Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[freedombecki]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

I am not sure your numbers are accurate
Iraq Body Count project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say this one is which is 156,000 total deaths
from 03-11
A.Ps is less
WikiLeaks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justify?
This world changed 9-11-2001
Saddam was told weeks later what to do or else
the man was given 18 months

There was nothing to justify the invasion and conquering of Iraq. It was and will remain one of the great war crimes of the twenty first century.

What a coincidence, Sallow. The State Department desires that Madeline Albright's Iraq notes be removed from public scrutiny so their apparatchiks can "prove" nothing ever happened that would implicate President Clinton's administration in the truth. *Sandy Berger was here:

U.S. Department of State

Background Notes: Middle East and North Africa

*Background Notes not available

Algeria*
Bahrain (10/96)
Egypt (03/95)
Iran (07/94)
Iraq*
Israel (12/98)
Jordan (8/00)
Kuwait (11/94)
Lebanon (01/94)
Libya (07/94)
Morocco (11/94)
Oman (12/94)
Qatar (11/97)
Saudi Arabia (09/98)
Syria (4/99)
Tunisia (07/94)
United Arab Emirates (07/91)
Yemen (10/96)
[end of document]

All Background Notes | Near Eastern Country Information | Near Eastern Affairs | State Department


*Background notes not available for Iraq? Yeah, right. They tell the truth about what Clinton left the Bush administration--that supports every single solitary thing that he did.


Get the criminals out!!!!


Sorry, Sallow. They gotcha unless your real name is Sandy Berger, and my guess it is not, that you are an innocent bystander.



I dislike liars and liars by omission. That's what they are. Don't you get it? You're being used by people who have perjured themselves, omitted facts so they can induce people like you to pretend all this Iraqi war crap is on Bush. I read Madeline Albright's state department Iraq notes cover to cover in 1999, and they were made available on a news outlet website right up until 6 months before the second Bush election, in which case they have remained out of the public view ever since, and every news website that had the notes posted as a point of discussion no longer exist either. It's like Clinton never warned anybody about Iraq, never did anything about Saddam's attempt on President GHW Bush's life on Clinton's watch, never contacted the United Nations about Saddam's War Crimes and so on.


Omissions are bull, and people who claim Iraq just wasn't a problem under anybody except George W. Bush are making a huge error, thanks to the present omission of what Madeline Albright said about Iraq.


The only reason this is "sensitive" is the insane hope nobody will know exactly how beleaguered the Clinton Administration was by Saddam Hussein's war crimes against humanity, of which a tireless Madeline Albright made a tremendous case that was handed down to Bush's administration.


Pardon me for saying so, but the present Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager, Sandy Berger was convicted and sentenced to community service when he was caught stealing documents from the National Archive to remove any case anyone would have linking the Clintons to Iraq, so they could make the case you're making against George W. Bush, because they're lower than snake snot.


Be chary of tricks from this state department. They particularly do not wish the American public be reminded who let Bush know what Saddam Hussein's war crimes of using WOMDs and his claims of heinous weapons were first known by Madeline Albright.


This is a national disgrace, and guess who's front and center again for omissions. You got it. Mr. It never happened Sandy Berger, National Archive THIEF and after his conviction of this dervish crime, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager.

 

[Zona]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11...you know. The retaliation we took because of 9/11 was freaking IRaq? WMD's, wha happened there?

How many thousands of American soldiers were killed because of non existent wmd's?

Again, what the fuck did 9/11 have to do with iraq? We got bombed to shit and we retaliated by attacking a fucking country that had NOTHING to do with it.

Remember 9/12 when we all said, its pay back time and we relied on bush to do the right thing. What did he do, attack the wrong fucking country. He actually said there could be mushroom clouds because of the wmd's...that didnt fucking exist. Every single time one of you idiots tries to defend this, I just shake my head. How much of a hack can someone be. Here is a thought, just once say yup, Bush fucked up on that one. (You cant do it can you.)

 

[JRK]

Inspections in Iraq

Inspections in Iraq
Statement of IAEA Director General to IAEA Board of Governors

Vienna, Austria

17 July 1991

The first declaration of Iraq, dated 18 April 1991, stated that Iraq had "no industrial and support facilities related to any form of atomic energy use which have to be declared." In a letter from me the day after, on 19 April, I pointed to the fact that there was highly enriched uranium on the inventory of nuclear material in Iraq under safeguards. This should be declared. I also indicated by way of example of what should be declared under the resolution "facilities for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel or for the separation of plutonium from uranium or installations for the separation of isotopes of uranium, or any research programmes or supporting manufacturing facilities related to such activities." I stated that they should be declared "irrespective of whether they have been damaged or destroyed." A second letter from Iraq, of 27 April, attached a list of safeguarded material and information as to its status and a list of nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha, again with indications of their status. It also listed the yellow cake production unit at Al Qaim.

You say you couldn't find one document about this, did you even look JRK?

where it exactly in that document that states Iraq has given 550 mteric tons of dog poo much less yellow cake
you thread talks about everything but a large amount of yellow cake
I also thought you claimed the UN had control of this stuff?

and why in gods name would anyone let this tuff sit for all of those years in drums?

 

[Nic_Driver]

In a letter from me the day after, on 19 April, I pointed to the fact that there was highly enriched uranium on the inventory of nuclear material in Iraq under safeguards.

Do you know what “highly enriched uranium" is JRK? Do you know what the term "under safeguards" means?

A second letter from Iraq, of 27 April, attached a list of safeguarded material and information as to its status and a list of nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha, again with indications of their status. It also listed the yellow cake production unit at Al Qaim.

What is attached to this referenced second letter? Is it a list of safe guarded materials? Again, do you know what safeguarded means? Does the letter also list the status of the material? “Safeguarded”?

These answers are just from the part of the link that I posted. There is much more information included if you could only read.

I also thought you claimed the UN had control of this stuff?

The IAEA is the inspection arm of the UN and I told you the UN knew about the yellow cake back in 1991 and it was legally in Iraq at the time of Bush's invasion.

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11...you know. The retaliation we took because of 9/11 was freaking IRaq? WMD's, wha happened there?

How many thousands of American soldiers were killed because of non existent wmd's?

Again, what the fuck did 9/11 have to do with iraq? We got bombed to shit and we retaliated by attacking a fucking country that had NOTHING to do with it.

Remember 9/12 when we all said, its pay back time and we relied on bush to do the right thing. What did he do, attack the wrong fucking country. He actually said there could be mushroom clouds because of the wmd's...that didnt fucking exist. Every single time one of you idiots tries to defend this, I just shake my head. How much of a hack can someone be. Here is a thought, just once say yup, Bush fucked up on that one. (You cant do it can you.)

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[118] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[118]

this is from the UN, not the CIA nor is it from anyone else
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in addition
The chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, told the Security Council on January 27 that large quantities of missiles and deadly biological and chemical agents, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, had still not been properly accounted for by the Baghdad regime.
• Dr Blix said Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration to the Security Council on December 7 had failed to address many of the outstanding issues raised in reports by the old inspection teams before they were forced to leave in 1998.
• There were indications that Iraq had "weaponised" the lethal VX nerve agents, despite claiming to have unilaterally destroyed the "small quantities" it produced after the 1991 Gulf War, he said.
• Documents among the few new papers released to the inspectors suggested there were 6,500 chemical bombs unaccounted for containing in the order of 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents.
this again was not from the CIA nor anyone but Saddam and the UN
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...IQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHm6Navr4IrULh0yLgjc34dkv5WIQ

and there is the 550 metric tons of yellow cake that no-one seems to know when it was really found
For years, the media and Democrats have sold the public an understanding that Gerorge W. Bush fabricated a story that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program in order to justify invading Iraq, which invasion then becomes "based on a lie."


About 550 metric tons of yellowcake concentrated uranium were recently shipped out of Iraq. It had been part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. That much was recently reported by the Associated Press . I wrote an article for American Thinker that commented on that story the day it appeared.


That yellowcake stockpile pre-dated 1991, and had been under the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency "safeguard" from then until 2003. That was mentioned in the AP article and I mentioned it in the update to my article the day it was published. In fact, American Thinker contributors Douglas Hanson and Rick Moran had written about that yellowcake stockpile years ago here, here and here. Douglas Hanson reported four years ago:


"Professor Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, England, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had more than enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons."


The recent AP story was not news with respect to the existence of this stockpile in Iraq to those who follow such things closely. But I'm sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq at all. This new AP story, and perhaps my article, helped get that information out. As Investor's Business Daily more recently put it , "Seems to us this should be big news," but "the mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years."


Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a huge and dangerous stockpile it was. First, it took 37 military flights to ship it from Baghdad to Diego Garcia. Even when not processed into nuclear weapons, it was dangerous in its own right, being radioactive. It could also be used in other methods of spreading radiation short of full nuclear bombs. The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it. It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents. That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.


However, some readers have noted its "old news" aspect. One wrote the American Thinker as follows.


"Of course there was lots of yellow cake in Iraq . Those news orgs you so dislike reported five years ago on how tons of it was just sitting out in the open in Tawaitha. It was so accessible that the locals were looting the site. Most of the articles at that time were critical of the lack of security from U.S. troops for the former nuclear development site. Please note the word former...it's pretty important since former was the word you could use in 2000 as well. Anyway, that isn't news. Neither is the fact that Saddam had delivery mechanisms. However, he did not have an active nuclear weapons program, unless one means the capacity to deliver one or two dirty bombs (which the yellow cake couldn't be used for, btw, because it is basically an inert compound). But even dirty bombs aren't a particularly scary threat, since you or I or anyone else could buy materials for dirty bombs at Home Depot. But Saddam just didn't have the resources to do anything more than that due to IAEA inspections and other international efforts. In fact, he didn't have any technology or raw materials dating anytime after 1991. He was technologically impotent. Which means the UN's efforts, so belittled by the Bush administration in the ramp-up to invasion (as well as by revisionist neocon historians...?) had worked exactly as intended. So the "American Thinker" article is really a great example of precisely the distorted sort of ranting that it tries to claim is nobly contrary to popular sentiment but somehow true. But it's not true. It's simply bizarre."


I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here. Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all. A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons. This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe". First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him. Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby. Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report). Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it? In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program? Does it matter? After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD. In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future. How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD? (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time. From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active". The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that. But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003. Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard". Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003. It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent. Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence. And why would an effort need to be "concerted?" (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.) Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program." In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted. ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition. As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true. Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq. (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.") Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003. Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003. But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003. I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense. And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

there are many stories about this yellow cake
this article claims the UN had control, there are some who state this was not even found until 2003 by Us troops
no matter there it is

Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

far cry from nothing

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11...you know. The retaliation we took because of 9/11 was freaking IRaq? WMD's, wha happened there?

How many thousands of American soldiers were killed because of non existent wmd's?

Again, what the fuck did 9/11 have to do with iraq? We got bombed to shit and we retaliated by attacking a fucking country that had NOTHING to do with it.

Remember 9/12 when we all said, its pay back time and we relied on bush to do the right thing. What did he do, attack the wrong fucking country. He actually said there could be mushroom clouds because of the wmd's...that didnt fucking exist. Every single time one of you idiots tries to defend this, I just shake my head. How much of a hack can someone be. Here is a thought, just once say yup, Bush fucked up on that one. (You cant do it can you.)

Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[118] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[118]

this is from the UN, not the CIA nor is it from anyone else
Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in addition
The chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, told the Security Council on January 27 that large quantities of missiles and deadly biological and chemical agents, including anthrax and VX nerve gas, had still not been properly accounted for by the Baghdad regime.
• Dr Blix said Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration to the Security Council on December 7 had failed to address many of the outstanding issues raised in reports by the old inspection teams before they were forced to leave in 1998.
• There were indications that Iraq had "weaponised" the lethal VX nerve agents, despite claiming to have unilaterally destroyed the "small quantities" it produced after the 1991 Gulf War, he said.
• Documents among the few new papers released to the inspectors suggested there were 6,500 chemical bombs unaccounted for containing in the order of 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents.
this again was not from the CIA nor anyone but Saddam and the UN
Why Iraq's weapons policy arouses suspicion | Mail Online

and there is the 550 metric tons of yellow cake that no-one seems to know when it was really found
For years, the media and Democrats have sold the public an understanding that Gerorge W. Bush fabricated a story that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program in order to justify invading Iraq, which invasion then becomes "based on a lie."


About 550 metric tons of yellowcake concentrated uranium were recently shipped out of Iraq. It had been part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. That much was recently reported by the Associated Press . I wrote an article for American Thinker that commented on that story the day it appeared.


That yellowcake stockpile pre-dated 1991, and had been under the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency "safeguard" from then until 2003. That was mentioned in the AP article and I mentioned it in the update to my article the day it was published. In fact, American Thinker contributors Douglas Hanson and Rick Moran had written about that yellowcake stockpile years ago here, here and here. Douglas Hanson reported four years ago:


"Professor Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, England, has confirmed that Saddam Hussein had more than enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons."


The recent AP story was not news with respect to the existence of this stockpile in Iraq to those who follow such things closely. But I'm sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq at all. This new AP story, and perhaps my article, helped get that information out. As Investor's Business Daily more recently put it , "Seems to us this should be big news," but "the mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years."


Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a huge and dangerous stockpile it was. First, it took 37 military flights to ship it from Baghdad to Diego Garcia. Even when not processed into nuclear weapons, it was dangerous in its own right, being radioactive. It could also be used in other methods of spreading radiation short of full nuclear bombs. The AP story explained the logistical nightmare of simply transporting it. It also cited the fear of it falling into the hands of insurgents. That is how dangerous it was when we were in control of it.


However, some readers have noted its "old news" aspect. One wrote the American Thinker as follows.


"Of course there was lots of yellow cake in Iraq . Those news orgs you so dislike reported five years ago on how tons of it was just sitting out in the open in Tawaitha. It was so accessible that the locals were looting the site. Most of the articles at that time were critical of the lack of security from U.S. troops for the former nuclear development site. Please note the word former...it's pretty important since former was the word you could use in 2000 as well. Anyway, that isn't news. Neither is the fact that Saddam had delivery mechanisms. However, he did not have an active nuclear weapons program, unless one means the capacity to deliver one or two dirty bombs (which the yellow cake couldn't be used for, btw, because it is basically an inert compound). But even dirty bombs aren't a particularly scary threat, since you or I or anyone else could buy materials for dirty bombs at Home Depot. But Saddam just didn't have the resources to do anything more than that due to IAEA inspections and other international efforts. In fact, he didn't have any technology or raw materials dating anytime after 1991. He was technologically impotent. Which means the UN's efforts, so belittled by the Bush administration in the ramp-up to invasion (as well as by revisionist neocon historians...?) had worked exactly as intended. So the "American Thinker" article is really a great example of precisely the distorted sort of ranting that it tries to claim is nobly contrary to popular sentiment but somehow true. But it's not true. It's simply bizarre."


I believe the dirty bomb scenario is irrelevant here. Saddam could have had an active program without having anything in production or deliverable at all. A weapon program is not a weapon; it is a program -- it means the potential for future weapons. This distinction seems to get lost way too often.


I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means "safe". First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him. Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby. Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report). Fourth, why didn't the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it? In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.


But a question remains: Was Saddam's nuclear weapon program active at the time of our invasion in 2003? As IBD puts it, this yellowcake stockpile "more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon."


Is a program that is "on hold" not an "active" program? Does it matter? After all, a "program" is not currently deliverable WMD; it is the potential of future WMD. In turn, a program "on hold" just pushes the date of deliverable WMD a little more into the future. How tightly do you want to time defending yourself against incoming WMD? (To many critics, there just never seems to be a good time. From the time WMD are in development to the time nuclear missiles are inbound, these critics just can't seem to find an appropriate window of opportunity to defend against them.)


But let me get back to the question of whether Saddam had an active nuclear program in 2003, in the strong sense of the word "active". The recent AP story on the shipment of the stockpile to Canada does not let us conclude anything one way or the other on that. But that does not mean that Saddam did not have an active WMD program in 2003. Nor does it mean the 550 tons of yellowcake were "safe", even if under UN "safeguard". Nor does it mean we had nothing to worry about from Saddam regarding WMD in 2003. It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.


While some read the Duelfer Report as conclusive and definitive (meaning no nuclear program in 2003, period), read its "findings" closely. Duelfer states that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991, and the "ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


A "decayed" ability does not mean non-existent. Finding "no evidence" does not mean no existence. And why would an effort need to be "concerted?" (Always beware of adjectives in executive summaries.) Duelfer also reports "Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program." In the nuclear section of the Duelfer report, the word "looted" is found 28 times, as in "U.S. military forces found Al-Athir abandoned and heavily looted. ISG visited and found no evidence of uranium conversion activities."


I do not think it "bizarre" that the Saddam regime, one that had once had WMD programs and deployable chemical weapons (which are WMD), a government that had defied UN inspectors multiple times, and one that "took steps to conceal" its WMD programs, might just clear out evidence of its programs -- those areas that were "looted" -- once it was likely they would fall into the hands of the U.S. Coalition. As I have said before , Eliot Ness also found "no evidence" in Al Capone's hotel room.


Frankly, I don't know for sure what is true. Saddam might have had ready-to-go WMD, but they were hidden or taken to another country by the time our CIA inspectors showed up in Iraq. (Duelfer says "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war.") Saddam might have had active programs, but they were concealed at the time, with the evidence destroyed ("looted") by March 2003. Or maybe he really did put all his programs on hiatus by 2003. But even Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam had every intention of getting back into the WMD business as soon as he could end the sanctions regime, which he was busy doing with oil-for-food bribes.


I think it neither illogical nor bizarre to think Saddam had WMD or WMD programs in 2003. I still believe he did, in a "preponderance of the evidence" sense. And I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he would have been back in the WMD business by now, if not by 2004, had we not invaded.


That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.

there are many stories about this yellow cake
this article claims the UN had control, there are some who state this was not even found until 2003 by Us troops
no matter there it is

Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake

far cry from nothing

 

[Nic_Driver]

So no, you don't understand what it means.

I understand that you keep going into denial that these events took place in a time that by your claims ss well as others sat quietly for 13 years
Your claim also has one to believe that while there where those who made accusations that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake, He was not going to touch the yellow cake he already had, what did he do? make a promise?
Who watched over the cake when there was no one from the UN there? when he kicked the inspectors out?
really?
Why would any idiot state that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake when there was 550 metric tons of the stuff all ready there?
You think maybe GWB may have mentioned that?

So you can just ignore document after document, post after post that says your wrong?

That's the very definition of willful ignorance JRK.

Still willfully ignorant, eh JRK?

 

[freedombecki]

I understand that you keep going into denial that these events took place in a time that by your claims ss well as others sat quietly for 13 years
Your claim also has one to believe that while there where those who made accusations that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake, He was not going to touch the yellow cake he already had, what did he do? make a promise?
Who watched over the cake when there was no one from the UN there? when he kicked the inspectors out?
really?
Why would any idiot state that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake when there was 550 metric tons of the stuff all ready there?
You think maybe GWB may have mentioned that?

So you can just ignore document after document, post after post that says your wrong?

That's the very definition of willful ignorance JRK.

Still willfully ignorant, eh JRK?

I doubt the use of your sophomoric projection (taking your side's fault and blaming it upon your political opponent wrongfully) will carry much weight, Nic-Driver, with American citizens. The left cannot hide everything the Clinton State Department of 1997-2000 said and did on Iraq, although it's done its level best to omit and obfuscate everything they did. Concealing the evidence that Bill Clinton's State Department DID advocate and procure sanctions against Iraq by Madeline Albright is sooooooooo like convicted National Archives robber, Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton's recent campaign manager.

 

[JRK]

I understand that you keep going into denial that these events took place in a time that by your claims ss well as others sat quietly for 13 years
Your claim also has one to believe that while there where those who made accusations that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake, He was not going to touch the yellow cake he already had, what did he do? make a promise?
Who watched over the cake when there was no one from the UN there? when he kicked the inspectors out?
really?
Why would any idiot state that Saddam was trying to obtain yellow cake when there was 550 metric tons of the stuff all ready there?
You think maybe GWB may have mentioned that?

So you can just ignore document after document, post after post that says your wrong?

That's the very definition of willful ignorance JRK.

Still willfully ignorant, eh JRK?

Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake
heres one that agrees with you

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?
and how do you explain all of those years no-one was in Iraq if anyone was taking care of this stuff?

 

[Nic_Driver]

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?

Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.

You notice how I completely ignore that other poster on this thread?

You can't fix that.

 

[freedombecki]

So you can just ignore document after document, post after post that says your wrong?

That's the very definition of willful ignorance JRK.

Still willfully ignorant, eh JRK?

Archived-Articles: The 550 Tons of Yellowcake
heres one that agrees with you

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?
and how do you explain all of those years no-one was in Iraq if anyone was taking care of this stuff?

From your linked article, JRK:

[FONT=times new roman,times]The recent AP story was not news with respect to the existence of this stockpile in Iraq to those who follow such things closely. But I'm sure many readers had never been aware of this large stockpile of yellowcake in Iraq at all. This new AP story, and perhaps my article, helped get that information out. As Investor's Business Daily more recently put it [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], "Seems to us this should be big news," but "the mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Also, this new story reminded even those aware of its existence of what a huge and dangerous stockpile it was[/FONT]

 

[JRK]

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?

Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.

thats funny
what is it you think I will learn from someone who is blind by partisan views? I put a link out there for you that claims that there was UN oversight from 91, part time at best

Nic you have so much to learn about life and what the truth on these events really mean

there

you can go back now to your avatars that show mw as a loonie person and call me names
Its what your good at

 

[freedombecki]

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?

Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.

That's just not so, Nic_Driver. Do you remember how Saddam Hussein kept saying he was weeks away from developing a nuclear warhead to his Arab buds?

I do. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was horrified, I am certain about Saddam's arsenal of yellowcake, only the current U.S. State Department removed her notes on Iraq where her warnings about Saddam Hussein were prolific and specific so Obama can continue to blame President Bush for his alleged unilateral attack on Iraq. It wasn't. He went in with a 40-nation coalition against Saddam that eventually became an 81-nation coalition.

 

[Nic_Driver]

question
if I am so ignorant why do you keep responding?

Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.

thats funny
what is it you think I will learn from someone who is blind by partisan views? I put a link out there for you that claims that there was UN oversight from 91, part time at best
Nic you have so much to learn about life and what the truth on these events really mean

there

you can go back now to your avatars that show mw as a loonie person and call me names
Its what your good at

Good for you, you're starting to learn.

Try a couple of other links and do a little more reading.

 

[JRK]

Because ignorance can be fixed, you can learn.

thats funny
what is it you think I will learn from someone who is blind by partisan views? I put a link out there for you that claims that there was UN oversight from 91, part time at best
Nic you have so much to learn about life and what the truth on these events really mean

there

you can go back now to your avatars that show mw as a loonie person and call me names
Its what your good at

Good for you, you're starting to learn.

Try a couple of other links and do a little more reading.

reading?'
what did I learn? that there has allways been WMDs there?
and no-one knows really when the yellow cake was found?
'The AP article he note claims it was found in July of 2003
I have not changed anything. If you took the time to read what was in that article and as I have been stating is that does it matter what story is really true? GWB was right. Saddam had this stuff and if it is the way you think it was then why did it take until 2008 to get it out of there?
What I have learned is you think you have done something here
you have only admitted that we were lied to all right
by the UN and by the media

The diff with you and I is this to you is about you
to me its about the truth

 

[Nic_Driver]

The diff with you and I is this to you is about you
to me its about the truth

Oh well, I tried and it did look like you started to do a little investigation of your own. I really thought you could do it.

Like I've said before, I guess it's not really any concern of mine that you choose ignorance as a way of life.

Good luck with that...but know that I will still counter you're falsehoods if I so choose.

You don't have carte-blanche to lie, sorry.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.

 

[freedombecki]

Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.

Thanks for your service to this country and the free world, 9thIDdoc.

Of course it's beside the point, but since the leftist State Department has gone to such lengths to obfuscate the Albright's State Department's involvement with Saddam Hussein (see my post to Sallow who has conveniently disappeared, above), they're just telling their webbies to blame Bush to go along with the current administration's schtick.

They have to do it or their unions will "take 'em out."

 

[NoNukes]

If there had been any confirmation of WMD's, it would have been front page headlines. Get over it, it was an unjustified war.

 

[NoNukes]

Saddam failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire. Numbers of WMDs is entirely beside the point.

Thanks for your service to this country and the free world, 9thIDdoc.

Of course it's beside the point, but since the leftist State Department has gone to such lengths to obfuscate the Albright's State Department's involvement with Saddam Hussein (see my post to Sallow who has conveniently disappeared, above), they're just telling their webbies to blame Bush to go along with the current administration's schtick.

They have to do it or their unions will "take 'em out."

Was the State Department leftist during Bush's 8 years?