I wasn’t aware they ever had any in the first place.
Can anyone shed some light on that?
From
From CNN:
.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t care about the WMD-angle on Iraq. I am just curious where Mssr.Hussien was able to get the Sara Lee Yellowcake from. Is the stuff not hard to purchase? Did Iraq have domestic supplies?
From CNN:
.
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t care about the WMD-angle on Iraq. I am just curious where Mssr.Hussien was able to get the Sara Lee Yellowcake from. Is the stuff not hard to purchase? Did Iraq have domestic supplies?
The discussions have been done in both GD and the Pit many times and the underlying facts don’t change. Your #2 statement is probably false.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/12/sprj.irq.uk.uranium.straw/
Take any recent article, you’ll find them stating they did not rely on forged documentation to make claims that 1) Iraq sought uranium from Africa, and 2) Iraq was reconsituting its nuclear weapons program. The CIA did not rely on the forged documents to claim that Iraq was reconsituting its nuclear weapons program either. Neither side is sharing 100% with the other, and they both reached the same conclusion overall.
That’s a pretty big point of contention, and you’ve extrapolated it all the way through to #13, so I can’t comment on the rest.
Yes Brutus, he had a stash there and all agencies and states concerned knew about it.
But do you happen to know where that stash originally came from?
The US? 
It’s been there a while. Portugal, Niger, and some say Brazil.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_iraq_nuclear.html (scroll down to old NYT article)
One reason someone might get #2 wrong is the media coverage. Bob Somerby, who usually criticizes unfair media treatment of liberals, writes.
So what’s the real issue?
Saddam may have been trying to acquire uranium from somewhere. The only evidence that has been made public has been quickly shown to be false (and quite some time ago, too).
The British may have some other super-secret evidence that Saddam may have been seeking uranium.
Turn about is fair play.
Saddam didn’t actually use his secret weapons of mass destruction, even though his government was about to fall, because he didn’t have any.
Tony Blair isn’t going to use his super-secret evidence of mass destruction, because it doesn’t exist.
Another Op-Ed piece? Come on december- you are starting to become a cliche. Then again it is easier then trying to refute the tons of legitimates Cites we have provided above. You know, all the posts you ignored to port your Op-Ed link and run.
You could start with this one to start:
Bush could not even keep his story straight on the bogus African WMD claim:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...sh_intelligence
quote:
The White House also drew a distinction between the way Bush handled intelligence claims about Iraq in a speech he gave in Cincinnati last October compared with his State of the Union address in January.
In October, acting on Tenet’s suggestion, Bush excised a sentence about Iraq seeking a specific quantity of uranium from Niger, Fleischer said. Yet, several months later, Bush went ahead and raised the claim about seeking uranium in Africa.
Fleischer said it was an apples-and-oranges difference because the Cincinnati speech mentioned Niger while the State of the Union speech talked about all of Africa, and that there was different reporting from the CIA. “So it’s an apple in Cincinnati and an orange in the State of the Union,” he said. “The two do not compare that directly.”
I will check back for your “explanation”. :dubious:
By a flaming liberal, and with cites to back it up.
What’s to explain? In one speech Bush accurately mentioned that the British had what they considered good evidence of efforts to buy uranium in Africa. That was true, and is true. The Brits stand behind their assertion. Given the British certainty, there’s a good chance that there were efforts to buy uranium.
In another speech, Bush chose not to mention the story about Niger. So what? Fleisher pointed out that the Niger story was based on forged evidence, while the statement in the SOTU was based on different evidence. But, even if these weren’t apples and oranges, why would it be a scandal to accurately mention something in one speech and leave it out of another speech?
The keys are:
– Bush’s SOTU statement was accurate
– Iraq probably has tried to buy uranium.
The second cartoon down shows my POV. That’s not an argument, of course. But, I would request an explanation of why you consider the exclusion of this item from another speech to be a scandal.
Nice try my dear december, nice try.
However, the universe of Uranium producers in Africa is very small. Four. South Africa and Namibia are also said to be out of the running in re sec. concerns. That leaves essentially Gabon as a potential source.
It’s not as if there are huge amounts of uncontrolled Uranium production around, and I will be so bold to say that the caginess of the Blair and Bush governments on the unnamed African suspects is covering up a naked Emporer.
You may be right for all I know. Since the Brits haven’t shared their evidence, I’m suspicious, too.
Interesting point about the small number of possible sources. However, the number of possible source countries is less important than the number of possible reports of efforts to buy uranium. Saddam may have tried to buy Nigerien uranium. The fact that one story about an effort to buy Nigerien uranium is fraudulent doesn’t prove that other reports of efforts to buy Nigerien uranium are false. IMHO that’s what Fleisher should have said. As it was, he implied that the correct report was about some country other than Niger, and that was probably the wrong thing to say.
It’s an overview / editorial of others’ writings. Nor is it even a very well written one at that.
In a word, it’s crappy hand waving. Rather about your level actually. Liberal or not.
Yes, he “accurately” mentioned this, inaccurately leaving out the US Intel community had their doubts. Technicalities, bait and switch.
Really? Why is there a “good chance”? On what basis do you make such an assertion given to date neither US nor British intel have withstood the harsh light of reality? Other than your typical moronic wishful thinking?
You really are a fucking idiot.
Probably? You better provide some concrete evidence, or you can shove that “probably” where the sun don’t shine.
And the fact that they’ve misled us on questionable intel once, means they’ll do it again.
Earth to World Eater: * British intelligence said and continues to say they have good evidence that Saddam attempted to buy African uranium. *
Would James Bond lie? 
It’s a close question whether they misled us. What Bush said was literally true. Furthermore the British continue to hold this belief. However, I do agree with Collounsbury that Bush might have specifically mentioned the fact that the US hadn’t confirmed the British report.
If Bush or the US had believed that the British claim was false, then I would agree that we were misled. However, that’s not the case. That’s why CBS went back and changed their internet headline which gave rise to this thread’s OP.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**Earth to World Eater: * British intelligence said and continues to say they have good evidence that Saddam attempted to buy African uranium. *
So they are saying “yeah don’t worry about it, it’s true, he tried”, and you consider that concrete? This is the same James Bond that said Iraq could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes right? Say, whatever happened to that?
**
Now why the hell would he mention it was unconfirmed? The game he was playing was to trump up all the dirt they had on Saddam.
Model planes held together with duct tape = UAVs capable of dispersing biological agents within hundreds of square miles on a moments notice!!!
Trucks most likely made for brewing moonshine = Sophisticated mobile biological laboratories. (this still makes me laugh)
And finally
Unconfirmed unsubstantiated reports from this girl my cousin’s sister once met at an IHOP = Saddam may have possibly tried to acquire some uranium from somewhere, sometime in his life. Or maybe he didn’t, we don’t know, but we’ll paint it with a real vague brush, and twist it the semantics to cover our asses.
**
We’ll it ain’t true either.
**
We were.
**
We weren’t?
**
Who cares about CBS? They changed their internet headline
so this whole thing is a moot point?
Let’s try that again.
So they are saying “yeah don’t worry about it, it’s true, he tried”, and you consider that concrete? This is the same James Bond that said Iraq could launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes right? Say, whatever happened to that?
**
Now why the hell would he mention it was unconfirmed? The game he was playing was to trump up all the dirt they had on Saddam.
Model planes held together with duct tape = UAVs capable of dispersing biological agents within hundreds of square miles on a moments notice!!!
Trucks most likely made for brewing moonshine = Sophisticated mobile biological laboratories. (this still makes me laugh)
And finally
Unconfirmed unsubstantiated reports from this girl my cousin’s sister once met at an IHOP = Saddam may have possibly tried to acquire some uranium from somewhere, sometime in his life. Or maybe he didn’t, we don’t know, but we’ll paint it with a real vague brush, and twist it the semantics to cover our asses.
**
We’ll it ain’t true either.
**
We were.
**
We weren’t?
**
Who cares about CBS? They changed their internet headline
so this whole thing is a moot point?
CBS changed the headline not because there was any doubt that the statement in question was false but because the White House found a patsy to fall on the grenade. The administration has adopted a pretense that they were misled by the CIA and Tenet is playing along like a good boy. I’m sure that arrangements have been made for Tenet to be “offered” a nice, cushy job in the private sector in about six months.