• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Harry Reid forces Senate into Iraq Meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The mods should probably merge your 3 threads into one though.

I don't think anything will come of this meeting. Bush did not lie about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Africa.

The report Wilson was sent to investigate claimed that Iraq actually bought uranium. He and others concluded this was false, and it remains false today. For Wilson it was a closed deal - he assumed that since no uranium had been purchased, there were no such ties whatsoever between Iraq and Niger. But for the CIA it wasn't so cut-and-dried - Wilson told them that Iraqi officials had asked the Nigerian PM about "expanding commercial relations," and the CIA believed this may have been an attempt to buy uranium. British intelligence agreed, Iraq tried to get uranium:

"After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium."

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

So it seems to me that Wilson overstepped his bounds when he misinterpreted and criticized Bush's words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

History may prove British intelligence wrong, but it seems reasonable to say that Bush did not lie. If more information comes out of this meeting, it could easily change everything. But unless that happens, I don't think this meeting will lead to anything significant.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wilson's article confirms what I just said.

"While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake"

"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

"I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country."

"Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa."

Bottom line: Wilson confirmed that Iraq did not purchase uranium. He did not put to rest allegations that Iraq tried to purchase uranium. Wilson actually confirmed (unknowingly) that Iraq may have attempted to buy uranium, when he told the CIA about Iraqi agents asking Niger officials to consider "expanding commercial relations."

Bush did not say Iraq actually purchased uranium from Africa. He only said that Iraq "sought" to buy it, citing British intelligence, not Wilson's report. And, ironically, Wilson's trip to Niger actually confirmed this attempt!
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
FinnMacCool said:
BTW do you think this is really gonna be the main topic of discussion? I don't remember the article mentioned that specifically.
Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I'm only stating my opinion about this meeting, but my reasoning has to do with these off-topic details.

EDIT: OOPS, I misunderstood but I see what you're saying now. Actually, I think you have a good point, this yellowcake stuff might not even be a factor in this meeting.
 
Last edited:

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's good to see the Dems are growing some balls. Depending on where fitzgeralds investigation goes now it might lead to something. I know that while the current crop of repubs. control congress they wont dare start a real investigation. Party over country I suppose.
 
Last edited:

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Binary_Digit said:
History may prove British intelligence wrong, but it seems reasonable to say that Bush did not lie. If more information comes out of this meeting, it could easily change everything. But unless that happens, I don't think this meeting will lead to anything significant.
British Intel. also says that Iraq and Aq. never had any relationship. Are they wrong or right?
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
scottyz said:
British Intel. also says that Iraq and Aq. never had any relationship. Are they wrong or right?
I realize I'm not an authority to say which intelligence agency is right or wrong about anything. If there is a consensus among several intel agencies, I assume that consensus is probably right. If several intel agencies disagree with each other, I assume the truth is not known. But to the best of my knowledge, British intel is correct on this, there was hardly any "relationship" between Iraq and al'Qaeda. Of all the reasons to invade Iraq, don't ya think Bush and his team would be the first ones to point at any legitimate ties between Iraq and al'Qaeda? Even the 9/11 Commission Report says any known ties between Iraq and al'Qaeda were insignificant.

Furthermore, Bush cited British intel in his speech. He didn't say it was a fact, he said "The British government has learned..." which is the truth - they did learn that.
 
Last edited:

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'd have to agree with Binary on this. Bush even admitted that he could see no ties to Al Qaeda. It was just that jerk Cheney who kept repeating it so that people who were easily influenced would support the war.

Hell, my sister still thinks were there because of 9/11. and shes 7 years older then I am.

Oh yeah and in response to your post about the article this is what I Wrote. I might have edited it.

Take a look at the actual article he wrote. Perhaps it doesn't prove that Bush "lied" but it was certainly misleading.
I think your right, though I sometimes have to wonder though what happens behind closed doors
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ah yes, was it misleading? I don't know. One thing to consider is, it's very unlikely that Iraq could ever actually get uranium from Niger. So with that in mind, the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa seems insignificant. What's the big deal, he didn't actually get any uranium, nor could he ever? It's really no different than if Hussein tried to get uranium from the U.S. He certainly wouldn't get any from us, so what's the big deal that he even tried?

But for me, the fact Hussein attempted to get uranium, no matter from whom, says a lot about his character and ambitions. I think this fact is significant, and I guess Bush thought so too. But I don't think his words are misleading, unless we read more into them than what's actually there.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm not defending Hussein but when it comes to using that as an excuse for war, especially when this particular war is going to end up supporting those who just so happened to have been his political opposite, isn't cool with me.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
scottyz said:
It's good to see the Dems are growing some balls. Depending on where fitzgeralds investigation goes now it might lead to something. I know that while the current crop of repubs. control congress they wont dare start a real investigation. Party over country I suppose.
I am so proud of the democrats. The Senate Intelligence Committe PROMISED it would investigate whether the Bush people exaggerated the intelligence for the war. The democrats should force them to keep that promise.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
FinnMacCool said:
I'd have to agree with Binary on this. Bush even admitted that he could see no ties to Al Qaeda. It was just that jerk Cheney who kept repeating it so that people who were easily influenced would support the war.

Hell, my sister still thinks were there because of 9/11. and shes 7 years older then I am.
Bush repeatedly mentions Iraq, 9/11 and terrorism in the same breath in almost all of this speeches on the subjects. He obviously wants the American people to think there is a connection. When he is pressed on the subject he admits the connection isn't there though. He has certainly never scolded anyone for saying there is a connection. I remember that Cheney once stated he wasn't surprised that the American people thought there was a connection between the 3...
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Binary_Digit said:
Ah yes, was it misleading? I don't know. One thing to consider is, it's very unlikely that Iraq could ever actually get uranium from Niger. So with that in mind, the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa seems insignificant. What's the big deal, he didn't actually get any uranium, nor could he ever? It's really no different than if Hussein tried to get uranium from the U.S. He certainly wouldn't get any from us, so what's the big deal that he even tried?

But for me, the fact Hussein attempted to get uranium, no matter from whom, says a lot about his character and ambitions. I think this fact is significant, and I guess Bush thought so too. But I don't think his words are misleading, unless we read more into them than what's actually there.
The fact that someone had to forge papers to convince people that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger makes me thing there probably was no attempt.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
FinnMacCool said:
I'm not defending Hussein but when it comes to using that as an excuse for war, especially when this particular war is going to end up supporting those who just so happened to have been his political opposite, isn't cool with me.
That's fair enough. If trying to buy uranium is not a good excuse to go to war, then I can see how the President's speech would be considered misleading.

scottyz said:
Bush repeatedly mentions Iraq, 9/11 and terrorism in the same breath in almost all of this speeches on the subjects. He obviously wants the American people to think there is a connection. When he is pressed on the subject he admits the connection isn't there though. He has certainly never scolded anyone for saying there is a connection. I remember that Cheney once stated he wasn't surprised that the American people thought there was a connection between the 3...
So Bush should be hounded for saying these things. But he shouldn't be hounded for his speech in 2003.

scottyz said:
The fact that someone had to forge papers to convince people that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger makes me thing there probably was no attempt.
Those papers were only part of the reason that was believed. Wilson and a lot of other Bush critics think it was the only factor, but it wasn't. To date, British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, and Italian intelligence hold to the notion that Hussein did in fact attempt to buy uranium. They may be lying, but I'm inclined to believe them.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
I'm still not convinced there was not any connection between Iraq and terrorist. There are reports of the terror operatives seeking refuge in Iraq with Saddam's knowledge. Namely Abu Abbas. Attached is a link that claims a connection. I don't believe the entire article. If their was concrete proof that the whole article is true Bush would be waving it in faces of his critics. But I do believe there is some truth to be found.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7636

Here's another article on Abbas' backround.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84265,00.html

His faction operated out of Tunisia until the October 1985 attack on the Achille Lauro, after which it relocated to Iraq. His group was also responsible for some attacks in Israel.

It looks like Iraq was harboring a wanted terrorist who had American blood on his hands.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
scottyz said:
Bush repeatedly mentions Iraq, 9/11 and terrorism in the same breath in almost all of this speeches on the subjects. He obviously wants the American people to think there is a connection. When he is pressed on the subject he admits the connection isn't there though. He has certainly never scolded anyone for saying there is a connection. I remember that Cheney once stated he wasn't surprised that the American people thought there was a connection between the 3...
Brings to mind one of my favorite bushisms.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Binary_Digit said:
Those papers were only part of the reason that was believed. Wilson and a lot of other Bush critics think it was the only factor, but it wasn't. To date, British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, and Italian intelligence hold to the notion that Hussein did in fact attempt to buy uranium. They may be lying, but I'm inclined to believe them.
As far as I can tell it was the only factor. The British may have received the intel. from the Italians. The British claim to have other "evidence" but refuse to show it to anyone. :roll:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday disputed accusations that Italian intelligence in a 2002 meeting passed off fake documents, showing Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, that formed part of U.S. President George W. Bush's case for war against Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officials who attended a September 9, 2002, meeting with Italy's spy chief do not recall the issue coming up, said a spokesman for the White House National Security Council. The meeting is central to the accusations.

"No one who was present at the meeting remembers yellow cake (uranium) being discussed nor any documents being passed," spokesman Frederick Jones said.

Bush, in making a case for war in his 2003 State of the Union address, said there was evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa to further apparent nuclear-weapons ambitions.

Bush cited British intelligence as the source of the information. But U.S. officials have said in the past that the information was partly traced back to Italian sources.

The White House acknowledged after the war that the intelligence was faulty.
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6207503&cKey=1130878217000
President Bush cited the uranium deal, along with the aluminum tubes, in his State of the Union Message, on January 28th, while crediting Britain as the source of the information: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” He commented, “Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”

Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. “The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei said.

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.”

The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.

It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”

The large quantity of uranium involved should have been another warning sign. Niger’s “yellow cake” comes from two uranium mines controlled by a French company, with its entire output presold to nuclear power companies in France, Japan, and Spain. “Five hundred tons can’t be siphoned off without anyone noticing,” another I.A.E.A. official told me.

This official told me that the I.A.E.A. has not been able to determine who actually prepared the documents. “It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger Foreign Ministry, in Niamey. We just don’t know,” the official said. “Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted.” Some I.A.E.A. investigators suspected that the inspiration for the documents was a trip that the Iraqi Ambassador to Italy took to several African countries, including Niger, in February, 1999. They also speculated that MI6—the branch of British intelligence responsible for foreign operations—had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy, after the Ambassador’s return to Rome.

Baute, according to the I.A.E.A. official, “confronted the United States with the forgery: ‘What do you have to say?’ They had nothing to say.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Wow Scotty, do you have all these articles saved to your computer? Either that or you just have a really good memory. lmao
 
Last edited:

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You know the Special Prosecutor has said that the indicting of Libby has nothing to do with the Iraq war.......

What part of that statement do the dems not understand?
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
You know the Special Prosecutor has said that the indicting of Libby has nothing to do with the Iraq war.......

What part of that statement do the dems not understand?
Because libby obstructed justice and commited perjury. Do you not understand what it is Fitzgerald said at his press conference? What is hard to understand about this?
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
scottyz said:
I'll just give one more

"After all, Europe is America's closest ally." —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050223/325/fd2yt.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...kes_fence_mending_tour_to_germany_1109149924/

This one too.

"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he(Kerry) were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom