6:57 p.m. ET, Sat., July. 5, 2008, Associated Press)
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.
and Read this:


Uranium removed from Iraq nuclear site

By Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson
Published: July 7, 2008

BAGHDAD: American and Iraqi officials have completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein's nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country's main nuclear site.
The uranium, which was removed several weeks ago, arrived in Canada over the weekend, according to officials. The removal was first reported by The Associated Press.
Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb, officials decided that in Iraq's unstable environment, it was important to make sure that it did not fall into the wrong hands. There are also health dangers associated with concentrated forms of natural uranium. American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation south of Baghdad that had been the site of Iraq's nuclear program.
Cameco, a Canadian company that produces uranium and sells it around the world, bought the material, according to foreign officials knowledgeable about the transaction.
"The Iraqi government requested our help; we helped them," said Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the American Embassy in Baghdad. "It was their decision and we were happy to assist, at their request. This is a good example of Iraqis working with international companies to get done what they want to get done."
There has been a continuing international effort to remove nuclear material from countries that are no longer using it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has helped a number of countries, including Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, get rid of highly enriched uranium and spent nuclear fuel.
The yellowcake removed from Iraq - which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa - could be used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing would it become low-enriched uranium, which could fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs.
The only neighboring country known to have the technology to process yellowcake is Iran, but Iran has its own stores of the uranium. A State Department official said there had been no indication that Iran was seeking the material or was interested in using it.
This was not the first time that the United States had intervened to remove potentially harmful nuclear material from Iraq. Just a few days before the Americans formally transferred sovereignty back to Iraq in June 2004, they removed 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium, as well as other radioactive sources, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The material was taken to the United States.

So I guess the Main Stream Media (MSM) was right after all. Saddam had no WMD program at all. No nuke program either. Yeah, right! LOL

And if you are looking for the MSM to run this on the front page, learn to live with disappointment. They won't.
Because it proves the MSM lied. Repeatedly and shamelessly. Now who's the bigger LIAR?

All of you liberal bloggers will call this a non-story because yellowcake is not a WMD in an of itself. So what. The mere possession of hundreds of tons of yellowcake, and essential ingredient needed to produce highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons is all the evidence I need.

And all of the liberals who would discredit this find as "not relevant" would be the same whiners screaming, "Why didn't we do something about it" after Saddam exploded his first nuke. (i.e., ridiculous assertions that Bush possessed all the intel he needed to prevent 9/11). Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

(Unless you want some of this yellowcake. You can have that and eat it too!)

Bard_PTC's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:34pm.

post-facto and ridiculous, I hadn't even bothered to respond. Keep in mind, guys, that this type of person will buy a burning house if their team is selling it. Have fun with him, and the flies he attracts (hint hint otherside)


Kevin "Hack" King

ps: Are cigarettes WMDs? If they are, we may have a problem WRT Iran.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 8:05pm.

One of the problems is that in some cases people argue in disconnected logical paths like equating possession of raw ore with the capability to produce nuclear weapons totally and completely ignoring the technological know-how involved. Its kinda like some country having some kerosene and liquid oxygen and we are attacking them because they have rocket fuel and are going to land on and claim the moon before we do. Frankly, I blame the public schools.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 11:54am.

The only newsworthy fact that comes out of this story is that this "pre-1991 yellow cake" is now out of Iraq, and cannot be looted by anyone. This cache of yellow cake pre-dates the first Gulf war in 1991 and was already well known, documented and tracked by the intelligence community and the IAEA.

"The story begins at the end of the first Gulf War when inspectors found a 500 ton cache of refined yellow cake uranium at Iraq's primary nuclear research facility in Al—Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. The cache was part of a huge inventory of nuclear materials discovered by UN inspectors that included low—level radioactive material of the type used for industrial and medical purposes as well as a quantity of highly enriched uranium suitable for bomb production.

This HE uranium was shipped to Russia where it was made relatively harmless by a process known as 'isotopic dilution'…." Source: American Thinker

And you failed to add this from that MSNBC.com article you posted:

"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."

If this yellow cake was so dangerous to begin with, why has it taken Bush and Company 5 years to transport it out of Iraq? This isn't even weapons grade uranium and will be sold to generate nuclear power, if even that. Talk about trying to spin a story, but I'm sure Rush, Hannity and Faux News will give it a shot this week.

Submitted by other-side-trax on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:16pm.

So, according to your logic . . . because it was pre-Gulf War yellowcake, that proves what????? Sorry, but just as the Bard predicted, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Nowhere do you dsipute any of the facts laid out in Bard's blog. Good try on spinning it as unimportant. Figures you would.

Bard is right. Liberals will be the first to cry foul when Iraq or Iran touches off their first nuke. You will be screaming, "We should have known about this . . . why didn't we do something about it!"

This is too easy.

As always, you take every opportunity to slam the Bush administration - - even though this cache of yellowcake has been very well guarded and now safely escorted out of Iraq. Instead of applying appropriate kudos to the folks who successfully executed the operation, all you can do is find fault. More of the same predictable mud-slinging. Must be miserable being you.

From the other side of the tracks

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 1:10pm.

"As always, you take every opportunity to slam the Bush administration"

I don't see it as a slam, to ask why it took so long to transport it out of Iraq, if this grade of yellow cake is so dangerous as intimated in the original post.

"Must be miserable being you."

Juvenile response, at best, and very bpr-skyspyish in tone.

I also laid out facts in my post and actually read the articles in their entirety, that are now in the media. And you're irritated about THAT?

Nice try.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 1:31pm.

Other-Side-of-the-fax earned the right to his own version of reality, having served his country in uniform for so very many years.

At first, I doubted he ever wore a uniform, but someone was kind enough to send me a pic of him in uniform:


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:58pm.

Did you get banned or put on blogger probation? Your user name is under the 'Who's New' banner. You had to re-register?

Maybe Cal banned you, for a while, after you threatened to go after Hack.

Submitted by other-side-trax on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 1:07pm.

I never threatened Hack. Just simply proved that he violated Article 88 of the UCMJ and is a liar.

Thanks for bringing it up. I'm sure Hack appreciates it.

And the other is just a password problem. I have three names I use, "other side trax", "other_side_trax", and "other-side-trax" due to this site's history of problems with log ons.

If I have been banned, no one ever made me aware of it.

But I'm sure that won't stop whiners like you from calling for it, because you can't handle the truth, can you?

From the other side of the tracks

Cal Beverly's picture
Submitted by Cal Beverly on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:54pm.

Trax, under your many personas, stay off this site. You will be trespassing if you seek to do otherwise.

Since you are so full of legal knowledge, you should already know that cyber-trespassing is legally actionable.

Cal Beverly
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga.

Bard_PTC's picture
Submitted by Bard_PTC on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:04pm.

You banned trax, who as far as I can tell, never threatened anyone. Actually, it is your note that includes an overt threat of legal action against trax. Really big of you Cal. Who's the cyber bully now??? What a hypocrite!

The really laughable part of this is, your threat to take legal action against trax is completely empty. I made a thorough check of case law on cyber tresspassing. You are full of it. Good luck "actioning" it as you say. There has not been a single case won in court by an employer or website owner unless real damage has been done. In this case, there has been no damage done. And you know it. Good try though. So now everyone knows who the real bully is. What an empty threat.

Tell you what. In anticipation of you banning me for not agreeing with you, I'm banning myself. This is my last visit to this closed-minded site.

Adios everyone. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this
site, when it's owner is so pathetically and obviously biased. Guess that's why Cal started it in the first place. He needed an outlet for his liberal opinions. While I respect Cal's right to his opnions I do not respect his enforcement of them with blatantly biased impugnity. In the end Cal, actions speak louder than words. Your actions speak volumes. And so do mine.

Good luck in your future endeavors. You will need it.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:09pm.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Submitted by blazing2006 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 8:45pm.

While I tend to disagree with a number of bloggers on many different areas on both sides of the aisle here, Trax has not crossed lines here that others have not. If you ban him you basically are saying your site is ultimately a onesided biased based JOKE. I am not sure how you define a personal attack, but the facts are ,MANY, MANY, MANY people on here have made so called personal attacks against a great many people. Why don't you try and define this for your readers or are you just going to throw out a lame excuse of "this is my site and I can prosecute you for trespassing." I understand and agree with the vulgarity and racist remarks, but people like Trax? This is a blog where people can voice their opinions, I thought, on issues and people ,is it not? Shame on you Cal Beverly.I think Hack can take it, so why can't you?

Bard_PTC's picture
Submitted by Bard_PTC on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 10:50am.

Agree with you blazing. This demonstrates a significant lack of objectivity on Cal's part. Reading back thru Hack's and Trax's posts, Hack was by far the biggest name caller (buffoon, moron, etc) and engaged in numerous personal attacks of his own. Trax's posts, while passionate, usually stuck to the facts and only resorted to name calling (liar, criminal) when he had the facts to back it up.

This site is a joke. It is a bastion for liberals. And Cal's decision to ban Trax is proof of that. Unless he bans them both.

I looked back through other posts and found one where Cal gave Trax a warning for bad language after Trax made a comment about Steve Brown by saying Steve Brown had "drowned in his own "bodily fluids". Of course Trax used a different word. Pretty mild stuff really.

Seems Cal is definitely biased and a bit overprotective of his liberal buddies. For example, we all know that Cal supports Brown and condones Brown's use of multiple names on this site including "Jones", for example.

You are right blazing. This site is a joke. Doubt we'll see the like of Trax again. I respected his military service and no nonsense approach. Which is more than I can say about a lot of the other bloggers on this site.

Shame on you Cal Beverly.

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 6:25pm.

Not anyone else, I am referring to myself. I can not understand why it is so difficult for people to realize that this is Cal's web site and he will administer it in the way that he wants to.

Too liberal for you? Not hard nosed enough for your tastes? Don't like your friends being banned? Start your own web site. Spare yourself the angst.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 8:02pm.

Cal, as I've said to others before, people tend to be a bit more... umm... passionate with those they have never met. I feel that if we meet otherside of trax and he gets to meet me and mainstream and his other online sparring partners, he will find us very hard to hate face to face. I respectfully request that you give us a chance with him. I truly think that a face to face will soften his voracity at trying to initiate a job action against me. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

and thanks for looking out for those that stupidly use their names...

Kevin "Hack" King

Bard_PTC's picture
Submitted by Bard_PTC on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:08pm.

But everyone can see right thru your post above. The truth is, you are probably the one who went crying to Cal for protection, begging Cal to ban Trax. So your post is sooooo predictable.

Read Kevin's last line - "and thanks for looking out for those that stupidly use their names..."

Tells the whole story right there!

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 5:04am.

I have sent messages to The Citizen voicing my disapproval of posts that people have put up that include personally derogatory epithets. I have not asked him to ban anyone, that is his call. I accept email if anyone wants to contact me.

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:36pm.

have you even bothered to keep up with Kevin's posts over the past year or so? If you did, you would know that Kevin is probably the LAST person on here who would go to Cal to have someone banned. The hope of the entire world, not just the Fayette clogging world, is that people will eventually get their just rewards. Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:22pm.

Do you think anyone cares whether you stay or go? OH NOEZ....Bard_PTC is leaving! Stop the presses! The Citizen will never be the same because the highly esteemed and well known blogger THE Bard_PTC is gone!

hutch866's picture
Submitted by hutch866 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 8:31pm.

I think you're wrong about trax, from the time he got on here he's been spewing his own special kind of venom and I don't see that changing, but I can see him accosting your wife or daughter and son.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:57pm.

I appreciate all of your efforts.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:48pm.

I truly hope you never get banned. I hope after years and years of me asking you man to man, you choose to meet with us bloggers face to face at one of our numerous, bipartisan get-togethers, so you have the opportunity to explain to them that I:

1: Tried to convince folks I was 6'3" and 240#
2: Violated the UCMJ
3: Lied about a bumper sticker
4: Drove on military installations with said bumper sticker
5: Think you are an internet tough guy who can't see past your own awesomeness to respect opinions from others.

Oh, wait a second.... Umm... I concede point "5" and will offer no counter argument. As a matter of fact, how about we set things up for Saturday morning in Fayetteville at HWY 85 Starbucks or at PTC HWY 54 East Starbucks near Publix and Dunkin D? Tell you what; I'll start the blog. You can help vote on the hour and the Starbucks, and you have my word as a proven liar that I will be there with all 240 pounds and all 75 inches.

Cheers mate,

Kevin "Hack" King

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:45pm.

“And if you are looking for the MSM to run this on the front page, learn to live with disappointment. They won't. Because it proves the MSM lied. Repeatedly and shamelessly. Now who's the bigger LIAR?”

Right Bard, not in the MSM.

Except for the AP story:

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

Or this one from UPI:

Iraq dismantles nuke testing lab

Or this one from the New York Times:

U.S. Helps Remove Uranium From Iraq


500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq

Or the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. removes Hussein-era uranium to Canada

Or ABC News:

US Removes Uranium from Iraq

As for Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, here is part of the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency report to the Security Council in response to their investigations pursuant to UN Resolution 1441. This report was issued before the beginning of the Iraq war:

• There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

• There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

• There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

• Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

The full report can be read here:

The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq

Kudos to trax though for the best pun: “…you are trying to have your cake and eat it too

Bard_PTC's picture
Submitted by Bard_PTC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 12:55pm.

Or did you choose to conveniently overlook those words? Besides, internet articles don't count (even though hard copy newspapers, as we know them today, will be defunct by 2020).

All of these articles are buried. Look for yourself, if you can even find them.

Stop trying to defend the MSM, Jeff. You have yet to prove anything. . . except your own personal bias.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 2:35pm.

“All of these articles are buried. Look for yourself, if you can even find them.”

I did look and in five minutes I found articles from AP, UPI, the New York Times, CNN, the Chicago Tribune and ABC News.

Why should I defend the MSM? Your implication was clearly that they had not covered the story. The bias is yours. You either assumed they had not covered the story or deliberately misrepresented the fact that virtually all of them had. What exactly is my personal bias here except that I am biased toward the easily discovered facts?

Submitted by other-side-trax on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 1:15pm.

And all of the articles you cite Jeff are very dismissive of the event and its importance. All of the articles dismiss the importance of yellowcake as a precursor to nuclear weapons.

Yellowcake is SO UNIMPORTANT that it had to be closely guarded and its method and path of transport were kept secret and only revealed three weeks after the mission was successfully completed.

Yeah, the MSM covered it alright. In their usual bias, dimissive, bury it somewhere style. How predictable. Just like you.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 2:27pm.

I don’t subscribe to all these papers so I don’t know where the stories were placed. I would expect that you’re right though since this yellow cake has been known about since the early 80’s. Not exactly front page news. Also, since the material cannot be used to make a bomb, not even a dirty bomb, except for it’s toxicity it is not really dangerous, certainly not the stuff of WMD’s.

After 1990, Iraq had no production facilities to even begin the processing of yellow cake into even the beginning of the nuclear fuel cycle, much less processing it into low grade nuclear fuel for its nuclear reactor (which was destroyed).

Nor was it necessary. According to the IAEA reports, which I have taken the trouble to read or at least scan, in April 1991 Iraq’s inventory of safeguarded highly enriched uranium included fresh unirradiated fuel used for the Soviet IRT 5000 reactor, including 68 fuel assemblies of 80% enrichment with a U235 content of 10.97 kilograms and 10 assemblies of 36% enrichment with a U235 content of 1.27 kilograms. In addition, there was a set of fresh fuel plates for the French Tammuz-2 reactor with an enrichment of 93% and a total U235 content of 372 grams.

Had all of this been highly enriched and converted to metal, there may have been enough HEU for one bomb.

The Iraqis tried to develop an enrichment program at the Ash Sharka facility using the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) method. Apparently this was beyond their technological sophistication and the facility was abandoned after they spent billions on it. This is the method the US used for the Manhattan Project although the Iraqis could only achieve 7.2% enrichment.

Iraq then invested significant resources into uranium enrichment through laser isotope separation which was also too advanced and was abandoned in 1987.

Iraq also had an experimental program attempting an ion-exchange method for the enrichment of uranium which would only yield an 8% enrichment. It was never fully developed.

According to IAEA reports in 1992, Iraq had been constructing a facility deemed by experts as being capable of producing a few thousand centrifuge machines a year. The facility was destroyed during the Gulf War and thus ended the Iraqi quest for nuclear weapons. No other nuclear weapon development or programs have ever been found after this.

Equating possession of yellow cake to building a bomb is like saying you are going to build the Golden Gate Bridge based on the fact that you have some dirt with iron in it.

All of this was well known and all of these facilities were destroyed during the Gulf War and inspected by the IAEA well before the Iraq war.

In 1998 (December 16 report) the IAEA concluded:

1. There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalization of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.

2. Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of HEU through the EMIS process, the production and pilot cascading of single-cylinder sub-critical gas centrifuge machines, and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon

3. There were no indications to suggest that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous processes.

4. There were no indications that Iraq otherwise clandestinely acquired weapons-usable material

5. All the safeguarded research reactor fuel was verified and fully accounted for by the IAEA and removed from Iraq.

6. There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.

7. All known indigenous facilities capable of producing uranium compounds useful to a nuclear programme were destroyed during the Gulf War; IAEA inspected and completed the destruction of facilities; IAEA monitored the sites as part of their OMV activities.

JAFO 72's picture
Submitted by JAFO 72 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 3:25pm.

Why did Iraq have the yellow cake uranium to begin with? Let me take a JeffC "conspiracy theorist" guess. It was President Bush's plan to start a war, right? Do you think that people just order this stuff over the internet for the fun of it. As far as Bush lying about Iraq's WMDs...Do you recall that Saddam Hussein used WMDs (gas) on his own people and the peace lovin folks in Iran?

Yellow cake...It's not just for Holly Hobby ovens anymore.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:28pm.

Iraq used the yellowcake in several unsuccessful attempts to produce enriched uranium. I described four different Iraqi programs attempting to do this. Yellow cake itself cannot be directly used in uranium enrichment; it must first be converted into uranium dioxide. As of 1972, the IAEA changed its regulations to exempt yellow cake from the NPT treaty restrictions and it can be freely sold by governments without restriction.

My point was that there is no big deal about yellow cake per se. Every uranium producing country in the world makes it. The yellow cake Iraq had was well known and accounted for and did not pose a threat to anyone. Therefore conflating the story of its removal to Canada into some kind of WMD story is not reality based. I was answering Bard_PTC’s somewhat hysterical posting starting this blog when he wrote stuff like:

“All of you liberal bloggers will call this a non-story because yellowcake is not a WMD in an of itself. So what. The mere possession of hundreds of tons of yellowcake, and essential ingredient needed to produce highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons is all the evidence I need.”

It may be all the evidence he needs but that is not based on any knowledge of what yellow cake is and what must be done to process it into nuclear weapons.

BTW: I don’t think you can find a comment by me denying Saddam had WMDs at some point. Quite the contrary. At some point I’ll post links disproving this no WMDs assertion. But Later OK? Remind me sometimes.

Submitted by ratsnrip on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 2:15pm.

Please tell us all is ok in the house!!! I saw the road blocked near the end of the storm this afternoon.

Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 2:21pm.

I heard about that fire. Hope everyone is ok.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 3:35pm.

God bless them, it was my good friends Don and Debby Dickinson again. They just got back in their house after the fire that got them last year. Lightening hit the roof. Its a mess. Everybody is OK and they got the dogs out too.

Submitted by lion on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 4:29pm.

Just a "minor' point on Iraq's use of WMD (gas).

As I recall this use of gas took place in 1988 during the Iraq-Iran War.

The U.S. was assisting Iraq in this war against Iran.

Our President-Ronald Reagan--criticized Hussein for using gas warfare.

But Reagan did not advocate military action against Iraq. He was too wise to do that.

It was 15 years later when Bush II (the Least Wise President) used the fifteen-year old use of WMD as one of the justifications for invading Iraq.

Bush II used fear of WMD to justify this unnecessary war and over 4,000 American soldiers are dead as a result--plus tens of thousands of American soldiers severely wounded. And probably 100,000 or more Iraqis dead. And 4 million Iraqi citizens are now refugees.

The only winners in this war are Iran and the American companies profiting from the billions spent on this war.

JAFO 72's picture
Submitted by JAFO 72 on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 4:53pm.

During an investigation by Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the HRW between 1992-1994, many documents were discovered that proved Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi Military carried out multiple gas attacks on the Kurds. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja. In 2006 it was estimated that in all as many as 30,000 Kurds lost their lives to Saddam's chemical weapons in the late 1980s. That would be circa 1988-1989, right about the time Bush Sr. took over from Reagan.

There were other incidents as well.

Let's not forget the torture chambers and wealth stolen from the Iraqi people also.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Submitted by lion on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 5:22pm.

If I understand you correctly, more research on my part would find that two Republican Presidents (Reagan the Wise) and Bush I (the Pretty Wise) did not think U.S. national security interests warranted a military invasion of Iraq because of its use of WMD in 1988-89.

America had to await a third Republican President, Bush II (the Least Wise) for a unnecessary war against Iraq.

"Every time you vote Democrat (sic) Gods kills a kitten" but every time you elect an idiot Republican President, God lets thousands die for no no reason.

JAFO 72's picture
Submitted by JAFO 72 on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 11:44am.

We did have to wait until a third Repulican was in office. If I recall correctly, Pres Reagan was dealing with more of the Soviet threat than the Arabic threat. Bush Sr. got fed up with the aggression, as well as the Kuwaities when they were invaded. All three had knowledge of the WMDs, and Bush Jr. (and the U.N with resolution 1441)finally did someting about it.

Then again, you're right. We haven't had a terroist attack on our soil since...And, there was never any presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq before we liberated them from Hussein, right? So, we have lost 4,200 soldiers in the war on terrorism, and freed a country from a vicious
dictator. But, the 42,000 Americans that we lost on our highways last year is an acceptable loss.

Get off of the Bush Lied People Died BS. Clinton lied and all he got was a stained dress. Do you remember Mogadishu?

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Bard_PTC's picture
Submitted by Bard_PTC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 3:07pm.

You said, "Also, since the material cannot be used to make a bomb, not even a dirty bomb, except for it’s toxicity it is not really dangerous, certainly not the stuff of WMD’s."

It's not really dangerous???

Oh goodie! Then we can just distribute it to every country around the world then, right?? No, we can't. Because with a little technology, centrifuges and knowhow, yellow cake can be transformed into low-grade uranium, and then into highly enriched uranium used to make nuclear bombs. Not dangerous at all, huh? So I suppose transporting it in secret was overkill, then? Jeff, you never cease to amaze. The extremes you will go to, to distort the truth, are truly self-delusional.

You also said, "According to IAEA reports in 1992, Iraq had been constructing a facility deemed by experts as being capable of producing a few thousand centrifuge machines a year."

Even though that facility was destroyed during the Gulf War, I suppose you claim that it would be safe to assume Saddam would never build another one? Saddam's stated intent was clear. Should we have ignored it? I think not. Go stick your head back in the sand.

Jeff, have you ever thought of working for the one of the many liberal MSM rags? After all, you have been doing their dirty work for years for free. Might as well get paid for it. You cite them all the time. As if they were gospel. They are not. But the best part is, you cite liberal rags while simultaneously deriding conservative ones. How objective of you.

Your attempts to dismiss these very important facts are laughable. And the liberal MSM's failure to responsibly report it is predictable.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:39pm.

I was absolutely right.

Yellow cake is the result of crushing, leaching, extracting, and precipitating raw uranium ore into a chemical compound called ammonium diuranate. Its radioactivity is very low because the decay products have been stripped away and it is in an unenriched form.

Here is what Alan Eggers, a leading proponent of nuclear power says about it, “Yellowcake is not radioactive and can be transported safely in drums that have a toxicity similar to lead-based paint. In comparison high radiation happens when flying above 90,000 metres and this was two third greater than radiation that comes from medical xrays or from food and drinks.”

In fact, as I wrote to NOTA above, yes yellow cake can be sold by governments unrestricted.

As to ignoring Saddam, this is a favorite line of bull from right wingers. We were not ignoring Saddam. The facilities were destroyed during the Gulf War. They were under constant inspection by the IAEA. These safeguards worked and after the Iraq war started there were no new or existing facilities found. It is you denying that the safeguards imposed on Saddam were working not me, as you say, “Your attempts to dismiss these very important facts are laughable.”

Also, how you can still maintain that, “And the liberal MSM's failure to responsibly report it is predictable” is still a valid argument after I cited seven or eight of the biggest MSM sources carrying the story is mystifying.

Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 2:41pm.

Was Sadam/Iraq in violation of ANY UN Sanctions in your opinion?

Or do you feel he should be KING of the Middle East right now?

Exactly how do you feel about him being out of power?

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 07/09/2008 - 7:47pm.

Yes, he was definitely and unquestionably defying the UN. I'm delighted he is out of power.

However, as I maintained from before the invasion, he was a regional actor who was being contained by the US and the UN inspectors. That opinion has turned out to be correct. If you're asking whether I would be willing, knowing what we know today, to trade 4000 American lives to remove him from power my answer is still NO.

There was never any path for Saddam to become "KING of the Middle East" as you undoubtedly realize. Is that going to be the new reason we went into Iraq?

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 07/10/2008 - 9:18pm.

What is the number of people acceptable?

I know we both wish it was ZERO, but things like this don't happen in a vacuum. We both know that.

You're glad Sadam is out of power, but what are you willing to risk? Who is to say what is the "correct" number of deaths?

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Fri, 07/11/2008 - 11:12am.

Why is zero unacceptable? The war was unnecessary, Saddam had no WMDs and we had inspectors on the ground with unfettered access. Iraq's military had been shattered, the US had total dominance in the air and every time Saddam launched an anti-aircraft missile the site was destroyed. Everybody but the neocons, including Bush Sr. seemed to grasp the consequences of invading Iraq. The administration's people were looking for a reason to invade Iraq on the premise of setting up a US friendly government which would ripple out and transform the Middle East. They published this in papers and think-tank publications over and over. Their intentions were not secret they were just visions of a fantasy world. Read the Project for the New American Century’s 1997 "Statement of Principles".

These are the consequences of implementing their well known and well publicized policies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.