Politirant: Political Discussion Forums and Politics Message Boards
January 09, 2009, 07:06:06 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Politirant!
If this is your first visit, please register to start posting!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Iraqs non-existent nuclear weapons program  (Read 145 times)
Gunit Hussein Sangh
VIP
Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
*****

Karma 82
Offline Offline

Posts: 2714


RIP GOP


« on: November 15, 2007, 10:22:52 PM »


First off the aluminum tubes: Bush, Cheney and Rice all told us the ONLY thing these tubes could be used for was uranium enrichment. This was based on an analysis of a couple of CIA agents. Our own uranium enrichment experts disagreed and told the administration that due to the dimensions of the tubes it was highly unlikely that these tubes could be used for uranium enrichment. Even if Iraq figured out a way to use them, our DOE experts pointed out that hundreds of thousands of other components would have to be purchased, of which there was absolutely no evidence Iraq had attempted to make these purchases. Oh .. and the DOE experts pointed out the specifications of these tubes exactly matched the specs for a rocket the Iraqis were building.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/aluminum-tubes-in-iraq.html

U.N. weapon inspectors came to the same conclusion. Here’s a transcript of the UN report.
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76725,00.htm


On the attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium – obviously we all remember those 16 words that got into the state of the union address. The CIA never believed this story was true and in fact demanded the president remove statements about it from a speech he gave in Cincinnati in Oct 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

While Tenet took the fall for allowing this into to SOTU address, the reality is that the administration wanted this accusation included so they twisted the statement around so that while it was technically true, it was false since the British conclusion was based on intelligence we knew was false.

And when the UN demanded we turn over the evidence to support our accusations that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium .. the evidence was crudely forged documentations.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

Iraq did have a lot of equipment they had used in their attempts to build a bomb in the 80’s and they had a warehouse full of hundreds of tons of yellowcake that was legally purchased in the 80's. Even if we suspected Iraq was using this material to build a bomb before the war, UN Weapons inspectors accounted for the equipment and material, all untouched with their seals intact before bush pulled the trigger on shock & awe.

The CBS news link above also describes how this administration ignored all the evidence that didn’t fit their agenda to invade Iraq. Probably a bit better than I have. But this all proves that Bush with held dissenting opinions so he could lie to us about a non-existent nuclear weapons program.

Logged

Obama 360 and rising --  McSame 178.

America will once again rise from the ashes of a Bush.
Vermouth
VIP
Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
*****

Karma 36
Offline Offline

Posts: 2602



« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2007, 04:53:41 PM »

Iran was closer to having a nuclear weapon in the late 90s/early 00s than Iraq was, but I guess that didn't fit the agenda.
Logged
Vermouth
VIP
Imperial Grand Poobah Ranter
*****

Karma 36
Offline Offline

Posts: 2602



« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2007, 11:55:22 AM »

It also didn't fit the agenda to account for existing nuclear materials and weapons from the former Soviet Union and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists.

It was a real stretch for the Bush administration to make the argument that Hussein was anywhere close to acquiring nuclear capability. At the time, there were many public dissenting voices about both the intelligence and the proposed course of action.

So what was the real reason for invading Iraq? I'm not being sarcastic ... perhaps I'm naive, but I still scratch my head over that. Obviously Iraq was not a threat to the US. To get access to oil? Not really believable because Iraq was the 4th largest supplier of oil to the US even during the period of UN sanctions. Because it was projected to be an easy win and would give the US a presence in the Middle East with which to influence the region? Maybe.  Huh
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Critical
	Acclaim Linksgrower

(c) 2008 Politirant | All Rights Reserved