Jump to content

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq


x86rev
 Share

25 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP)

released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq.

 

The opening paragraph is as follows:

 

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

 

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

 

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.

 

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the

mainstream media would report the story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

 

This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,

 

The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

 

Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy. Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied. As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

 

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.

 

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.

 

Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

 

However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.

 

Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

 

Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who

was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements.

 

It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase

yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.

 

Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by

himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong." Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.

 

Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration -- who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

 

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the

blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get.

 

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that, "Bush lied," we should tell them to, "Have the yellowcake and eat it too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really should get your facts straight and stop reading the right wing nut blogs. Soon you'll be singing They're coming to take me away ha ha ho ho he he, They're coming to take me away.

 

If you check into this, you’ll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and ;) was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam’s government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

 

I wondered if the right wing echo chamber would use this as “proof” that the WMD claims were true after all. I got even better than I hoped, as not only do they use it that way, but they reveal how dishonest they are by the way they have done this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really should get your facts straight and stop reading the right wing nut blogs.

I didnt realize that the Associated Press (AP) was a "right wing nut blog"

 

that the uranium a) was not weapons grade

Then why did the terrorist want it ?

 

was well known to the UN and IAEA and was being stored legally by Saddam’s government. It was legally in Iraq according to international law.

And who said it wasn't leagal.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, last I checked, Uranium wasn't a weapon...

I think the last time you checked was August 5, 1945.

 

But anyway, the whole "Bush lied, people died" thing is still going on for some reason. I think it's mostly because Bush handled it all so very badly. He made assessments based on the intelligence he had. Hussein had broken the terms of the cease-fire, so according to the agreements fire should have resumed long before. Everybody thought he was working on WMDs. Hussein seemed to go to a lot of effort to make everyone think he had them. The inspectors were not allowed to do what they were sent to do.

 

And so on and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the last time you checked was August 5, 1945.

 

He's right though, Uranium itself isn't much of a weapon (perhaps you could fashion an axe out of it). Not until it is enriched and made into a warhead is it dangerous.

 

I'm not saying this with any relevance to the article itself, just pointing out a fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who believes any of the FASCIST propaganda about Iraqi WMDs posted above, just watch this:

 

That video contains the following confrontation between Ray McGovern, a retired 27-year CIA veteran, and US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield:

 

RAY McGOVERN: And so, I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

 

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The President spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I’m not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

 

RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were?

 

DONALD RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were—

 

RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were, “near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and northeast, south and west of there.” Those were your words.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/5/retir..._mcgovern_takes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who believes any of the FASCIST propaganda about Iraqi WMDs posted above, just watch this:

 

That video contains the following confrontation between Ray McGovern, a retired 27-year CIA veteran, and US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield:

 

RAY McGOVERN: And so, I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

 

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The President spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I’m not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

 

RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were?

 

DONALD RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were—

 

RAY McGOVERN: You said you knew where they were, “near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and northeast, south and west of there.” Those were your words.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/5/retir..._mcgovern_takes

 

I can't believe so many people still claim that there were WMDs in Iraq ;)

 

Also, why do you always write in italics? I have to keep rotating my moniter 30˚ to the left to read your text :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody thought he was working on WMDs.

 

...

 

The inspectors were not allowed to do what they were sent to do.

 

These statements are ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

 

Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer holding the rank of Major in the U.S. Marine Corps, was warning Americans that they were being manipulated. From 1991 to 1998, he led the U.N. weapons inspection team in Iraq. He was the world's foremost expert on Saddam Hussein's weapons program. Ritter's team was able to determine the true status of the weapons program in Iraq, which was essentially inoperative and posed no immediate threat either to America or Iraq's neighbors. In his speech before a Los Angeles audience, Ritter gives his analysis of the real reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody thought he was working on WMDs.

 

Correction: the US Gov. thought he was.

Whether or not Hussein was trying to full the world, we can't be to sure about. What we can safely say is that the war was started over something that didn't exist.

 

I'll leave the conspiracy theorists to work out the rest :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying Saddam had WMDs. I am saying every government intelligence service in the world thought he at least must have been trying to have them. Here's what Scott Ritter himself said in August, 1998:

 

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons. program.

 

Now remember this is after the Iraqi government had been denying the weapons inspectors access to the sites they needed.

 

I am sort of a fan of Ritter, but I can't figure him out. To be honest, some of it is because he sounds so angry, and it's not just anger. There's something about him I don't trust, but I can't put my finger on it.

 

Anyway, one moment (like the quote above) he sounds genuinely concerned that Iraq's weapons program needs to be inspected and stopped. Iraqi disarmament must continue. Later, he sounds like Iraq wasn't really a threat. If it's not a threat, why stop it? If there are no weapons programs to inspect, why continue to inspect them? If the weapons inspections were so successful as to have eliminated the threat of WMDs, then why resign over the UN's (and the USA's) failure to hold Iraq to its obligations with regards to inspections? Wasn't Ritter the guy who said that as soon as Iraq got out from under the sanctions, they were going to resume WMD programs at full tilt? If that's true, then sanctions weren't really working after all, were they? Ritter's quote above talks about how they could have deliverable biological weapons within months. How many months went by without weapons inspections? Later, Ritter only seems to talk about how nuclear weapons would have been beyond him (which I think is true) but doesn't talk as much about the chemical and biological weapons.

 

Also, for the record, I never felt that the main justification for going into Iraq was to get the WMDs. We should have removed him from power the very day he violated the cease-fire. Have you read the text of the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html

 

Did Saddam NOT violate the terms of the cease-fire?

Did Saddam NOT pose a threat to security in the area?

Did Saddam NOT boot out the inspectors?

Did he NOT violate the UN's mandates regarding oppression of his citizens?

Did he NOT fire on our airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone?

Did he NOT aid terrorists?

 

Which of these facts are in dispute? WMDs is only a couple of items on a very long list.

The only one I can really see being in dispute is the assassination attempt. How well was it proven that the Iraqi government was behind this? I don't know.

 

 

 

Also: I know that Uranium in itself doesn't constitute a weapon. I was being snotty, and you were right to call me on it. I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP)

released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq.

 

The opening paragraph is as follows:

 

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

 

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

 

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that, "Bush lied," we should tell them to, "Have the yellowcake and eat it too."

 

Not really something new, just watch this:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

hope this help or despair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying every government intelligence service in the world thought he at least must have been trying to have them.

 

That is quiet a bit difference from US claim "that he have" and "trying to". And that was no secret that Iraq was on the lookout for weapons. Saddam Hussein even was offered to take part in AQ Khans attempt to sell his and Pakistans knowledge of 'the bomb', but denied it because he thought it was a setup.

 

Anyway, one moment (like the quote above) he sounds genuinely concerned that Iraq's weapons program needs to be inspected and stopped. Iraqi disarmament must continue. Later, he sounds like Iraq wasn't really a threat. If it's not a threat, why stop it?

 

This is rather obvious. What is not now, might become.

If you compare Iraq to other countries, you will see that all have their secrets. Most countries do have a military, and each with its own weapons programme. Another thing is that statements made by officials from a military will be biased, and dictated in part or full by others. There are many points that may be explained and make perfectly sense when you get the whole picture. There is also the political issue. A question is why differs Iraq from other countries?

 

Did Saddam NOT violate the terms of the cease-fire?

Did Saddam NOT pose a threat to security in the area?

Did Saddam NOT boot out the inspectors?

Did he NOT violate the UN's mandates regarding oppression of his citizens?

Did he NOT fire on our airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone?

Did he NOT aid terrorists?

 

It is not uncommon for states to be independent, and violate agreements with common world society. Have USA gone to war at those states? USA has its own share of that cake as well.

If you look at the mountain from the valley they look different than when you look at it from the top.

Anyway, the point I want to make is, did the action USA did solve any of the points. Or rather, what USA have done solved maybe 1/3rd of the problem, and put fire on 2/3rds. And the price to pay now is to try to put out the fire they created. None of those points have had any significant impact on world safety and security. You need to compare the price you pay, with what you get and with what you have. It is not possible to be the "world liberator", or "world salvator" with a final solution.

 

This is a big topic, and this is short, but the clichee "you have to put this in perspective" is very very valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why don't Bush + Cheney announce this to vindicate themselves? :P

That's a really good question. I don't know. Here are some ideas:

 

1. They are really bad at letting the public know what's going on.

 

2. They are totally evil and WMDs had nothing at all to do with this.

 

3. They figure it won't do any good. Would anyone on this thread feel any differently about Bush or Cheney either way?

 

4. The uranium had been slated for a legitimate Iraqi nuclear power plant and was shipped to Canada for use instead, now that Iraq has decided that they don't want nuclear power anymore. Or something like that.

 

5. You don't really care why they didn't announce this because, like me, you fall into #3.

 

Personally, though I fall in among those who would fit in #3, I'm banking on #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is quiet a bit difference from US claim "that he have" and "trying to". And that was no secret that Iraq was on the lookout for weapons. Saddam Hussein even was offered to take part in AQ Khans attempt to sell his and Pakistans knowledge of 'the bomb', but denied it because he thought it was a setup.

This is rather obvious. What is not now, might become.

If you compare Iraq to other countries, you will see that all have their secrets. Most countries do have a military, and each with its own weapons programme. Another thing is that statements made by officials from a military will be biased, and dictated in part or full by others. There are many points that may be explained and make perfectly sense when you get the whole picture. There is also the political issue. A question is why differs Iraq from other countries?

It is not uncommon for states to be independent, and violate agreements with common world society. Have USA gone to war at those states? USA has its own share of that cake as well.

If you look at the mountain from the valley they look different than when you look at it from the top.

Anyway, the point I want to make is, did the action USA did solve any of the points. Or rather, what USA have done solved maybe 1/3rd of the problem, and put fire on 2/3rds. And the price to pay now is to try to put out the fire they created. None of those points have had any significant impact on world safety and security. You need to compare the price you pay, with what you get and with what you have. It is not possible to be the "world liberator", or "world salvator" with a final solution.

 

This is a big topic, and this is short, but the clichee "you have to put this in perspective" is very very valid.

 

I think the big mistake was not resuming hostilities when Saddam broke conditions of the cease-fire. This is one of the main areas in which Iraq differs from other countries: we had already promised Iraq that we would resume firing if he didn't live up to his end of the bargain.

 

Although perhaps the REAL mistake was writing a cease-fire we did not intend to back-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

SORRY PAL, YOU'RE WRONG

 

Where did you find this "so-called AP story" ?? Just because it says AP in text does that mean it's ACTUALLY from The Associated Press? Why don't you check their archives - I did and there is nothing.

 

Also, if they actually did find this uranium they would have a parade down Pennsylvania Ave... cheering "we found WMDs!" You can be certain of that.

 

You're such a fool. Such a fool.

 

 

 

oh yeah, I found a story on the internet:

 

January 14, 2005 - Associated Press (AP)

John McCain was never a POW...

 

Must be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SORRY PAL, YOU'RE WRONG

Where did you find this "so-called AP story" ??

Maybe he found it here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

 

or here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07...192730685_x.htm

 

or here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/...in4235028.shtml

 

Surprisingly, when I googled the first paragraph of the OP, those were the first 3 hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The "Yellowcake" you're referring to there in the text, is nothing more than 70-90% triuranium octoxide and the rest of uranium dioxide and uranium trioxide. I mean, THIS IS NOT WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM! And if he was to build a WMD, he'll need a lot of uranium-235, and only 0,5-0,8% of mined uranium is actually uranium-235, while the rest is uranium-238, unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons. And a gas centrifuge to enrich that "yellowcake" is way too complex for a country with NO nuclear past experiences to build it. Also gaseous diffusion requires a WHOLE LOT MORE of power, and uranium hexaflouride, which you don't have in "yellowcakes". So, are you sure that they were really looking for WMDs? Or were they looking for something else? Give a tip: It's black. It's what gives the USA electrical power. So, what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest cavallo
On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP)

released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq.

 

The opening paragraph is as follows:

 

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

 

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

 

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.

 

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the

mainstream media would report the story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

 

This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,

 

The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

 

Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy. Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied. As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

 

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.

 

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.

 

Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

 

However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.

 

Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

 

Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who

was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements.

 

It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase

yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.

 

Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by

himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong." Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.

 

Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration -- who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

 

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the

blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get.

 

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that, "Bush lied," we should tell them to, "Have the yellowcake and eat it too."

 

Nobody can decide anybody destiny, specially after selling everything for lot years, in fact for everybody, u.s included there is a price to pay when creating wars away from its home to sell everybody any sort of weapon,

the one are going to the next 30/50 years the game is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...