Did the Bush Administration Misuse Uranium Claims?

[Anttech]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4402594.stm

Bush was told it was a fake story but ran with it anyway...

Uranium probe

The CIA sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the Iraq-Niger link and he reported that no such attempt to buy uranium was likely to have taken place.

However, the allegation was used by Mr Bush in his state of the union address before the war in 2003.

 

[Psi 5]

Bush wanted to start a war to insure his re-election. That is the only reason for the war. His monomania since he and his republican cronies first stole the white house was to not be a one term president like his father. He thought that his best bet was to be at war during the election and he was unfortunately right. The war was a forgone conclusion, he just looked for any justification he could. As it turns out, every single justification he used has turned out to be false. His bad luck. History will judge him as the worst president this country ever had. It will eventually single him out as one of the forefathers of this country's downfall. He has single handedly caused more terrorism than 100 Bin Ladens. Osama probably faces Washington and prays every day to thank him for all the new recruits. Like the fall of the Roman Empire, most of us can't see the fall coming here either or why idiots like Bush and the republican party are helping it happen.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

He has single handedly caused more terrorism than 100 Bin Ladens.

What? Single-handedly? I don't think so. Cheney and Rumsfeld helped too you know.

 

[Pengwuino]

And guess who was paying the informant off?

The French

Funny how the BBC ignored that...

Looks like it was war for oil, French oil, French corruption, left-wing corruption... as usual.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wniger19.xml

Geez, you people just pick and choose don't you?

 

[Anttech]

France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.

Another exageration?

The point of my post is that Bush KNEW it was a fake dossier, but still used it to enhance his lies.. You can watch the report on Newsnight if you like:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

 

[Pengwuino]

The point of my post is that Bush KNEW it was a fake dossier, but still used it to enhance his lies.. You can watch the report on Newsnight if you like:

The International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts over some of the documents' authenticity, however, and declared them false in March 2003.

Hmm... so he knew before the IAEA confirmed it? And oddly enough... why have you not mentioned the investigations that confirmed the fact that Bush had no intentions of lieing? Confirmation bias as usual...

 

[MaxS]

LOL yeah bush had no intention of lying...

There were no wmd's...

Iraq was NOT connected to bin ladin... (at least not before the invasion)

There was NO "yellow cake"...

Rove DID out plame...

How many lies do you need?

Why do you gloss over the fact that we put hussein in power in the first place?

Why do you gloss over the fact that we trained and armed osama bin ladin?

Why do you ignore the U.S. secret prisons?

Why do you ignore the fact that torture is a sanctioned policy of this administration?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that this administration is blatantly eroding your civil liberties?

Why?

 

[Pengwuino]

*claps*

More lies and sensationalization from the left.

 

[MaxS]

*claps*

More lies and sensationalization from the left.

This has nothing to do with being on the left, it has everything to do with taking the stuffing out of your ears and the coins off your eyes long enough to stop being an animated corpse and start being a critical thinker.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah maybe you should start being a critical thinker. Let's see now...

UN reported 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, over a ton of uranium... but the conclusion is there were no wmd's and Bush lied. Critical thinking?

Saddam Hussein admitted for years of supporting Al Qaeda... yet no connection? Critical thinking?

no nuclear material... well good thing the guy who faked the documents wasn't being payed off by the French Government to lie... Critical thinking?

Rove is guilty without even being indicted? Critical thinking?

No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture... Critical thinking?

Blatently eroding civil liberties with 0 facts behind it... critical thinking? (oh of course, you decide to critically think about what some blog tells you to think about).

What else do you have? Pathetic... why don't you open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.

 

[MaxS]

Yah maybe you should start being a critical thinker. Let's see now...

UN reported 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, over a ton of uranium... but the conclusion is there were no wmd's and Bush lied. Critical thinking?

Saddam Hussein admitted for years of supporting Al Qaeda... yet no connection? Critical thinking?

no nuclear material... well good thing the guy who faked the documents wasn't being payed off by the French Government to lie... Critical thinking?

Rove is guilty without even being indicted? Critical thinking?

No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture... Critical thinking?

Blatently eroding civil liberties with 0 facts behind it... critical thinking? (oh of course, you decide to critically think about what some blog tells you to think about).

What else do you have? Pathetic... why don't you open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.

Whats pathetic is that you would defend crooks so ardently and blindly..

No evidence of US torture?? No erosion of civil liberties?? FFS... that is true ignorance on display.

There was no UN intelligence you moron, the US gave an intelligence report to the UN. Read the reports from the weapons inspectors (which is what I assume you are referring to? Unless you truly are ignorant enough to believe that the US went to war on a UN intel report..) and you will see that Iraq had no WMD's.. this was known well before the war.

Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11, Al Qaida did. So why did we TAKE OVER Iraq?

And though Rove has not been indicted, there is MORE than enough evidence out in the public realm to convict him.

And ONCE AGAIN DOES IT NOT BOTHER YOU THAT THE UNITED STATES ARMED AND EMPOWERED BIN LADIN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

[Skyhunter]

And guess who was paying the informant off?

The French

Funny how the BBC ignored that...

He was quoted as saying the dossier had been passed to the US "via a journalist for the Panorama weekly, who left it at the US embassy in Rome, and it was delivered to the French intelligence services by Rocco Martino".

Ignored?

Or just didn't emphasize it enough for you?

Looks like it was war for oil, French oil, French corruption, left-wing corruption... as usual.

Geez, you people just pick and choose don't you?

What a fine example of critical thinking.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yah maybe you should start being a critical thinker. Let's see now...

UN reported 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, over a ton of uranium... but the conclusion is there were no wmd's and Bush lied. Critical thinking?

Source please..

Saddam Hussein admitted for years of supporting Al Qaeda... yet no connection? Critical thinking?

Where in the world did you read that? Please share your source.

no nuclear material... well good thing the guy who faked the documents wasn't being payed off by the French Government to lie... Critical thinking?

What is that supposed to mean?

Rove is guilty without even being indicted? Critical thinking?

First I have heard of it.

Could you provide a source please?

No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture... Critical thinking?

Practicing or sanctioning?

Blatently eroding civil liberties with 0 facts behind it... critical thinking? (oh of course, you decide to critically think about what some blog tells you to think about).

As opposed to the ones that tell you what to think.

What else do you have? Pathetic... why don't you open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears.

You should provide a much better argument before you offer advice.

 

[edward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4402594.stm
Bush was told it was a fake story but ran with it anyway...

And it appears that only One Italian was involved. According to the FBI the man did it for monetary gain. hmmm I wonder who would want to pay someone for fake documents on Iraq, Niger and yellow cake.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/03/news/italy.php

 

[Pengwuino]

Source please..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm

The uranium that never existed was taken away without IAEA approval it seems.

Where in the world did you read that? Please share your source.

Guess all those payments went under the radar eh?

What is that supposed to mean?

Well since your claim is that Bush intentionally lied, how do you explain that the French Governemnt was paying off the guy who forged the documents?

First I have heard of it.
Could you provide a source please?

Actually you need to provide the source as to how Rove is already guilty without even being indicted for a trial.

Practicing or sanctioning?

As per my response target, sanctioning

As opposed to the ones that tell you what to think.

Come on, let's see some evidence, you know you want to. Just a little evidence that isn't someones opinion (preferably actual legislation text) would do just fine! I'll give you a cookie too.

 

[Pengwuino]

And it appears that only One Italian was involved. According to the FBI the man did it for monetary gain. hmmm I wonder who would want to pay someone for fake documents on Iraq, Niger and yellow cake.

Well since it is well known the guy was an informant for the French Government...

Oh wait that already answers your question.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm
The uranium that never existed was taken away without IAEA approval it seems.

Did you read your source or just hope that no one else would.

In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium — which could be used to make nuclear weapons — was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said.

After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said.

So were radioactive items used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes, which Iraq was allowed to keep under a 1991 U.N. Security Council resolution, Zlauvinen said.

So where is the Niger connection?

[Guess all those payments went under the radar eh?

What payments are you talking about?

[Well since your claim is that Bush intentionally lied, how do you explain that the French Governemnt was paying off the guy who forged the documents?

Because the administration knew the claim was suspect, the CIA refused to vett the claim so Bushco used the British as their source since the British had received the copies of the same portfolio. Our own CIA and FBI said it was a bogus claim. The NRC said that the aluminum tubes could not be used for enriching uranium, yet Bushco ignored that inconvenient fact as well.

He knew his statements were false when he made them. That, IMHO is lying.

[Actually you need to provide the source as to how Rove is already guilty without even being indicted for a trial.

I didn't make the claim you did. Or attributed it to some unknown straw-man.

[As per my response target, sanctioning

Oh never mind the International Red cross is just some crack-pot liberal organization that wouldn't know torture if it was being done to them.

[Come on, let's see some evidence, you know you want to. Just a little evidence that isn't someones opinion (preferably actual legislation text) would do just fine! I'll give you a cookie too.

Vegan cookie?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf

http://www.nyuhr.org/docs/TortureByProxy.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53883-2005Jan6_4.html

I am sure you will disregard this and any other evidence I could provide so I won't waste any more time.

Can you say "denial?"

 

[Pengwuino]

So where is the Niger connection?

Faked documents by the French government, there is none, haven't you noticed?

What payments are you talking about?

Are you serious Someone so "informed" as you must have known about the years of reports of Saddam paying off terrorist organizations members, especially those working in Isreal

Because the administration knew the claim was suspect, the CIA refused to vett the claim so Bushco used the British as their source since the British had received the copies of the same portfolio. Our own CIA and FBI said it was a bogus claim. The NRC said that the aluminum tubes could not be used for enriching uranium, yet Bushco ignored that inconvenient fact as well.He knew his statements were false when he made them. That, IMHO is lying.

Incorrect, they were in question and US legal precedent makes it very obvious how rational, civilized societies deal with "lies". They must be proven to have been konwn to be wrong at the time. Since this is not what you feel is justice, then this argument aspect will probably just end here.

I didn't make the claim you did. Or attributed it to some unknown straw-man.

Well since you responded to my response to MaxS, I assumed you would have realized the original response was not towards you. Please, review your accusations.

Oh never mind the International Red cross is just some crack-pot liberal organization that wouldn't know torture if it was being done to them.
Can you say "denial?"

You must be in denail if torturing non-citizens is your only evidence of civil liberties being eroded. How bout you stay on subject this time?

Oh how fun it must be to be so obvlivious rational thought.. right sky?

 

[Skyhunter]

So what you are saying Pengwino is that the French tricked George into invading Iraq?

That won't look good for his macho image...LOL G'dubb being played for a fool by the wimpy effete French.

 

[Smurf]

And guess who was paying the informant off?

The French

Funny how the BBC ignored that...

Looks like it was war for oil, French oil, French corruption, left-wing corruption... as usual.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wniger19.xml

Geez, you people just pick and choose don't you?

I'm confused. French *help* give bush an excuse to go to war, and you link that to oil for food?

 

[edward]

Well since it is well known the guy was an informant for the French Government...
Oh wait that already answers your question.

Not quite.. Why would the french want false information? They were against the war. Documents indicating that there was an Iraq Niger involvement would be counter to their opposition to the war.

If I remember correctly, it was England who "outed" Italian documents even though they were told by Italy that the documents were forged.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not quite.. Why would the french want false information? They were against the war. Documents indicating that there was an Iraq Niger involvement would be counter to their opposition to the war.
If I remember correctly, it was England who "outed" Italian documents even though they were told by Italy that the documents were forged.

It is a waste of time arguing with him, he will just bring up some other disparate point or unrelated article and claim that it proves his unarticulated point.

 

[Skyhunter]

OK let's try this again.

UN reported 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, over a ton of uranium.

Link please. Where is the support for this claim.

Saddam Hussein admitted for years of supporting Al Qaeda.

Again could you provide a quote from SH admitting support for Al Qaeda?

Rove is guilty without even being indicted? Critical thinking?

It is your claim, no one else said he was guilty you did.

He admitted he gave Valerie Wilsons name to Bob Novak, so what is there to prove?

No evidence of the US government sanctioning torture.

Just one of many stories. I don't have time right now but there is plenty of evidence if one was willing to open their mind enough to allow information in.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/09/iraq/main660239.shtml

And if the administration is not sanctioning torture, why do they want an exemption for the CIA?