# I thought Bush Lied about WMDs



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This is a pretty interesting story from AP

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... ssion.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... ssion.html

Last updated July 6, 2008 1:45 a.m. PT

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq
By BRIAN MURPHY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

In a Monday June 9, 2003 file photo, UN inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) work at the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq, 50 kms east of Baghdad. The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday, July 5, 2008, to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. (AP Photo/Saurabh Das, file) 
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.

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. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., 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.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives - kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.

Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site - surrounded by huge sand berms - following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.

Yellowcake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like color and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.

"The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

Moving the yellowcake faced numerous hurdles.

Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and within easy range of extremist factions, including some that Washington claims are aided by Iran. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.

Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.

An alternative plan took shape: shipping out the yellowcake on cargo planes.

But the yellowcake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that. The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said.

At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers - some leaking or weakened by corrosion - and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels.

In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.

On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation.

The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.

Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.

The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.

Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.

But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years."

The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.

A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would guess there is a lot of classified information that Bush could not speak about. He had to bite his tongue while armchair CIA agents kept repeating Bush lied, people died. It makes you wonder if Libby went to prison for crimes or for his country. He may not have been able to defend himself without giving away secrets. It aggravates me that men suffer insult because small closed minds can not come to logical conclusions, or worse, do not care as long as they win.
Politics aside, there is one thing I am certain of, and that is that the future will reveal many things that we had no idea about. It's better to be realistic now than partisan with egg on your face in the future. I value my credability.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Ya that stuff was what Saddam had before Israel bombed their Nuke Facilities in 1981. It had been laying around unprocessed all this time. Yellow cake is not weapons grade - though after processing it can be made into something more potent. A Canadian company purchased it and it is going to be used to fuel reactors.

One of the reasons given to support the most recent Iraq Overseas Adventure was that Saddam was trying to buy MORE Yellow Cake from Nigeria. Not to mention the scary _Aluminum Tubes O' Death._.

Of course this lead us to the later out'ed CIA staffers who disagreed with the Administrations opinion on the validity of the Nigerian intelligence.

Everyone was well aware that Iraq had existing stockpiles of Yellow Cake - since before 1981 as a matter of fact. They just didn't have the means to process it into something better.

So no stockpiles of WMD's. In fact this stuff would not have even made a decent dirty bomb.

My guess is Bush was biting his tongue to avoid being impeached - rather than protect the public.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Oh and to answer your question.

You are correct in your original assumption/opinion/position.

Bush did lie about the WMD's.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cbas said:


> Oh and to answer your question.
> 
> You are correct in your original assumption/opinion/position.
> 
> Bush did lie about the WMD's.


To lie you must have prior knowledge that what you are saying is incorrect. Even most liberals will admit that the intelligence of all nations thought there was WMD's in Iraq. Don't try the old snow job on us cbas.

Also:


> a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast.





> The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.





> Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex.


My point was we still don't know everything about this. That includes you cbas, your far to quick to get on the hate Bush bandwagon knowing little or nothing just like the rest of us. The other point was the future may clear some of this up. As far as Bush lied, that's just hate rhetoric, you nor I know anything for certain.

As you may notice I fully admit I don't know, but what I do condemn is the foolish who think they do. I apologize for being grumpy, but listening to such foolishness so many times is tiring.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I apologize for being grumpy


You're not being grumpy. You're just being sensible. Something cbas and a few others could well learn from. Guess you do know that talking to the Bush haters is like pissing in the wind.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cbas do you think we are meddling in another countries affairs when we try influence elections and promote freedom?


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Actually I am not on the hate Bush band wagon. I am on the school of critical thought band wagon. I don't hate Bush - the guy is the President of the United States of America. His Administration is representative of the people of the United States. I may not agree with him but I certainly don't hate him.

As for Bush lying. Well we have two things to work with here.

1) The Administration - Bush and his staffers and millions of dollars worth of analysts are just plain stupid. Completely inept. The most powerful country in the world. Probably the best - if not one of the best intelligence gathering networks in the world "made an oooppss" that has cost the country trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

This I do not believe for a minute.

OR

2) The Administration feed the public a bunch of reasons for going into Iraq the second time because they did not think the American public would have supported them had they told them the "why's" to begin with. Something they had been wanting to do even before 9/11.

Why? Who knows. Allan Greenspan claims it was about oil. Others say its about exporting Democracy to help stabilize the region. Me I have my own theories.

My problem? Is not the invasion of Iraq - oh no.

If the American people, represented by their Government want to meddle in the affairs of another country well that's their business. I have enough confidence in Americans to think they are doing it for the right reasons based on the information presented to them through a transparent and accountable Government.

My problem is with the lack of transparency in the political process. The lack of accountability in the face of crisis that may be influencing the American people into supporting something they would not have normally supported.

The Administration knew the chances of Saddam have something to do with 9/11 were about as likely as Paris Hilton becoming a Nun. Saddam and Al Queda were like oil and water. Saddam knew the US was looking for a reason to come in - why would he make it easier for them?

They also knew their intelligence on Saddam's WMD's was "less certain less well founded than was stated at the time". Apparently Blair knew Saddam didn't have WMD's two weeks before going into Iraq. If he knew why wouldn't Bush have known?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1005-01.htm

As for politicians of all stripes thinking there were WMD's in Iraq well why wouldn't they? Their intelligence reports say they are there. Their President is saying they are there. They must be there.

So don't say I hate Bush. I don't. What I hate is the undermining of the political process of a country I happen to think does many great things in the world - and the obfuscation of the truth from its public. Just as I hate the disregard of the Rule of Law and the Constitution (mine or yours).

Go into Iraq? Be my guest. If a transparent and accountable Government has the support of the people in its decision then what stronger force of will is there? What or who can oppose such a thing?

Do it based on half truths and lies, and yes letting people believe something you know is not true so you can "sell" something is still a lie, is not something I can agree with.

Hope that makes sense .


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> cbas said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and to answer your question.
> ...


Actually you are incorrect in that statement. Countries including my own did not think the intelligence was strong enough to support the claim that Sadaam had WMD's

Also:


> a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast.





> The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.





> Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex.


My point was we still don't know everything about this. That includes you cbas, your far to quick to get on the hate Bush bandwagon knowing little or nothing just like the rest of us. The other point was the future may clear some of this up. As far as Bush lied, that's just hate rhetoric, you nor I know anything for certain.



> As you may notice I fully admit I don't know, but what I do condemn is the foolish who think they do. I apologize for being grumpy, but listening to such foolishness so many times is tiring.


This is EXACTLY why a government would come out and tell you how it is/was - if there were in fact WMD's. Or who knows what. This would redeem the Administration and most likely give a nice boost to the Republicans in the next election. It's not foolishness... Its politics (that's an oxymoron if there ever was one ).


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

wiki is usally pretty unbaiased anyone reading this would have to be pretty unreasonable to believe the NO WMDS idea and with a potential nuclear strike you cannot be reactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction

Virtually all the govts of Europe agreed with the assessment that Saddam had a secret nuke program. However knowing what a great guy Saddam was I'm certain Saddam had all this stuff for legitamate purpose just like Iran does now.

Oh and Canadas such a sieve of terrorists they almost gave us this POS

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/natio ... FnSHVFD29A

which the liberal US federal judge then gave a lesser sentence and made political statements about the terroists handling by the government

then Canada instead of just giving us the bastards accomplice they sent him back to algeria where hes probably plotting more mayhem

do a google search for islamic terrorism and Canada and you will understand why we require passports to enter the us from Canada these days :******:

Between libs in America and libs in Canada we will get hit again


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The one thing seldom talked about but documented as fact by Germany,France and Spain and other countries as well was Saddam's effort to make people namely Iran think he had them. He thought if they think I have them, then nobody will mess with me since I have used them before.

So cbas there is the problem with your view. It is incomplete of important information which is why our intelligence agency was duped and because we had shifted from on the ground base Intel gathering to using satellite images and then having experts interpret what those photos meant!

One of the people I hung out with last weekend was in the front advancing unit going into Baghdad. He told everyone that from the Command operations headquarters to the commanders on the ground where expecting to get lit up. In areas where there was no reason or Intel of WMD's troop prep and shielding was not used, but on that advance it was because of what they where told to expect. Things like that are purposely overlooked or under reported to advance the idea of Bush lied.

Others attempt to kick dirt over this info in order to protect their butts because they are career people and such things tend to slow or stop advancement and believe it or not can get you fired.

His troop was also part of the group that destroyed the Boeing Jet outside of Baghdad where the training films found in Afghanistan camps was made. Plane ID numbers and such matched.

The British and Spanish papers did a lot of coverage of that in 03 but only Fox news reported it, and did little in regards to follow up. It was deemed inconclusive by the 9/11 commission but not dismissed as a link.

So cbas, most of your opinions are formed from incomplete information. Do a bit more search beyond MOVEON.org for facts. Looking at foreign papers printed in English is a good start.


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

european pacifists in the 1930's are not different than liberal americans of today.

"let's wait until there are bombs raining down on us before we do anything other that a slap on the wrist"

bunch weeners.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Actually you are incorrect in that statement. Countries including my own did not think the intelligence was strong enough to support the claim that Sadaam had WMD's


Wrong cbas. The world had great sympathy after 9/11 and even Russia attempted to help us with intelligence. They also reported that Iraq was building or already possessed WMD. Keep in mind a WMD doesn't have to be nuclear. After all Sadam killed what 50,000 Kurds with nerve gas.

cbas, there is one thing your forgetting. We have more people than just the president who gets identical information. Both democrats and republicans sit on the security committee. Even the great Al Gore and John Kerry were up flapping their gums. This was as much their choice as Bush.

With all the information available on the Internet and news who are people trying to kid when they blame this all on Bush. Get real. Don't tell me it isn't blind hate, it's an insult to intelligence to try poke a load of bs down our throat.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Thanks Ron I shall do more reading on the subject.

As for you Plainsman I am not sure why you think people who disagree actually "hate" you. Perhaps it is your own intolerance for differing opinion that makes you feel that way.

Bob based on the facts your's doesn't even warrant a comment.

Anyhow some very good points made. You have give me some things to think about and read up on.

I appreciate it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As for you Plainsman I am not sure why you think people who disagree actually "hate" you.


I don't think you hate me, and that isn't what I said. I'm embarrassed you would believe that. I said:


> Don't tell me it isn't blind hate, it's an insult to intelligence to try poke a load of bs down our throat.


I think people ignore the facts because of blind hate. Hate for Bush not me, I don't take things that personal. When you want me to believe things like no one else thought that there were WMD's that insults intelligent people. It simply isn't true, and there is a mass of evidence that says that isn't true. Like Bob said stop getting all your information from moveon.org. I thought everyone now knew that Russia, France, Germany, all had the same intelligence that we did.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

agree, it's damn funny the Europeans didn't disagree on the WMD thoughts.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Well I'm just glad to be able to have this discussion and hope I haven't offended anyone too terribly much. Personally I think one of the greatest aspects of living in a free society is the ability to discourse.

I have been reading on the links between Saddam and Al'Quada. While I can see how some dots may be connected I just don't see any "smoking gun".

As for the Wiki WMD things I just don't see the big threat. Wanting them and actually having them are two different things in my opinion.

Also I have no idea what MOVE.org is. Never been there.

Most of our media up here is pretty biased against the US so I really don't need to look too far for one sided news stories.

For instance we have two main papers with two very different slants.

The Globe and Mail - which is the "academic" paper. Is carrying a story about a Canadian terror suspect on trial for planning to kill the PM. Reading this story it made me think this guy was a regular Joe.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

The National Post - more of a "business" sided paper. Carrying same story but with what I believe to be more information on the suspect and his views.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=638541

Anyhoooo...

So if everyone thought that Saddam had the weapons, which no one has actually found even though he may have had them at one time or even though he wanted to make them had he the capacity.

So it was just a big "oops" after all eh?

Of course not.

I think it was about stopping the probable creation of a fundamental Islamic state in the ME post Saddam - a potentially big and powerful one at that. Something that would have certainly taken root once Saddam's people finally killed him off creating a vacuum that Iran would have been more than happy to help fill.

Of course publicly telling people that it was a "Crusade" would not have sold too well. Anywhere really.

Thats my theory anyways.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Cbas, I dont blame you for not wanting to comment.



> Bob based on the facts your's doesn't even warrant a comment.


It is hard to argue with facts

The biggest thing everyone misses is that Iraq is just one more battle and the fact that Saddam may have played no part in 9-11 is immaterial. This is a global war that the Jihadists have been wageing since Jimmy Carter was in office 9-11 was just one more battel from the Jihadist point of view. 9-11 just finally hit us within our borders so finally we had to act, no way would Bush or any other president of done anything if that would of been in Europe for instance.

So sad as the circumstances were of loss of life maybe in the terms of history it was a good thing we finally started to deal with the issue headon.

Now we have to continue the fight and deal with the Jihadists in Pakistan and Iran, McCain might do that Obama doesn't have the experience or guts.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well I'm just glad to be able to have this discussion and hope I haven't offended anyone too terribly much.


No offense cbas, and by the way an "insult to intelligence" is simply a cliche I use. For example when I get up in the morning and someone tells me that big shiny orb coming over the horizon to the east is the moon it is "an insults to intelligence".


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> As for the Wiki WMD things I just don't see the big threat. Wanting them and actually having them are two different things in my opinion.


That may be true but those that have them now, first wanted them. When those that want them and are on the verge of getting them, and have threatened to use them on their neighbors, then that is a big threat to me. That is the problem we face with Iran today. That was a threat we faced with Saddam back then as everyone, most everyone, thought he was trying to acquire them or was on the verge of acquiring them.



> I think it was about stopping the probable creation of a fundamental Islamic state in the ME post Saddam - a potentially big and powerful one at that. Something that would have certainly taken root once Saddam's people finally killed him off creating a vacuum that Iran would have been more than happy to help fill.


I agree with that. A lot of people around here has said the same thing. I think sometime in the future historians will say there was once a President that had the same vision and took the first step to intercept a movement with world domination in it's sights. Even though it divided a nation and created unbelievable hate towards himself.



> Bob based on the facts your's doesn't even warrant a comment.


Did you really think you could slap your neighbor and not expect him to slap you back? You sound more intelligent than that.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

*alright.. I'm deleting this*

Actually after reading a few things over I am deleting... man am I ever freaking sensitive about the terror sieve comment.

Anyhow I disagree with you Bob on the Canada is a sieve for terrorists "facts". Based on the facts Canada is the least of your worries when it comes to being a source of terrorists but I am not going to argue with you about it.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

alright. Ay, what's this all a-boot? Ay? This is not a-boot diplomacy! This is a-boot dignity! This is a-boot respect! This is a-boot realizing.....(to quote another great news source South Park) (I truly apologize for this)


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Yes, you are being sensitive and I think you're not thinking straight here. You see the definition of a sieve is "separates wanted/desired elements from unwanted material". So if Canada is a sieve for terrorists then it means Canada is keeping them out of the US. Now that may not be what Bob meant to say but he chose the wrong word. Sometimes people simply shoot themselves in the foot. In this case I think both of you did just that.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

So anyhow 

Back to discussing the OP's original question...

To quote GW:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 60821.html

_
Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. (added by me... not unlike any other country with an industrial/agriculture sector)_

If Blair didn't think Saddam have the WMD's two weeks before going into Iraq. If memory servers me correctly he felt these claims were exaggerated, and the UK was operating based on the same information as the USA - if what has been written here by others is to be taken as correct. Still keeping in mind that both PM Blair and President Bush were speaking together on a regular basis up to this point.

Was the Bush Administration and by that I mean the Executive Branch of the United States Government:

1) Lying about the existence of WMD's to get support for something they did not think the people of the United States would have supported had they not lied - well if the word "lie" makes anyone uncomfortable lets call it "conveniently ignored information or the lack thereof" rather than be up front with the reasons for going in.

OR

2) Its was all a big "opps". Incompetent etc..

3) Or maybe Gnomes ferried them away through a massive tunnel complex still waiting to be discovered.

Or maybe there is something I am missing here?

Now keep in mind I am not arguing against the Iraq war, nor am I saying that Saddam wasn't a threat in some capacity.

My point is there is a lot there, in my opinion that leads me to believe that Bush or others around him knew that the evidence of Saddam having WMD's was pretty thin and exaggerated. Rather than be honest and upfront they spoke a miss truth about it.

This is by definition is a lie.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Where did you get the information that Blaire knew Sadam had no WMD's? To my knowledge the intelligence of all nations involved thought he had WMD's right up to and far into the invasion. Our soldiers were prepared for radio active conditions. This sounds a lot like England knew the Japanese were going to hit Pearl Harbor and told President Roosevelt, but he had made such a shambles of the economy that he welcomed war as a means to pick up the economy. 
We still don't know for certain about Roosevelt, but we think we know about Bush? You have to want it to be true to believe it, or you have to want it to be false to totally dismiss it. There is no evidence to support beyond a shadow of a doubt either conclusion. In that light it makes the argument worthless. That's why I get so tired of hearing "Bush lied". There is only one explanation for the comment and that's political agenda. 
If there was even a fragment of information to support the theory that Bush lied the democrats that hate him with unreasonable passion would be all over it. The impeachment would already be over.


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 166479.ece

Well I am going on the words of Robin Cook exForeign Secretary that Blair was aware of the assessments that Saddam did not present a clear threat to the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... &offset=12

I was mistaken in saying that Blair himself was quoted as saying such. Memory did not serve me correctly.

Link is above. It does give some interesting clues into what the advisor's close to the PM were thinking at the time. Again based on the information they all had access to.

Also more on the UK's intelligence assessments and Blair's feelings on the issue.

http://news.scotsman.com/wariniraq/Brit ... 2500388.jp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3908369.stm

I think he (Blair) really wanted the WMD's to be there. I think he really really wanted to kick Saddam's a$$. Everyone was banking on him having the WMD's thus supporting their reason for going in. Now was Blair incompetent, a bad gambler or lying?

It would seem that not everyone in his cabinet shared his belief in Saddam's WMD capacity. Ignoring his own intelligence reports. Hmmm.

Now again I don't have a problem with going in. For me it is the "conveniently ignoring certain information to get support for a decision that your people may not normally supported" that I have a problem with. Even when your own advisor's say otherwise.

Did Blair know? Or was it a great big oopps? Likewise if the UK joint intelligence committee doubted the assessments of Saddam's capability why would the CIA have not come to the same conclusion? Or did they and not tell everyone else?

Questions... questions.. questions.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I love all this after the fact comments and books. I really have a hard time giving it any credibility. Everyone seems to be the one that knew it wasn't so after the fact. Too many are trying to give themselves a political boost with some of the claims being made. Come on now give me a break.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well I am going on the words of Robin Cook exForeign Secretary that Blair was aware of the assessments that Saddam did not present a clear threat to the UK.


That doesn't tell me if he thought they were a threat to the United States.

Also, up until this invasion everyone, including liberals, considered nerve gas a WMD. Now conveniently many say it only includes nuclear material. The dumbest thing Bush did was telegraph his punch. What I mean is Saddam had weeks of warning where he could be darn certain we were coming. We didn't check ships leaving the gulf, or trucks headed for Syria. I think one of Saddam's neighbors has more concentrated uranium and possibly centrifuges. I don't know how much Saddam had, but I would bet he had more than what we have found. Did Iran get everything from Korea and Pakistan, or in his last moments did Saddam ship nuclear material to his Islamic brothers?

Like you said questions, questions, questions. My big question is: is the reason for going into Iraq important now? I don't think so, the important thing is that this war ends in a productive manner. Sometimes we spend so much time on details that we miss the big picture. Especially details that are now history.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

With all due respect you are reading something that just is not there. Here is text from your own link, which I will add is between 4 & 5 years old and during a period the antiwar crowd was trying to oust Blair. Doesn't have much credibility but read on...


> Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction *ready for firing within 45 minutes*, the claim the prime minister had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.
> 
> Cook writes: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction *in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities.* But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?'
> 
> "The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction *that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances.* I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.


There are no claims here that WMD's did not exist. Only that Saddam did not have the delivery capability to threaten London. I would add that everyone seems to be forgetting that it was never claimed that Saddam already had a nuclear bomb. Only that he was attempting to procure one and that he already had WMD's, aka chemical and biological weapons which the whole world knew he had used before.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

cbas Canada isn't a source for terrorists ( not in the sense of the friendly Candians we have all grown up with) but it is a pathway for them due to Canadas liberal immigration policies in combination with the porous nature of the US Canadian border that part is our fault as much as yours.

The possibility of a terrorist entering the US thru Canada is hardly "the least of our worries" as you assert.

Your comment about how your government didn't agree with the intell is what set me off , your government has plenty of its own failures in the area of allowing terroists into first your and ultimately both of our countries.

sieve wasn't the best choice of words I guess CWOPARSON was correct, Canada certainly isnt a reliable screen to keep them awy from our border.

I should not let this crap bother me, we wont get serious about the terrorist issue until some city in the US is destroyed.

Unfortunately Canada is probably the most likely easiest point of entry because Americans and Canadians have had along friendly history, we cannot bring ourselves to really believe the reality.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob both the US Border Agents and Canada agents are more worried about a weed seed than if you are a threat or not! The borders along ND and MT are easy points of entry for a person who wants in either way.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Bob both the US Border Agents and Canada agents are more worried about a weed seed than if you are a threat or not! The borders along ND and MT are easy points of entry for a person who wants in either way.


Well Ron I agree with that statement and its one more reason I feel that our drug policies are ridiculous. The money we saved would or atleast could instead be used to fight something that really will hurt us all.

But thats not the topic of this thread so....


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

Bob I what you're saying but I don't think Canada is really going to take things seriously until we have several truck bombs going off in Ottawa or Toronto.

Its the unfortunate reality up here.

Same goes for most of Europe.

As for Saddam having the bomb his capacity to threaten the national security of the United States was questionable. If he couldn't hit London then he certainly couldn't hit the US.

Anyhow it has happened and I too hope it resolves itself in a productive manner regardless of how it started.

I do think the details are important because it is from those details that we learn more about ourselves and what we are capable of as a society and why.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I don't think Canada is really going to take things seriously until we have several truck bombs going off in Ottawa or Toronto.


Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Despite 9/11 it is surprising how many people down here are of the same mind set. Seems like the only events that get any real action is when the pocket books get hit or people die.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I do think the details are important because it is from those details that we learn more about ourselves and what we are capable of as a society and why.


Me too cabs, me too. I think the big problem with our intelligence is that we don't have as many people on the ground, nor do we have the contacts that we did during the cold war. In the United States many people were angry that we were dealing with people like Noreaga, down in Panama. We had paid him, and did not try to prosecute in any way because he was supplying us with information. So without thinking, which is normal for our congress, they changed the way our CIA works. If we are going to look for pigs, sometimes we have to play in the mud with them. Our intelligence has been severely compromised ever since.

Now the big question is why did Russia tell Bush the same thing? I doubt they stopped playing in the mud. Did Russia tell us to help us, or did they want to see us tied up in a war in Iraq just like they were in Afghanistan for many years. If only a few nations agreed that Sadam was on the verge of acquiring nuclear capability I would question what Bush knew. The fact that all nations agreed I think takes Bush off the hot seat. Blaming Bush now detracts from concentration on the future. I have nothing against looking to the past for answers until it starts to fog out nations forward view.

For many years the "Bush lied people died" mantra of the left has hampered ending this war, and it has resulted in the unnecessary death of many soldiers. You bet, I blame radical left people like a person who was once active on this site. He said "I don't give a ^&%$ if our soldiers are being shot at". He also believed every bad thing about our soldeirs. I seriously often wondered if he was radical Muslim. A centipede with half his legs going left and half his legs going right gets nowhere.

Don't misinterpret frustration for anger cbas. As far as I am concerned you can dump your eastern provinces, we can dump our coastal states, and then we can join up.


----------

