Drawing on the testimony of friend Q.E.D.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=198447
…it takes roughly 4000 tons of “yellowcake” to produce one uranium A-bomb. So, given the vague outlines of the alleged deal, at the very most, and under the best of circumstances, Iraq would have purchased enough ore to produce one-eighth of a bomb.
And that only if the infamous aluminum tubes had actually been used to build a centrifugation plant. Sadly for Bush, that’s not the case. It seems that last month, while Mahdi Shukur Obeidi was being used to frighten us with the gas centrifuge parts hidden under his rose garden, he told his interrogators that Iraq had NOT revived it’s uranium enrichment program.
-here
Someone’s been cherry-picking again. It’s getting to be a mighty big pie !
I think of it as a happy and zen-like acceptance of the wondrous machinations of karma. Outwardly, very similar to gloating.
Note the fallback positions of the Bush-bash batch. The problem was supposed to be that Bush lied. Presidential credibility was ruined. Bob Graham discussed impeachment. Of course, Bush’s statement was literally true, since the British did tell us that they had learned of Iraqi efforts to buy African uranium.
So, the critics next say that Bush’s statement implied American agreement with the British conclusion. Trouble with that fallback is that the British conclusion likely was factually correct. As Collounsbury puts it, there probably was some sniffing around.
The next fallback is that “certain parties” were pissing their pants over the uranium purchase. However, Bush only mentioned it in one single sentence of one speech, so that doesn’t work. The people who are making a fuss about this are Bush’s opponents.
Other posters here allege that the amount and quality of uranium that Iraq could have purchased wouldn’t have been adequate to build a bomb. FAIK this may be so, but we’ve come a long way from the original allegation of Presidential lying.
Aw goddam contrare, as they say in Lubbock.
It serves to point out that any conceivable threat from Iraq of the “mushroom cloud” variety existed in the realm of probability somewhere between theoretical and delusional. Yet this selfsame “threat” is offered, with a straight face, as a justification for urgent and immediate action, that is, war.
This may not be technically a “lie”. It hardly matters.
It has taken God only knows how many licks to get to the center of the Tootsie Roll Pop. Regretably, the brown stuff in the center ain’t chocolate.
Sam Stone said
Does the US intelligence community really believe that? They eveidently didn’t before Bush gave his Cinci speech last year. What changed their mind?
The British Intel is gonna go down big time with Tony Blair, if they stick to their story.
“I got proof but I can’t show you.” They got “dick!” Money talks, bullshit walks.
The opnion piece from the On-line opinion screed from the WSJ says
Is that true? If so, why would Tenent crush the Administrations attempt to use false info in the Cinci speech?
The WSJ’s opinion/editorial page is so right wing that it can’t be taken at face value.
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.
As I said many, many months ago:
There weren’t any WMD.
And now I’ll add, *Tony Blair and British Intel are lying, either deliberately(God help him) or unintentionally. They have bogus proof, if that. And the current administration in the US is trying to cover up their mistakes faster that any administration since Nixon. The parallels are staggering. *
They don’t get you for making a mistake. They get you for lying. Try reading history.
I hope I’ll be forgiven for cross-posting.
Damn! Then how can we revisionists get started?
The NIE report is classified, so an effort to get a copy could result in a prison sentence. Prison rules might prohibit posting on message boards, so I dare not tke the risk.
Actually the cited editorial recommends that the NIE report be declassified. Maybe Bush will do that.
One thing for sure, Iraq possesses the world’s greatest supply of depleted uranium, should anyone desire to mine it.
A definition of what constitutes a weapons program is in order.
As I am led to believe, the Iraqi nuclear program consisted of some scientists, paperwork, and some centrifuge parts under rose bushes. If this is a reasonable definition of what constitutes a weapons program then indeed Iraq had a weaons program. The question is of what relevance is this. How much of a threat is it?
Is yellowcake useful in making one of those “dirty” bombs people were worried about before the invasion?
I am talking about the “radioactive material around an explosive core” thing that a terrorist might use. Not a nuclear or atomic explosive per se, just a way of spreading nuclear contamination around a target to terrorize the population.
Regards,
Shodan
Obviously, any continuing nuclear program carried the risk that Saddam might eventually acquire nuclear weapons, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
If nothing more is found then the hidden paperwork and centrifuge parts, then Iraq was in violation of their 1991 peace agreement and several Security Council resolutions. It would be legal justification for war, by the UN.
The way the stuff was hidden, it could never have been discovered, so it shows that UN weapons inspections could not have been a fully adequate measure.
I swear, december, if they find a soggy cocktail napkin that Saddam bin Laden had written “nukes” upon, you in would be in here screaming “Smoking gun! Smoking gun! Weapons program!”
And Shodan, you keep stretching like that, you’ll be able to tie your shoes without bending over.
yeah, but how much of threat is it, and in what time frame?
As I understand it, only the UNSC had the right to decide if it was going to authorize th euse of force to enforce its resolutions.
We didn’t know and still don’t know. Under the 1991 agreement and the SC resulutions, Saddam had the responsibility of showing the world that there was no threat. He didn’t do that. I see no reason why he should have been given any more slack. In fact, I think his non-cooperations should have led to an attack years ago.
This is a reasonable argument. The Coalition may not have a legal right to enforce UN resulutions.
Wouold you be willing to die to end such a program?
december, why didn’t you consider it a reasonable argument a few months ago? It certainly was being made, rather forcefully too.
I thought he didn’t even believe in the validity of the UN as an organisation, let alone its authority in these matters.
I think it’s a reasonable argument as far as it goes. I just think the arguments on the other side are stronger.