AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91O8E100.html

AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq

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. (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.

"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.
 
Wow, the spin AP puts on this. The word "additional" before "yellowcake" in the 2nd to last paragraph is a head-scratcher.

550 metric tons is something like what 200 automobiles weigh, combined.
 
So it didn't all make it to Syria.... That's nice.
 
That's not a WMD. It's the material used to make them. Not saying there weren't/aren't any there, but that thread title's a bit of a stretch.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.</div>
Crazy...
 
There's more than enough material there to make a LOT of radiological bombs, and those things aren't very high tech.

It's surprising to me that the existence of all that stuff wasn't made known to the public all along, since Saddam was toppled.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's more than enough material there to make a LOT of radiological bombs, and those things aren't very high tech.

It's surprising to me that the existence of all that stuff wasn't made known to the public all along, since Saddam was toppled.</div>
Of course there is. But they still haven't found those bombs. Those WMD claims will be vindicated when they find WMD's. Not the ingredients for them.

I think the article mentioned the reason for the secrecy was that they wanted to make sure the stuff got transported out of Iraq safely.
 
It was a matter of time.

If Saddam didn't give the material to terrorist organizations, he would have gone back to making nukes at the first opportunity. During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the French, Germans, and Russians all were making side deals with Saddam for Iraq's oil. The only hitch was the sanctions had to be lifted, and that was certain to happen sooner than later. Some of those countries had begun lobbying for lifting sanctions at the UN and they also were resuming commercial air flights to Iraq.

It's a good thing to have lifted the sanctions, but not with Saddam and his sons there to enjoy the benefits. It should be the people there who get the benefits.
 
Theres not even a question if Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, he used them....how could he use them if he didnt have them???
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was a matter of time.

If Saddam didn't give the material to terrorist organizations, he would have gone back to making nukes at the first opportunity. During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the French, Germans, and Russians all were making side deals with Saddam for Iraq's oil. The only hitch was the sanctions had to be lifted, and that was certain to happen sooner than later. Some of those countries had begun lobbying for lifting sanctions at the UN and they also were resuming commercial air flights to Iraq.

It's a good thing to have lifted the sanctions, but not with Saddam and his sons there to enjoy the benefits. It should be the people there who get the benefits.</div>
I pretty much agree with you there. All I'm saying is that those WMD claims aren't vindicated from hypothetical reasoning. When they find WMD's, they can have every right to give a gigantic "F.U." to all the doubters/critics. But they haven't yet. So let's calm down a bit.
 
One example:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2000060323.html

Russian president pledges to help Iraq lift sanctions
Iraq-Russia, Politics, 6/3/2000

The Iraqi news agency said that the Russian President Vladimir Putin promised in a message he addressed to the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to work on lifting the imposed sanctions on Iraq - saying that Putin assured that his country will continue its efforts against the sanctions on Iraq according to principles and charters of the international law - assuring that Moscow will do its best to enhance the Russian - Iraqi friendship.
 
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...l-not-so-much/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This article from the AP was posted yesterday, reporting the sale and transport of 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada. Some of the leading right wing blogs were quick to hail the find as a significant victory for the Bush administration and proof of Saddam?€™s WMD program, but as Daniel De Groot at Open Left Points out, their celebrations may be a bit premature, if not dishonest:

I noted last night that a supply of uranium from Iraq had been successfully moved to Montreal in secrecy.

If you check into this, you?€™ll quickly find that the uranium a) was not weapons grade and b) 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 ?€œproof?€? 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.

Top recommended post at Redstate:

Yellowcake uranium found in Iraq, Saddam?€™s legacy, Bush was right!

Well?€?not so much.</div>

I found this post off another forum, but is the above true or false?

My head hurts. I dont know who to believe anymorez!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was a matter of time.

If Saddam didn't give the material to terrorist organizations, he would have gone back to making nukes at the first opportunity. During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the French, Germans, and Russians all were making side deals with Saddam for Iraq's oil. The only hitch was the sanctions had to be lifted, and that was certain to happen sooner than later. Some of those countries had begun lobbying for lifting sanctions at the UN and they also were resuming commercial air flights to Iraq.

It's a good thing to have lifted the sanctions, but not with Saddam and his sons there to enjoy the benefits. It should be the people there who get the benefits.</div>
I pretty much agree with you there. All I'm saying is that those WMD claims aren't vindicated from hypothetical reasoning. When they find WMD's, they can have every right to give a gigantic "F.U." to all the doubters/critics. But they haven't yet. So let's calm down a bit.
</div>

The F.U. is about certain people claiming we found _nothing_.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was a matter of time.

If Saddam didn't give the material to terrorist organizations, he would have gone back to making nukes at the first opportunity. During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the French, Germans, and Russians all were making side deals with Saddam for Iraq's oil. The only hitch was the sanctions had to be lifted, and that was certain to happen sooner than later. Some of those countries had begun lobbying for lifting sanctions at the UN and they also were resuming commercial air flights to Iraq.

It's a good thing to have lifted the sanctions, but not with Saddam and his sons there to enjoy the benefits. It should be the people there who get the benefits.</div>
I pretty much agree with you there. All I'm saying is that those WMD claims aren't vindicated from hypothetical reasoning. When they find WMD's, they can have every right to give a gigantic "F.U." to all the doubters/critics. But they haven't yet. So let's calm down a bit.
</div>

The F.U. is about certain people claiming we found _nothing_.
</div>
Well they haven't found WMD's, so people shouldn't start congratulating themselves like they have. I think you know the point I'm trying to make. It's pretty simple and uncontroversial.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L @ Jul 6 2008, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I found this post off another forum, but is the above true or false?

My head hurts. I dont know who to believe anymorez!</div>

Parts are true, parts are spin.

"It wasn't weapons grade " means it wasn't something you could directly make an atomic bomb out of. It is still deadly to be near unprotected, and radiological bombs aren't atomic bombs that make mushroom clouds... If someone went up on the top of the WTC or Hancock Building and blew up a bunch of that yellowcake with trivial to acquire dynamite, the radioactive material would spread on the winds for miles, causing sickness in tens or hundreds of thousands of people (at least) or a lot of deaths (at most).

The material was obtained and originally stored there legally, but once the UN passed sanctions ordering him to disarm and suffer inspections, it was no longer there legally. The IAEA may have controlled the material for some period and stored it in Iraq, which would satisfy a lot of people, but at the time of the invasion, Saddam had thrown out the inspectors for years.

It certainly is proof of Saddam's WMD program. All I can say is "DUH" because there's no peaceful reason for him to have stockpiled so much of it, and it is clear he had WMD programs of all kinds in various states of progress.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 07:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was a matter of time.

If Saddam didn't give the material to terrorist organizations, he would have gone back to making nukes at the first opportunity. During the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the French, Germans, and Russians all were making side deals with Saddam for Iraq's oil. The only hitch was the sanctions had to be lifted, and that was certain to happen sooner than later. Some of those countries had begun lobbying for lifting sanctions at the UN and they also were resuming commercial air flights to Iraq.

It's a good thing to have lifted the sanctions, but not with Saddam and his sons there to enjoy the benefits. It should be the people there who get the benefits.</div>
I pretty much agree with you there. All I'm saying is that those WMD claims aren't vindicated from hypothetical reasoning. When they find WMD's, they can have every right to give a gigantic "F.U." to all the doubters/critics. But they haven't yet. So let's calm down a bit.
</div>

The F.U. is about certain people claiming we found _nothing_.
</div>
Well they haven't found WMD's, so people shouldn't start congratulating themselves like they have. I think you know the point I'm trying to make. It's pretty simple and uncontroversial.
</div>

The source of this article is a dubious one, but the content is accurate:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38213

The Iraq Survey Group, ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official tells Insight.

"There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for."

Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner.

The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects."

They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

But while the president's critics and the media might plausibly hide behind ambiguity and a lack of sensational-looking finds for not reporting some discoveries, in the case of Saddam's ballistic-missile programs they have no excuse for their silence.

"Where were the missiles? We found them," another senior administration official told Insight.

"Saddam Hussein's prohibited missile programs are as close to a slam dunk as you will ever find for violating United Nations resolutions," the first official said. Both senior administration officials spoke to Insight on condition that neither their name nor their agency be identified, but their accounts of what the United States has found in Iraq coincided in every major area.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice.

Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:

* A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?

* "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"

* New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.

* A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."

* "Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."

* "Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."

In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents.

The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."

In taking apart Iraq's clandestine procurement network, Duelfer said his investigators had discovered that "the primary source of illicit financing for this system was oil smuggling conducted through government-to-government protocols negotiated with neighboring countries [and] from kickback payments made on contracts set up through the U.N. oil-for-food program."

...

Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq last summer, he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists.

"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."

The United Nations was fully aware that Saddam had established his chemical-weapons plants under the guise of a permitted civilian chemical-industry infrastructure. Plants inspected in the early 1990s as CW production facilities had been set up to appear as if they were producing pesticides, or in the case of a giant plant near Fallujah, chlorine, which is used to produce mustard gas.

When coalition forces entered Iraq, "huge warehouses and caches of 'commercial and agricultural' chemicals were seized and painstakingly tested by Army and Marine chemical specialists," Hanson writes. "What was surprising was how quickly the ISG refuted the findings of our ground forces and how silent they have been on the significance of these caches."

Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly."

Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice. At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters -- with unpleasant results.

"More than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent," Hanson says. "But later ISG tests resulted in a proclamation of negative, end of story, nothing to see here, etc., and the earlier findings and injuries dissolved into nonexistence. Left unexplained is the small matter of the obvious pains taken to disguise the cache of ostensibly legitimate pesticides. One wonders about the advantage an agricultural-commodities business gains by securing drums of pesticide in camouflaged bunkers 6 feet underground. The 'agricultural site' was also colocated with a military ammunition dump -- evidently nothing more than a coincidence in the eyes of the ISG."

That wasn't the only significant find by coalition troops of probable CW stockpiles, Hanson believes. Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin -- a nerve agent.

Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site.

"Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 6 2008, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L @ Jul 6 2008, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I found this post off another forum, but is the above true or false?

My head hurts. I dont know who to believe anymorez!</div>

Parts are true, parts are spin.

"It wasn't weapons grade " means it wasn't something you could directly make an atomic bomb out of. It is still deadly to be near unprotected, and radiological bombs aren't atomic bombs that make mushroom clouds... If someone went up on the top of the WTC or Hancock Building and blew up a bunch of that yellowcake with trivial to acquire dynamite, the radioactive material would spread on the winds for miles, causing sickness in tens or hundreds of thousands of people (at least) or a lot of deaths (at most).

The material was obtained and originally stored there legally, but once the UN passed sanctions ordering him to disarm and suffer inspections, it was no longer there legally. The IAEA may have controlled the material for some period and stored it in Iraq, which would satisfy a lot of people, but at the time of the invasion, Saddam had thrown out the inspectors for years.

It certainly is proof of Saddam's WMD program. All I can say is "DUH" because there's no peaceful reason for him to have stockpiled so much of it, and it is clear he had WMD programs of all kinds in various states of progress.
</div>
Thanks for clearing it up. i read like 3 separate stories on this and my head was about to go nuclear.
 
My bad, the article above does mention the 500 metric tons of yellowcake.
 
This is not a total vindication.

At the same time, I wonder if I'm going to see this tomorrow on the network TV evening news? Nah, probably not, the focus will probably be on gas prices and the economy, or the wildfires out in CA.

I wonder if I'm going to see this discussed on CNN or MSNBC? Nah probably not. They'll be talking about McCain vs. Obama.

I wonder if I'm going to see this on Countdown with Keith Olber-ah nevermind.
 
Denny, there's a space between having the means and motivation to create WMD's and actually possessing them that you don't seem to acknowledge. I agree with almost everything you've posted in this thread. But I don't agree with this whole notion that those original claims are completely vindicated by this news. They claimed that there were WMD's. They've yet to find them. Those claims aren't vindicated. I don't think I can put it any clearer than that.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>At the same time, I wonder if I'm going to see this tomorrow on the network TV evening news? Nah, probably not, the focus will probably be on gas prices and the economy, or the wildfires out in CA.

I wonder if I'm going to see this discussed on CNN or MSNBC? Nah probably not. They'll be talking about McCain vs. Obama.

I wonder if I'm going to see this on Countdown with Keith Olber-ah nevermind.</div>
I honestly don't understand what the big fuss is about this news. If you follow the other information Denny's posted, this story doesn't really prove anything that we didn't already know (ie: that they had the means and motivation to create WMD's).
 
What's interesting is that the yellowcake was sold to Canada in secret. Why the secrecy?

I'll leave you all with these thoughts.

If Bush lied us into war, why didn't he lie us into finding WMDs? Surely there's some overzealous Ollie North types who could have been recruited to plant the stuff. Heck, a single test tube of weaponized biological material would have settled the issue with 100% certainty.

Instead, every instance of found WMDs were downplayed almost immediately by the administration - to the point people don't get it that he had all kinds of WMDs. Seems the administration was interested in the truth because it outright said "these aren't WMDs" when the claim would pop up that some were found.

Nukes and chemical weapons are the shock and awe of WMDs. The mass killer of WMDs is the biological kind. Some suicide bomber type who would be willing to take an injection of some infectious disease and get on an airplane to Heathrow could end up spreading the infection to most of the western world in short order. A nuke might kill 10M people in a city like NYC; chemical weapons, similar effect; but the biological ones could kill a billion people or more.

Saddam used WMDs on his own people. I've seen the pictures and they are both gory and sickening, particularly of mothers dying with infants also dying in their arms.

The threat from Iraq wasn't exactly imminent. Neither was 9/11.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Denny, there's a space between having the means and motivation to create WMD's and actually possessing them that you don't seem to acknowledge. I agree with almost everything you've posted in this thread. But I don't agree with this whole notion that those original claims are completely vindicated by this news. They claimed that there were WMD's. They've yet to find them. Those claims aren't vindicated. I don't think I can put it any clearer than that.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real)</div><div class='quotemain'>At the same time, I wonder if I'm going to see this tomorrow on the network TV evening news? Nah, probably not, the focus will probably be on gas prices and the economy, or the wildfires out in CA.

I wonder if I'm going to see this discussed on CNN or MSNBC? Nah probably not. They'll be talking about McCain vs. Obama.

I wonder if I'm going to see this on Countdown with Keith Olber-ah nevermind.</div>
I honestly don't understand what the big fuss is about this news. If you follow the other information Denny's posted, this story doesn't really prove anything that we didn't already know (ie: that they had the means and motivation to create WMD's).
</div>

"Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, has found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions."

The article goes on from there. FOUND. Massive quantities of the stuff.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly."

"Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'"</div>
 
Then what exactly is the big fuss about this news story? Why even point to it as vindication when the claims have already been vindicated?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Then what exactly is the big fuss about this news story? Why even point to it as vindication when the claims have already been vindicated?</div>

My point is any good news about the Iraq war is ignored by the mainstream press.

Here's a question. Since the troop surge, what is the no. 1 story being covered in America right now?
 
The article speaks for itself.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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.

...

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.</div>

However, it also contradicts itself:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>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.</div>

vs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"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.</div>
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 6 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 6 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Then what exactly is the big fuss about this news story? Why even point to it as vindication when the claims have already been vindicated?</div>

My point is any good news about the Iraq war is ignored by the mainstream press.

Here's a question. Since the troop surge, what is the no. 1 story being covered in America right now?
</div>
Maybe its just the nature of the news to emphasize bad/depressing news. I don't know, that's the vibe I usually get from it. You listed stuff that's getting more coverage now than stuff in Iraq, and its all basically negative.

I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer though. You very well could be right (about media bias or whatever).
 
The secrecy of the sale and extraction is easy to explain. The entire process had to be secure to minimize attempts at hijacking it.

On to the other topic. What was the exact wording of the Bush administration about the presence of WMD as a pretense for invasion? It has been too long and there has been too much media crap for me to recall.
 
http://www.factcheck.org/iraq/anti-war_ad_...y_rumsfeld.html

(for one)

Excerpts of Bush's 2003 State of the Union Speech. He cites UN reports, IAEA reports, and the now famous 16 words where he cited a British intelligence report.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bush)</div><div class='quotemain'>The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.</div>

However, a strong theme in the speech is that Saddam either refused to disarm or account for the WMDs that were cataloged and known about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)</div>

He provided (I counted 6) varying reasons to take out Saddam, including human rights violations (torture, rape, etc):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)</div>

Another reason - to liberate the Iraqi people:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)</div>

And another reason - to spread democracy and freedom:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)</div>

And another reason - to establish a long lasting peace:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)</div>

Then there's this speech:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William Jefferson Clinton)</div><div class='quotemain'>Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

...

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.</div>

^^^ Bill Clinton in 1998

Now, it makes me wonder who the liars really were. Remember Hans Blix? Here's what he said in January of 2003, shortly before the invasion:

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives/009954.php

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That, at least, has been the presumption of Hans Blix. Go back and take a look at the report Blix delivered to the U.N. Security Council on Jan. 27. On the question of Iraq's stocks of anthrax, Blix reported there existed "no convincing evidence" they had ever been destroyed. On the contrary, he said, there was "strong evidence" that Iraq had produced even more anthrax than it had declared "and that at least some of this was retained." Blix also reported that Iraq possessed 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

On the question of VX, Blix reported that his inspection team had "information that conflicts" with Iraqi accounts. The Iraqi government claimed that it had produced VX only as part of a pilot program but that the quality was poor and therefore the agent was never "weaponized." But according to Blix, the inspection team discovered that the Iraqi government had lied. The Iraqi government's own documents showed that the quality and purity of the VX were better than declared and, according to the inspection team, there were "indications that the agent" had indeed been "weaponized."

Blix reported as well that 6,500 "chemical bombs" that Iraq admitted producing still remained unaccounted for. Blix's team calculated the amount of chemical agent in those bombs at 1,000 tons. As Blix reported to the U.N. Security Council, "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."</div>

And so on.
 
I dont believe that Bush did anything unethical....his intel reports told him that Saddam Hussein had WMDs stored in Iraq....History told him that he had used WMD during earlier conflicts(mustard gas on Kurds is confirmed)....when instructed to surrender his WMD, Saddam Hussein did not claim that he didnt have them, he simply refused to discuss it or allow inspectors....dont forget that not all intel can be legit, and its hard to tell whats real....the president was told a genecidal maniac had WMDs, he made the decision to go in, CONGRESS approved the action, and we did....in the course of months, the war was won, the dictator was removed and imprisoned to await trial....he was convicted of crimes against humanity by his own people and later executed....whether they find WMDs or not, whats the problem? everything was done above table....
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 6 2008, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cough, cough....vindicated....cough</div>

How pathetic trying to justify the greatest debacle in US Foreign policy & Military History.

Just because I have aluminum siding on my house doesn't mean I have a six pack of Dr Pepper in the fridge. Another way, I may have cookie dough in the fridge, it doesn't mean I live in a bakery.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top