Monday, July 07, 2008

Saddam's Yellow Cake Removed and Sold

Where's Ambassador Joe Wilson? Crickets.
The story (here) is that the US helped the Iraqi Government SELL ITS YELLOWCAKE (uranium--you know, the stuff Valerie Plame's husband said was non existent?) to a firm in Canada to dispense of it.

Almost everything about the deal made for spy novel fodder: a multimillion-dollar shipment of yellowcake uranium, the final vestiges of Saddam Hussein's once-hyped nuclear program, quietly moved from Baghdad to Montreal via a controversial U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean, all done under orders of absolute secrecy.
The yellowcake, all of which is believed to date before 1991, originated at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex south of Baghdad.
Maybe it is from pre 1991. We'll probably never know. But what difference would that make and why would Joe Wilson said it didn't have any interest in receiving from Niger?
Shout out to Andy from Beaverton.

Posted by Victoria Taft, 11am - 3pm KPAM 860 at 09:32

35 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  2. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Is what Bush said, and what Joe Wilson exposed as a lie.

    Bush said "recently"... not "in 1991"
    ReplyDelete
  3. sarah,

    no one lied.

    except joe wilson.

    but feel free to hold on to your dreams.

    you can only feel good hating.

    how sad. you put your trust in someone who attempts to deceive us all.

    .
    ReplyDelete
  4. is ad hominem all you can muster, oregonguy?
    ReplyDelete
  5. Sarah, read and heed,especially section 2.

    http://www.demtraitors.com/documents/wilson.pdf
    ReplyDelete
  6. Yet another bogus story having nothing to do with Niger, Joe Wilson, or Bush's lie to the nation in his State of the Union Address.

    The uranium was not weapons grade and WAS WELL known to the UN and IAEA prior to the invasion and was being stored LEGALLY by Saddam’s government according to international law.

    It was reportedly left over from Saddam’s nuclear program, which was summarily ended by the Israeli’s bombing the reactor. And, again according to all reports, it has not been supplemented since 1991.

    The IAEA did inspect the yellowcake stockpile and even put their seals on it. And this stockpile was again re-discovered when our troops went into the Tuwaitha facility.

    It’s all chronicled in the 2004 Duelfer report.
    ReplyDelete
  7. iago, care to tell us all about the addendum to the Duefler Report, which came out in March 2005?
    ReplyDelete
  8. In addition to the addendums, iago, you might be interested in the following as well;

    The Duelfer report's case for war in Iraq

    From a Candaian with no dog in this hunt,What was it all about after all? The causes of the Iraq war

    NOTE: A bit lengthy, but good reading, if you care to read an unbiased look

    Abstract
    The least understood aspect of the ongoing war in Iraq is what caused America to invade the country in the first place. The Bush administration's reasons for going to war are still subject to intense controversy. Popular explanations for the war, stressing America's need for dominance or its desire for Iraq's oil, are erroneous or secondary. This article argues that a careful reading of accounts of White House decision-making point to one overriding rationale: the war on terrorism. The single most important factor in the decision to go to war was the change in President Bush's position towards Iraq after September 11. This convinced the administration that toppling Saddam Hussein was essential for three basic reasons: a military rationale of eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein could pass his presumed WMD to terrorists; a psychological rationale of demonstrating American resolve and discrediting perceptions of American weakness; and most importantly an ideological rationale of transforming the political culture of the Middle East, beginning with a democratic regime in Baghdad to serve as a model for other Arab countries and Iran. The specific nature of these factors reinforces the uniqueness of the Iraq war. It is highly unlikely that the US will undertake similar action against other foes such as Iran, North Korea or Syria in the foreseeable future.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Sarah, I hope you realize what you just said. You quoted Bush as saying that the British government recently learned something and then declared that Bush lied. The British government at that time stood by their claim and to my knowledge still stands by it. Therefore, your assertion that Bush lied about what the British government recently learned is pure unadulerated unashamed nonsense. Congrats at lowering yourself to the intellectual level of a Hard Cheese or Iago.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Just remember Sarah if this yellowcake was such a big deal don't you think you would have heard about it before now. The administration would only need to point it out. Instead it chose to treasonously out a CIA agennt. It has never used the existence of the yellowcake as a defense to Joe Wilson's editorial. As I said it is a bogus story.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Sarah: Its a Great Story and it doesn't surprise me that the Lamestream Socialist Communist Marxist Democrat(did I forget a word) Media won't and will not Report this other then on Page 200045444 at the very Bottom Of the sports page. Thank GOD for the NEW MEDIA. This news probably doesn't surprise 51% of the Electret and doesn't surprise me. Great Job Andy and Victoria.
    ReplyDelete
  12. In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious.
    From Christopher Hitchens' Wowie Zahawie.
    I don't expect you to believe it.
    I find it fascinating, however, that you're more willing to believe the Saddam Hussein regime than look at the evidence the British and US intelligence sources have gathered.
    BTW: There were WMD. Not huge stockpiles but enough to kill a few thousand Kurds with some left over. Weaponized Sarin, anyone?
    ReplyDelete
  13. And where did Saddam Hussein get the Sarin nerve gas?

    Well, President Ronald Reagan gave it to him several years before. After the United States helped Saddam into power in 1980, they gave him 30,000 lbs of sarin nerve gas and told Saddam to use it against the Iranians. In return, the Iraqis sold America a large quantity of oil. Oil for weapons.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Iago,
    Everything bad always comes from the US, doesn't it? These people couldn't possibly do anything malevolent unless it was done at the behest of the US.
    Did the US give him the yellowcake too? And the VX nerve gas? Was that ours too?
    In his book "Shadow War," Richard Miniter outlined the WMD that we know of--not counting what went missing after Saddam booted the inspectors and then let them back in before the war---a period of years. This bunch of stuff was confiscated. Yellowcake was among the stuff found.
    How come inspectors didn't find this during allllllll of their inspections in the 1990's and before the war? Did Saddam hide it? Or was that America too?
    ReplyDelete
  15. I wish to helpfully point out that you're an imbicile, Iago. As anyone who paid any amount of attention whatsoever knows, the person who outed a CIA desk-sitter wasn't part of the Bush Administration. As to Joe's editorial, there was no need to answer something that was patently absurd. Wilson alledged that the British government was wrong because he chatted with a couple officials in Niger that said so. Something that dumb was unworthy of a response from the Bush administration and indeed, they didn't respond to it. That was done by a gent named Robert Novak who is emphatically NOT a member of the Bush administration. You fail, Iago.
    ReplyDelete
  16. kmoo, at least I know how to spell imbecile, but in this case I am afraid you are the one who qualifies for that title:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged Thursday(Sept. 7, 2006) that he was the source who first revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak back in 2003, touching off a federal investigation.
    ReplyDelete
  17. iago, care to provide actual proof that Reagan gave Saddam sarin gas?

    Something besides a rant from DailyKOS?
    ReplyDelete
  18. The Riegle Report

    U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

    A Report of Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Ranking Member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration

    United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d

    http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html
    ReplyDelete
  19. Iago, I applaud you for once for at least attempting to document a claim. I bet it took a while to find that one, didn’t it? Too bad you took some left-winged site’s word for it instead of actually reading the report. If you had, you would have noted it dealt with Gulf War Syndrome mainly, not who supplied what to who, although a small section does state some biological materials, “pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce” were exported.

    You might also have found, “By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria...”

    Care to say who was president in the late 1970's?

    Oh yes, I couldn’t find Reagan’s name in the report. Perhaps I missed it and you can show me where it is.

    It might also interest you that in 2002, as Democrats where trying to make the claim that Reagan and the U.S. knowingly gave Saddam chemical weapons, that none other than Colin Powell, who was National Security Adviser during the Reagan years, said the claims were “dead wrong.”

    Who armed Iraq?
    Where Saddam Obtained Arms
    ReplyDelete
  20. Iago,
    Mr. Waters' response to your source is the very reason why I don't waste time publishing my sources for the most part. Neonazicons only rely on their own sources like Limbaugh and Hannity for the balloon they reside in. You might want to ask the defunct Mr. Waters his view about the infamous pic showing Rumsfeld, serving under the gipper's admin., shaking Saddam's hand.

    Better yet - just tell the morons over here that the non existent yellow cake sold to Iraq was really Betty Crocker's yellow cake mix recipe. Knowing the vast wasteland between their ears, they would probably nod in agreement with you. ROFL
    ReplyDelete
  21. raul: Here's some marching orders from the Maha-Rushiethat you might find Educational.

    PS: Stay tuned for "OPERATION CHAOS PHASE II. Tell your Friends.
    ReplyDelete
  22. Lew,
    Raoul's bury-head-in-sand response is why it's useless to use such trite methods as logic and reasoning when talking to leftists. They have this curious inability to recognize the existence of any truth that they themselves do not agree with. At the same time, they seem wholly unaware that fascism (and its twin brother Nazisim) was a system and philosophy growing out of leftist ideas like absolute governmental centralization. Thus, whenever they're backed into a corner, we're treated to the sight of some desperate leftist pulling out the word "Nazi" and trying to apply it to the right wing. Sad, isn't it? I wonder when he'll start trying words like "mean" and "fascist" on for size...
    ReplyDelete
  23. From the AP: The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp. (CCJ), in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

    Interesting, for use in energy-producing reactors. OH NO CANADA IS USING "NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS". PLEASE DON'T TELL THE AMERICAN LEFT THIS.
    SHssssssssss Keep this fact Quiteeeeeeee
    ReplyDelete
  24. Keith, I know full well there is no breaking through certain hard heads here, but hopefully lurkers will be able to see that the left's unsupported claims are usually far from factual.

    As you can see from our token moonbats, they are not used to being challenged to support their claims. It is expected to just be taken as fact.
    ReplyDelete
  25. 'but hopefully lurkers will be able to see that the left's unsupported claims are usually far from factual' by the one solo fan of the lad...

    Oh really Lew? I believe I cited http addresses for each of the 4 items posted whereas he has backed his claims up with what? His view? Sorry but views are like the wind.

    No surprise that your response would show the 'lurkers' how the right wing reacts to sources. Your dismissal of the other person's source regarding the fictional yellow cake tale shows you for what you are - another rush limbaugh disciple - pull things out of your behind and worship them as facts. But the real facts remain - this administration will go down as one of the most criminal ones in the history of our republic. You can scream and deny it all you want but for the majority of us, along with the rest of the world, the facts and truth remain as is.
    ReplyDelete
  26. And for those not blinded by their own delusions of superiority or guillable enough to buy into the media accounts of events, the truth that the Bush Administration is virtually spotless as far as the law is concerned is obvious. "The most criminal administration" distinction probably rests with Clinton although both the Harding and Truman administrations had problems with members breaking the law. What do you have, Raoul? Scooter Libby. And... umm... well, looks like that's just one person.

    Was the case with Valerie Plame a crime? No, her position isn't considered a national-security secret like the identiy of field agents so Richard Armitage didn't break the law.

    Detention of prisoners of war? The Geneva Conventions aren't actually laws, merely international agreements and they only protect "prisoners of war", a category that precious few of the prisoners in Gitmo and the like fit into.

    Methods of domenstic surveilance? The only people who've alleged lawbreaking were newspaper columnists and they can't seem to figure out which law was broken (oops).

    The commencement and lead-in to the war in Iraq? There's no law against being mistaken and no evidence has yet been found that any member of the Bush Administration presented false information knowing, for a fact, that it was false; by definition, you cannot lie in ignorance.

    Face it, Raoul... you and your ilk have nothing. You don't have the truth on your side, you don't even have a fact worth the name. As Lew pointed out, you're simply humiliating yourself attempting by repeating things that are simultaneously untrue and laughably absurd.
    ReplyDelete
  27. For someone braying like a mule you display an unbelievable ignorance regarding everything you just spewed out. To wit:
    1. According to senior Bush, outing a CIA agent is treason. Surely you jest or are totally ignorant regarding the facts surrounding this. The CIA itself even said she was covert. The order came from our real president, cheney to out her. The prosecutor even said cheney should have been there to testify. I can go on and on but it would be wasting valuable time with a moron like you to try and educate you on this case.
    2. Not talking about detention as much as I'm thinking about the torture of same. In fact, I don't think I even mentioned Gitmo. Guilty conscience? You are a great case study for psychologists. LOL
    3. Your youth once more betrays the moronic lack of substance - the reasons for invading Iraq are almost IDENTICAL to what Hitler gave for invading Poland. And if my ancient memory serves me correctly, they hung nazis for that among other reasons. You really should buy some books or study history closer.
    4. Geneva convention are merely things we don't really have to follow? Yeah, the communists and nazis of our past agree with you 100 percent. But for decent people of integrity, well...

    I told you to fly away. The more you open your mouth the more foolish you look...

    graciously yours,
    your history teacher - moi.. ROFL
    ReplyDelete
  28. And Lew, please stop encouraging the misguided young man - he's really lost it.. ROFL

    BTW, why isn't he in Iraq defending my freedom to eviscerate him? ha ha ha..
    ReplyDelete
  29. 1. According to the law, it isn't. Even the law specifically dealing with revealing the identify of an undercover CIA agent doesn't classify it as treason although it can be used as part of a treason case. Strike one.
    2. Apparently, I missed one of the myriad of ways that leftists claim that Bush broke the law. Regardless, there remain no credible allegations of torture. Strike two.
    3. Let's see... Hitler invaded Poland on the excuse of freeing Danzig (a city that was 90% German and the land link between east and west Germany that had been severed at Versailles). Bush invaded Iraq under the pretense of getting rid of Saddam, stopping a WMD program, and liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator. Resemblance? None whatsoever. Strike three; one again, you fail.
    4. I wondered if you'd bring out a worthless argument. The fact of the matter is that the Geneva Conventions have no force of law except as it's imparted by the military powers within the UN. This applies to virtually every single declaration by international institutions like The Hague, the UN, the ICC, etc. If there was a strike four, this would be it.

    And the more you attempt to trump me, the less credible you are. When you don't even know what excuse Hitler gave for invading Poland or the actual law that applies to revealing CIA identities, you have no grounds on which to pretend that you know anything. But please keep talking... it's been a while since I got to laugh at a clueless arrogant leftist.
    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry for the delay but I'm still laughing too hard. Reason? I actually clicked onto your name and got your pic..

    Please do something about those teeth.. ROFL.

    After gazing at the pic I realize I'm in the middle of a war with a freakin nerd! LOL

    Okay, back to the topics - once more you merely posit your views and then declare victory. Oh well, nothing new there since I've been battling your ilk since the war criminal came into power.

    But your alleged 4 strikes are nothing more than mere responses to factual data. Example - you said nothing about the senior Bush's comments about outing an agent. He was a former president and former head of the CIA so I think he may have known a bit more than some 24 year old, buck toothed know it all methinks. Example - your vague comment about Hitler's invasion of Poland. You see, my coke bottled glassed know it all, I happened to have studied much of the Nurenburg War Crimes data from the various trials. I tossed my comments about the Poland thing to see the response. You didn't disappoint.. [g]
    So, unless there's something else you want to bring up, once more fly away. Assuming of course that those overweight teeth will allow you to get off the ground.. ha ha..
    ReplyDelete
  31. Part 1 - regarding bush crimes..

    On June 6, 2008, the bi-partisan US Senate Intelligence Committee released their final report on Bush's use of the intelligence available to him prior to his initial attack on Iraq. In 2002 it was commonly knowledge that any such an attack would kill thousands of innocent Iraqis and at least hundreds of US troops.

    The Committee came to exactly the same conclusion as the above mentioned authors. That every single claimed threat about the dangers Bush et al had said were posed by Iraq to the US was false: it had been manufactured, twisted, spun pro-war, and presented to the public by all the top Bush people as part of a gigantic phony pretext propaganda campaign designed to obtain fraudulent approval to attack Iraq.

    They emphatically said that "In making the case for war, the (Bush) administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent."

    They further said that all contrary true facts were deliberately ignored, ridiculed, classified, or denied by Bush. In other words, everything Bush told us about why we needed to attack Iraq was a deliberate orchestrated lie (first told over a year in advance of the attack), just as most Americans already suspected. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatlowski, a neutral insider in the Bush/Cheney/Pentagon pro-war propaganda campaign, who said: that the propaganda story lines about threats from Iraq that both their secret Pentagon unit, Office of Special Plans (OSP), and the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) invented were the same story lines told to the American people by Bush and Cheney in the fall of 2002, and were all "...blatantly false and not based on any intelligence", and that "The Congress was misled, it was lied to".

    Now of course bucky beaver will still insist that this doesn't equate to a crime per se since rush limbaugh has stated that over and over and the right wing takes its cue from the drug addict.

    But I ask you, the unbiased reader (assuming there are some over here), if lying your way into a war causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and over 4000 Americans isn't a crime then what is? Jaywalking?
    ReplyDelete
  32. Part 2 - Supporting data to back up Part 1 regarding the definition of 'crimes'.

    On September 7, 2002, Bush personally came up with his own whopper of a blatant lie while at Camp David with Tony Blair. He breathlessly told the press there was a new urgent development, that the IAEA had just issued a report saying that Hussein was only 6 months away from developing a nuclear weapon. When contacted, the IAEA said they had neither stated nor written any such report, ever.

    By Legal Definition; when it is well known by a President of the US that there is no provocation for war and that many innocent people would die if the US were to initiate such an unprovoked war, a war of aggression, then:

    It is a war crime for a President and his staff to formally adopt an illegal war crime plan that specifically calls for an unprovoked war; a plan such as Clean Break. It is criminal fraud for a President to initiate and supervise the creation and communication of deliberate lies to convince Americans, Congress, and the UN that another country is an imminent threat to our security if that is knowingly untrue.

    It is the crime of conspiracy to commit murder if the success of that intentional criminal lying campaign would result in knowingly causing the death of innocent people; such as a President and his staff deliberately convincing America, Congress, and the UN to approve an illegal war based on lies about a non-existent threat of attack on the US.

    It is the crime of mass murder if a fraudulently obtained approval results in a Presidential order for an actual unprovoked attack on an innocent country; an attack that knowingly kills over 400,000 defenseless civilians, most of them women and children bombed in their homes, and causes the death of over 3,900 Americans.

    It is premeditation to commit mass murder if a President and his staff adopt an illegal war crime plan, such as Clean Break, and then intentionally carry it out, step by step: both its criminal fraud lying campaign over the following two years, and then its plan of actual unprovoked attack that deliberately caused vast destruction in an innocent country, and the horrible death of hundreds of thousands of its people.

    All of the above exact same crimes were committed by Hitler et al within Germany and Europe, in the same sequence as shown above, just prior to WWII. Then, as now, the citizens and parliament of his country did absolutely nothing to stop him, or to hold him accountable. Hitler's big lie was the Master Race. Bush's was that Hussein was going to get us. Both lies sold very well, and humanity suffered accordingly.
    source: bushcrimes.net

    Isn't it interesting that the writers draw the SAME conclusions that I did regarding Hitler's excuses for war and bush's?

    I have another 40+ sections dealing with bush crimes taken from over 20 different sources including the book that Mr. Moore refuses to read (Prosecution of bush for murder). But I will refrain in order to not clutter up this thread unless someone, other than the misguided youth, would like to read what I've taken 3 years to put together..

    r.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, you are in an intellectual contest with a nerd. I'm glad you realize that you're at a disadvantage.

    The senior Bush certainly would know more than a 24-year-old buck-toothed know-it-all. Since I'm not buck-toothed or a know-it-all, however, I don't see how your statement means anything. Nice try, though.

    Of course I didn't disappoint. You were going to reply this way no matter how correct I was. But since you apparently don't know why Hitler attacked Poland and I do, I don't see why we're having this discussion; you're clearly out of your league.
    ReplyDelete
  34. You're sorta sad, Raoul... you rely on people not bothering to check up on your jabberwocky. Yes, a Senate committee said that. It might be useful to note, however, that the committee was staffed by 10 opponents of the administration (along with 4 other Republicans). Oh gee... a committee composed almost entirely of Bush's opponents claim that he lied! Isn't that incredible? I mean, no one could have possibly predicted that result, could they?

    But let's look at what Raoul left out.
    "The report on the prewar statements about Iraq found that on some key issues — most notably Iraq's purported nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — the public statements from Bush, Cheney and other senior officials were generally 'substantiated' by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies."
    Well, look at that. Raoul's magical committee says that the public statements about the WMDs were backed up by what the intelligence community knew at the time. Oops, guess you missed that little fact, oh ye self-declared genius.

    You also seem to forget that there was a large-scale minority report that pointed out the numerous statements of senators and Democrats supporting Bush's claims, some of these statements coming before Bush ever expressed any intention of dealing with Iraq. Oops again, eh Raoul?

    I'm still trying to figure out why you think you have any credibility whatsoever. Your historical understanding is laughably flawed, you can't seem to bother yourself with the most basic analysis of the statistics you quote, and you are so desperate that you're resorting to petty comments about my glasses and teeth. On the glasses, by the way, you demonstrate your ignorance with the term "coke bottle" since that term refers to extremely thick glass lenses, not the thin plastic ones that modern eyeglasses use. You can't even form insults without revealing your shortcomings.
    ReplyDelete
  35. Yeah, it's interesting that a group that already love the Hitler-Bush comparison finds a way to interpret the facts to support their beliefs. Is this really the best you can do? A evenescent claim of a Bush deception followed by a list of crimes that Bush committed in the absurd fantasy world of your fellow moonbats? The more you talk, Raoul, the more I think of the saying "better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)