# Did Iraq seek to buy African uranium? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128 "2003-07-17T13:12:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/41 "2003-07-18T15:51:15Z")
What arguments? All that’s left is "Saddam is/was a bad guy, coz, you know, he was just _evil_. Everything else, the WMDs, the Al-Qaeda connection, gassing the Kurds, has been shown to be _complete bullshit_. All that you’re left with is that Saddam was randomly killing Iraqis that he didn’t like, and having armed goon squads making people disappear. The U.S. is doing a pretty good approximation of Saddam in Iraq. What’s changed for the Iraqi people? Not much. What’s changed for the U.S. people? They’re no safer, a significant number are already dead, billions of dollars have been pissed away, and, arguably, they’re _more_ of a terrorist target than they were before. Good job. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/42 "2003-07-18T16:00:52Z")
**december** : It is astounding to me that you seem incapable of seeing the objections of Bush’s critics as anything other than a set of rhetorical ploys, especially when it is obvious that Bush has himself relied on a long string of rhetorical tricks in order to support his case for war. This is not a question of “_fall-back positions among the Bush-bash batch_,” it is a matter of grave concern: the very real possibility that your president led your nation to war on the basis of misleading, if not downright false, intelligence claims. It is insulting to insinuate that these questions are motivated solely by a desire to “bash Bush,” rather than by the fairly obvious facts of the matter. If we look at the text of Bush’s State of the Union address, we see that he makes several claims about Iraq’s “WMDs” which, taken together – like links in a chain – support the case for military intervention. Most of these links are misleading (if not downright false) on their face, yet those who criticize the war have thus far only gotten traction on this one issue, probably because it is the most blatant and least equivocal. The claim that Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake from Africa is, in my opinion, a case of Bush simply having too much rope: he finally managed to hang himself, unsurprisingly. But it is only one example of a long line of false or misleading claims spewed out by the White House in the run up to the war. He pushed the envelope, as it were, and he finally got caught. But let’s look at some of the other claims Bush made during his address: > [@](#): > > \*\* Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror … the gravest danger facing America and the world … is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.\*\* Okay, I include this statement simply because I want to point out a couple of facts. First off, the 9/11 attacks did not involve nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. They involved a handful of determined, insane men, a little plastic explosives, some box cutters, and a couple of passenger planes. It is also worth keeping in mind that none of those involved in the attacks came from Iraq, and there exists no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was itself involved in the 9/11 debacle. My point is merely that severe danger, the most devastating attack sustained on the continental US in the last 100 years, did not actually involve “WMDs” or “outlaw states” _at all_. Listening to Bush’s address, one might easily forget that fact. Moving on, Bush briefly mentions Iran and Korea and then turns to Iraq: > [@](#): > > \*\* A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression … with ties to terrorism … with great potential wealth … will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.\*\* Sure. At the beginning of this Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq’s military strength was approximately 20% of what it had been before the first Gulf War. It’s entire GDP, growing at a whopping -6%, was approximately a fourth of the US military budget. And now tell me again, in what sense was Iraq a threat to “dominate a vital region” – a region that is in fact clearly dominated by the US – or to the US itself? > [@](#): > > \*\* Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons – not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.\*\* Really? And what hard evidence do we have that he continues to “pursue” these weapons? Well, let’s scroll down a bit and inspect the evidence that Bush presents, starting with the last item and moving back up the page: > [@](#): > > \*\* Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.\*\* This claim has been clearly debunked, totally repudiated, since Bush made it, and was in doubt even before his speech. Only blind, rabid right-wing partisans continue to cling to it. From **Squink’s** link: > [@](#): > > \*\*_Iraqi: Tubes Weren’t for Nuclear Bombs_ > > VIENNA, Austria - A key Iraqi scientist recently told the CIA that high-strength aluminum tubes bought by Baghdad weren’t meant for nuclear bomb production, as President Bush suggested in his State of the Union address, two experts on Iraq’s nuclear program say…. > > Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who headed a uranium-enrichment unit vital to Iraq’s pre-1991 bomb plans, “also said that since '91 they hadn’t resurrected a nuclear weapon program,” according to ex-Iraq inspector David Albright, an American physicist who acted as go-between for Obeidi to talk to U.S. authorities a few weeks ago…. > > The White House said last month Obeidi’s account was evidence of the ousted Baghdad regime’s bomb ambitions. But U.S. officials did not, at the same time, report that the scientist had contradicted assertions that the program had already been revived and the tubes were part of it…. > > The Saddam government told IAEA inspectors it was buying the aluminum tubes to make small artillery rockets. The IAEA then assembled centrifuge experts to consider the question, and last March 7 IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council that documentary and other evidence strongly supported the Iraqi version. Even earlier, before Bush’s speech, ElBaradei had raised serious doubts about the tubes allegation…\*\* …yet Bush chose to include the allegation in his speech anyway, without the slightest hint of equivocation. > [@](#): > > \*\* Albright, interviewed by telephone in Germany, said Obeidi, Iraq’s top centrifuge expert, had been unequivocal in discussions with U.N. inspectors, with him and then with the CIA. > > “Before the war he took the position the tubes weren’t for centrifuges, and after the war” — when any fear of Saddam’s dictatorial regime would have faded — “he told them the same thing,” Albright said. > > Baute said Iraqi centrifuge components were incompatible with such aluminum cylinders. “They’d have to redevelop a complete research-and-development program to adapt those tubes,” redesigning head caps, vacuum jackets, piping and other elements of the centrifuge assembly, said the IAEA physicist, who once helped build France’s nuclear bombs. > > Such enrichment programs require thousands of centrifuges in “cascade” array. Using the slower-spinning aluminum tubes would have forced the Iraqis to build many thousands more of the small, highly sophisticated machines, Albright said.\*\* In fact, the Iraqi government had been completely forthcoming with regard to the aluminum tubes, producing all the requested information regarding their purchase and use. This fact clearly contradicts Bush’s SOTU claim: > [@](#): > > \*\* Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.\*\* On the contrary. With regard to the tubes, at least, he had credibly explained his activities. Concerning the next piece of evidence, not to belabor the obvious, but it has been admitted by no less than the director of the CIA himself that the claim should not have been included in the SOTU. And yet partisans like **december** are still out there defending it. What part of “_These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president_,” do you not understand yet, **december**? Naturally, it is difficult (if not impossible) for the Iraqi government to prove that they did not attempt to purchase yellowcake for Niger, or anywhere else. How do you prove a negative? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? And we still await, with baited breath, the public production _any evidence whatsoever_ to back up this claim coming from the White House. > [@](#): > > \*\* From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.\*\* It is difficult, if not impossible, to disclose facilities that one does not, in fact, possess, much less provide evidence that they have been destroyed. Rack up another misleading statement in Bush’s address. There are no such labs, apparently. > [@](#): > > \*\* U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.\*\* Simply ignoring the question of whether or not the US was within its right to unilaterally attack another nation on the basis that it actually possessed such warheads, we now know – or at least strongly suspect – that this claim of “29,984” chemical munitions is bogus. US forces have turned Iraq inside out searching for these warheads to no avail. In short, we were mislead by Bush’s speech into assuming that Iraq possessed these weapons, although now it appears that it did not. Finally, there is the issue of Iraq’s possession of material that would enable it to produce as much as “2500 liters of anthrax,” “38000 liters of botulinum,” and “5000 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent.” It is technically true that these material were “unaccounted for,” but that in no way means that Iraq still possessed them, as we have subsequently seen. Thus, Bush claims in his State of the Union address that Iraq continues to “pursue” the production of “WMDs,” but is unable to produce a single shred of credible evidence to support this charge; in fact, the further one digs, the more one discovers that the evidence gainsays this claim. Bush further strongly insinuates that Iraq possesses such weapons as well; yet with every passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that this was simply not the case. In short, it is Bush and his cronies that employ rhetoric, rather than fact, to make their case, and who have fall back positions such as, “Well, sure, our own intelligence services doubted the Niger story, even months before the SOTU, but after all, we _did_ say that our claim was based on British sources – so it is, technically, correct.” Not the other way around. Every link in the chain of Bush’s argument for war, as presented in the SOTU, was based on unsubstantiated, circumstantial hearsay, and most of it was known by Bush’s team to be inconclusive before he ever presented it. This is obvious to anyone with eyes in his or her head, and those who support Bush have been reduced to assuring his critics that “don’t worry, evidence will soon turn up” (but how do you know?), or claiming that the WMD issue was secondary to the liberation of the Iraqi people. And finally, please allow me to congratulate you on your adroit use of double-think regarding this issue. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/43 "2003-07-18T17:13:12Z")
i’m not sure what the whole flak is about anymore. i mean it says right on the [Whitehouse.gov](http://Whitehouse.gov) page w/ the SotU address [**DENIAL and DECEPTION**](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/20030128-19.html). Can’t say you weren’t warned. 😉 Lost control and can’t help it ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/44 "2003-07-18T18:39:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by samclem \* > So, **december** , your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to track down the NIE report which shows, according to your fellow travelers over at WSJ opinions, that there was a consensus opinion that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake. Go find it. George Bush has followed your suggestion, **samclem**. I will not comment until I see an actual copy of what was just released, but here’s a [brief AP article](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-me/2003/jul/18/071800952.html) about it. > [@](#): > > An intelligence assessment by the CIA last October cites “compelling evidence” that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute a nuclear-weapons program, according to documents released Friday by the White House. > > …the White House made public excerpts of the intelligence community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate… > > The report asserts that Baghdad “if left unchecked…probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” > > It also cites unsubstantiated reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries: Niger, Somalia and “possibly” Congo. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/45 "2003-07-18T20:02:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The report cites “high confidence” within the intelligence community that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.” Of course, conflating yellowcake with weapons-grade fissile material is utter bullshit. To convert the one into the other, Saddam would need several hundred gas centrifuges up and running. That’s what Bush was trying to imply with his very next sentence in the SOTU. With a sequential argument like this you need to take the probability that each of the individual statements are true, and multiply them all to get the probability that the entire argument is correct. Using even the most optimistic assessments, 1X0 is still Zero. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/46 "2003-07-18T20:40:47Z")
If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/47 "2003-07-18T21:28:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\* To convert the one into the other, Saddam would need several hundred gas centrifuges up and running. \*\* IIRC, the CIA said “ **tens of thousands** ” of centrifuges similar to the one whose parts were buried under the rose bush. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/48 "2003-07-18T21:59:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*IIRC, the CIA said “ **tens of thousands** ” of centrifuges similar to the one whose parts were buried under the rose bush. \*\* I was being charitable 😉 In respect to the Iraqi’s using those particular components: > [@](#): > > VIENNA, Austria (AP) – A top U.N. weapons hunter says it would have been “virtually impossible” for Iraq to revive a nuclear bomb program with equipment recently dug up from a Baghdad backyard, as the Bush administration contends. > … > Baute also said in an interview with The Associated Press that it appears the unearthed cache of uranium enrichment parts, surrendered by an Iraqi scientist last month, lacked critical components, and its accompanying blueprints were marred by errors. [U.S. claims off-base on Baghdad nuclear cache](http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=69549) You can get a pretty good idea of the scale of the operation Saddam is purported to have hidden by perusing the Industrias Nuleares Do Brasil enrichment facility [website](http://www.inb.gov.br/english/default.asp). Note that that facility is designed for production of fuel elements, not the much more highly processed weapons grade material. That’d take a bigger plant, and more centrifuges. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/49 "2003-07-18T22:08:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*I was being charitable 😉 > > Note that that facility is designed for production of fuel elements, not the much more highly processed weapons grade material. That’d take a bigger plant, and more centrifuges. \*\* Let’s see if I have this right. Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons, but by a means that couldn’t possibly succeed. This raises two questions: 1. Why was Saddam doing this? 2. How could we know that Saddam’s attemps to get nuclear weapons would be ineffectual? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/50 "2003-07-18T22:16:19Z")
1. Was he actually doing this ? 2. If we allow for the possibility of his obtaining a sufficient supply of weapons grade material from say, russian smugglers, we couldn’t. But that’s NOT what the president trotted in the SOTU. He gave us intel suggesting that Saddam was attempting to secretly perform friggin miracles. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/51 "2003-07-18T22:54:31Z")
As long as we’re about it, howzabout this from Colin Powells address to the United Nations "While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection. We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities." Now, this pretty strongly implies to my mind that we knew where stuff was. After all, we knew what it was, even distinguishing with complete confidence between ordinary rockets that go bang! and rockets stuffed with Bad Mojo. So where’d they go? What happened to them? If we’re so smart we know a chemical warhead from an explosive one, how come we don’t know where they are? As some of you know, I was pretty much always dead set against this shitstorm. But I expected that at least some, if not most, of the Bushista’s case would be _factually_ correct - it just wasn’t worth going to war over. But as each and every alleged fact turns to shit before our very eyes, I am stunned to realize…I hadn’t viewed them darkly _enough_. People to the left of me, whom I sometimes regard as a wee bit hysterical, were _right_! What next? A memo from Rove to Cheney cc’d to Rice and Powell saying “It’s all about the oil.”? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/52 "2003-07-19T00:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Elucidator \*\*_posted:_ > What next? A memo from Rove to Cheney cc’d to Rice and Powell saying “It’s all about the oil.”? So you haven’t seen the maps of Iraqi oil fields that judicial watch pryed out of Cheney’s “Energy policy” yet? Perhaps they’re not _quite_ a smoking gun, but they’re certainly good for a few [dark chuckles](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/07/18/national1810EDT0716.DTL). ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/53 "2003-07-19T07:02:55Z")
Bush, didn’t Dick explain to you that [**this**](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13744-2003Jul18.html?nav=hptop_tb) isn’t helping? > [@](#): > > **Warning in Iraq Report Unread** > Bush, Rice Did Not See State’s Objection > \*By Dana Milbank and Dana Priest > Washington Post Staff Writers > Saturday, July 19, 2003; Page A01 \* > > _ **President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq** _, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was “highly dubious,” White House officials said yesterday. > > The acknowledgment came in a briefing for reporters in which the administration released excerpts from last October’s National Intelligence Estimate, a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq’s weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies. > > A senior administration official who briefed reporters yesterday said neither Bush nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice read the NIE in its entirety. **"They did not read footnotes in a 90-page document** ," said the official, referring to the “Annex” that contained the State Department’s dissent. > > The official said Bush was “briefed” on the NIE’s contents, but “I don’t think he sat down over a long weekend and read every word of it.” > > \*© 2003 The Washington Post Company > \* Come on now. Rice has gotten a doctorate. She has certainly read longer works and understands the value of foonotes. A long weekend? it’s only 90 pages and the lives of AMerican soldiers are on the line. Who here hasn’t read a lot more than 90 pages in a weekend with only a GPA on the line? > [@](#): > > “The president was comfortable at the time, based on the information that was provided in his speech,” the official said of the decision to use it in the address to Congress. Is it just me or… ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/54 "2003-07-19T10:36:18Z")
**Sam Stone** – Get a grip. Here’s a clue: US \*strategic imperatives \*determined post 9/11: 1. Get the hell out of Saudi Arabia (insert any face-saving option you care to), 2. Unequivocally secure alternative oil supplies, and 3. Demonstrably work towards a Palestinian State. - In combination, mutually inclusive. And _absolutely everything else_ is subordinate to those goals, no matter how square the peg or how round the hole. Including Saddam and Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/55 "2003-07-19T10:44:11Z")
I think I may have posted that in the wrong Sam-Stone’s-bollocks-in-a-vice thread . . .hey ho . . . ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/56 "2003-07-19T11:13:30Z")
Not sure I agree with your analysis, **L\_C**. Then again, maybe I’m misinterpreting. You seem to be implying that there was some sort of “method” in the madness. I see only madness - Iraq was entirely irrelevant as a response to 9/11. Rumsfeld (et al) decided 5 years ago that Iraq was going to be invaded given the chance. 9/11 just provided enough leverage to get Bush on board. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128/57 "2003-07-19T11:36:21Z")
Well they may have done that 5 years ago, I don’t know. But we all had a lot of ideas five years ago. 9/111 focused the minds like nothing ever before and provided the essential impetus for the leader of a democratic country to instigate war. These were very big strides that wouldn’t have been taken without 9/11, no matter what late-night wanking material Cheney was conjuring up. Of course there was, and is, a Plan. Part of the ‘don’t care’ manner of this Administration likely comes from their belief that they have no choice so what others say doesn’t matter . . . … . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-iraq-seek-to-buy-african-uranium/189128.md?page=2)