Iraq Sells 550 Metric Tons Of Saddam's "Yellowcake" Stash To Canada

But I though Bush said he knew that Iraq had WMD's everywhere that presented a clear and present danger to the United States. I guess he was lying about that too. It just goes to show that we shouldn't take tyrannical dictators at their word.

Whether or not anything on the Periodic Table of the Elements was found in Iraq is irrelevant.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

The nuclear materials, including yellowcake, were apparently from Saddam's earlier attempts to create nuclear weapons (before the first Gulf War). It seems he wasn't able to make any progress after that because of the UN weapons inspections and sanctions.

No need to rely on the words of a dictator when you have sanctions and inspections.

And no, it's NOT irrelevant ... the attempted purchase of yellowcake from Niger was used as an excuse to attack Iraq in 2003; that was different from the yellowcake Iraq already possessed.

Whether the material was there before or after the first Gulf War is irrelevant...it was there. And in case you forgot, the "sanctions" were becoming more obsolete because of the corrupt Oil-for-Food program and the "inspections" were ended in 1998 by Saddam.

The attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger was not an "excuse" to attack Iraq (see Authorization bill) - it was merely a mention in a State of the Union address and was supported by the Butler Review and our own intelligence community. Furthermore, the CIA and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee both came to the conclusion that Joseph Wilson's (public) claims were incorrect...he was lying.

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

The State of the Union address that Bush gave discussing the purchase of uranium cake was not based on anything that Ambassador Wilson did or did not say. Bush was relying on documents that Iraq was trying to buy uranium cake from Niger. The trouble for Bush and the Administration was simple. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had years previously looked at the same documents and, using a team of forensic experts, concluded that they were CRUDE FAKES. In fact, the CIA had already warned the White House in 2001 that these documents were fakes.

So, between Bush's 2003 State of the Union and Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the UN, they both relied on known forged documents to bolster claims they knew not to be true.

On September 7, 2002, Bush cited a report by the IAEA he claimed "proved" that the Iraqis were "on the brink" of developing nuclear weapons. Quoting the Liar-in-Chief, "I would remind you that when inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic--the IAEA--that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." NO SUCH REPORT EXISTED. The IAEA did release a report in 1998, but what it really said was (quoting)"Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."

I have plenty more patently false statements by Bush and his Administration, but I will use those when I get around to shredding your "Why We Are in Iraq" historical revision of what actually happened.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

Your arguments are as credible as you are. You have a deep desire to see others more right than your nation you live in.

So you know your favorite liberal President Clinton was not too good for our clandestine intelligence efforts. In fact he took our boots off of the ground and caused America to be blind in this area of the world. His entire time in office. I believe I can say that now. You don't know squat buddy.

Your position of strengths are taken all from weakness made to look strong. Strategies of general democrat and you.

Kind of like the blow fish trying to scare prey off that doesn't know it's only air that makes him a big guy. It works good against those who don't know the difference. Your great IAEA is a farce to say the least with no real authority. You need to get in the real world.

The arrogance wreaks.

Your arguments hub remind me of straight up tweekers on meth. The mentallity is the same. hmmm. I do not begrudge you the intelligence you have. It is all you have. I only wish you used your intelligence for growth not destruction. It is better for the Nation than just spouting parrot phrases like WRAWK the IEA said no such documents WRAWK Bush is a liar WRAWK I have many more documents WRAWK Hey look yourself in the mirror. Man or a mouse? Diligaf? You bet and you bet it is on the emmus.

You don't get it, do you? You came off your meds again and now you are spewing the same nonsense for which I took you to task several days ago. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am not a Liberal. I am not a Conservative. I am not any number of labels that people like you feel it necessary to assign to other people to make your world seem safer. The fact that you attack me ad hominem without any substance or accurate application of factual information doesn't seem to deter you from putting foot in mouth and proving to the world what those of us who are afflicted with your screed know to be true.

Unlike you, I've actually been to some of these places in the news. I know about people who live in those countries, first-hand. The best that you can do is find third-hand disinformation and try and bend it to your twisted belief system. In a world where Truth is everything, you are ill-equipped to intelligently discuss anything.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

WRAWK I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I am not a Liberal. I am not a Conservative. I am not any number of labels WRAWK.

Dub you sound like you come from the land of not. Not not who's there? hmmm. I just made that up.

WRAWK that people like you feel it necessary to assign to other people to make your world seem safer. WRAWK

The facts are we haven't been attacked on our land in how many years? We are safer and if people like you began to tell our enemies this too, our enemies would believe us already.

WRAWK The fact that you attack me ad homonym without any substance or accurate application of factual information WRAWK

Don't like the diligaf dub? I believe my style of writing is very creative. On the emmus.

WRAWK doesn't seem to deter you from putting foot in mouth and proving to the world what those of us who are afflicted with your screed know to be true. WRAWK.

Oh yea, we got em with that statement. You liberals are always afflicted with something. You have to be, you are the victims right?

Why don't you try this dub. Try saying I am not afflicted. Four words and three of them your favorites, I, not, and afflicted. These words can be used in a positive sense.

WRAWK Unlike you, I've actually been to some of these places in the news. I know about people who live in those countries, first-hand. WRAWK

I voted for Reagan the first time off the coast of Beirut. Want to ask me where I was the second time I voted for Reagan? Do you have the need to know? You know I just thought of something. Do you like Carter?

WRAWK The best that you can do is find third-hand disinformation and try and bend it to your twisted belief system. In a world where Truth is everything, you are ill-equipped to intelligently discuss anything WRAWK

Until you can define "it" YOUR statements are just a bunch of bends. I noticed you capitalized the T in the word Truth. Good job. I understand that.

Well, jdubhub...the comment was directed to Idlewild's remarks. But since you're going to spew your nonsense again, let's look at the claim about the yellowcake - you know, what this Xomblurb was actually about.

I'll make it really simple for you. Read this:

Just the Facts - Iraq and Uranium

Now you can go ahead and dispute this all you want - like you normally do with the facts - but you will still be wrong.

Now, if you wouldn't mind, could you please provide the links for the information about the president and the IAEA that you cited so that the rest of us can read for ourselves? I know you like to pick certain phrases out of reports and claim that the entire report is something that it isn't. So, those links would be helpful.

And by all means, please get around to "shredding" my four-month-old Xombyte. I've been eagerly waiting for your response. I have nothing else to do with my life than wait for your feeble rebuttals. Please, jdub...I'm begging you...please respond to it! I can't wait any longer!

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

Publius, I could easily bring up that you have no corroboration on this source from at least two other independent sources. Then you will launch into another ad hominem diatribe which always contains the theme: Publius is ALWAYS right, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong, and anyone who attempts to dispute the Gospel of St. Publius is an idiot with "hideously inept" analytical skills. (In case you wish to dispute this theme, show me three debates in which you were engaged on this website that became heated and you backed down when evidence was produced showing that you were incorrect.)

See, you are no interested in finding the Truth nor are you interested in there being other viewpoints on the same subject that may run contrary to yours. You are interested in being right and your ego says the only way you can be right is if you are the only one ever who is right. The fact that you jumped in on the American History Quiz and attacked ad hominem the person who posted it speaks volumes about you.

Don't worry, I will provide corroborative proof that the lynchpins of your Iraq War treatment is incorrect--when I feel like it. I actually have a life and don't spend every waking moment of every day trying to prove that I am a superior being to overcome some other inadequacy--which seems to be your modus operandi.

DO YOU HAVE THE WRITE STUFF?

"No corroboration on this source"

Are you serious? That's your answer to the link that proves you to be wrong again? "No corroboration"?? The "corroborating" sources for that link were listed at the bottom of the link! That's what makes it a "fact checker." Here's your corroboration (from the link you are dismissing):

President George W. Bush, “ State of the Union ,” 28 January 2003.

Chairman Lord Butler of Brockwell, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” 14 July 2004.

“Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,” Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate, 7 July 2004.

Walter Pincus, “ CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid ,” Washington Post, 12 June 2003.

Mohamed ElBaradei, “ The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update ,” Statement to the United Nations Security Council by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, 7 March 2003.

Joseph Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” New York Times, 6 July 2003.

Joseph Wilson,The Official Kerry-Edwards BLOG: "Transcript of Chat with Ambassador Joe Wilson," 29 Oct 2003.

Michael Kinsley, "...Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects?," Washington Post, 16 July 2003: A23.

Ari Fleischer, “ Press Gaggle ,” 7 July 2003.

Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleeza Rice, “ Press Gaggle ,” 11 July 2003.

George Tenet, "Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence," Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 11 July 2003.

I guess these aren't "independent" enough for you. This is exactly why I simply end discussions with you when you repeatedly dismiss facts in favor of "independent" rhetoric and conjecture. What you continually refer to as "the Gospel of St. Publius" is nothing more than the simple truth that can be accessed and examined by anyone. You refuse to acknowledge it and instead choose the "truth" according to sources that are interested in seeing the downfall of this country (for example: The World Socialist Web Site, which you have quoted before as a credible "independent source" and whose main goal is to see socialism implemented in this country and around the world).

My "debating style" is to point out your errors, which are becoming innumerable. I can only correct you so many times before it gets out of hand and I have no other choice but to "back down" so that I am not responding to your flagrant inaccuracies in perpetuity. This seems to be another one of those times since you are repeating the same old process of dismissing facts.

And, by the way, I was being entirely facetious with my comments about eagerly awaiting your rebuttals. I couldn't care less about your opinions on my work or what you perceive to be truth. I think we have already established that truth is not something you're capable of comprehending. (See above comment.)

*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I here about it but I never see it. Start showing your info dub so I can read it too. I like good information every now and then. So far again we read a lot of the same hot air. You know hot and anger and breath, hot air. Hey, Don't get put to task and wiping the dust off of ones heals mixed up. The antonym of vanity is humility. I wanted to show the world a diligaf, on the emmus.

Mrbronco I need some help here with the spelling. Some words are too old the teenagers never see them. And they aren't in the online dictionary's.