Saddam's Uranium Stockpile (1 Viewer)

[ANAV]

OK, it's a fact that Saddam had a 500 ton stockpile of uranium. Some of it may or may not of been enriched, depending upon who you listen to. Whether or not it was or was not enriched, while important, is not the most important question. A more important question is why the UN inspectors did not know about it. Why was Saddam keeping it a secret if he had no plans to create a weapon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

 

[Hoot]

OK, it's a fact that Saddam had a 500 ton stockpile of uranium. Some of it may or may not of been enriched, depending upon who you listen to. Whether or not it was or was not enriched, while important, is not the most important question. A more important question is why the UN inspectors did not know about it. Why was Saddam keeping it a secret if he had no plans to create a weapon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

What a load of rubbish...it says right at the end of your second link that inspectors found the 'stash' before the war began, and throughout both links, it states that Saddam did not have the capacity to enrich that uranium to weapons grade material.

It's just another big scare tactic by SnoozeMax to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.

 

[Old and wise]

What a load of rubbish...it says right at the end of your second link that inspectors found the 'stash' before the war began, and throughout both links, it states that Saddam did not have the capacity to enrich that uranium to weapons grade material.

It's just another big scare tactic by SnoozeMax to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.

He has lied to us all along. Veterans day doesn't mean a thing to him because he is not a veteran.

 

[KCConservative]

It's just another big scare tactic ..... to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.

At what point will you stop saying he lied and start proving he lied?

 

[Deegan]

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, just the fact that his worst enemy(Iran) was already years ahead of him, speaks volumes. We were keeping him unable to do this, through sanctions, and close policing of his activities, but after the oil for food scandal, we could see this was not working. What was also obviously not working was punishing Saddam through these sanctions, as it didn't punish Saddam, but starved his people. This is exactly why I supported a pre-emptive strike, WMD's or not, he had to be removed from power, it was just one less mad man for the world to be preoccupied with, and history has shown us that's always worth fighting for.

 

[Old and wise]

At what point will you stop saying he lied and start proving he lied?

I will stop saying he lied when he admits that he is not a veteran and deserted his military duty.

 

[Stinger]

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, just the fact that his worst enemy(Iran) was already years ahead of him, speaks volumes. We were keeping him unable to do this, through sanctions, and close policing of his activities, but after the oil for food scandal, we could see this was not working. What was also obviously not working was punishing Saddam through these sanctions, as it didn't punish Saddam, but starved his people. This is exactly why I supported a pre-emptive strike, WMD's or not, he had to be removed from power, it was just one less mad man for the world to be preoccupied with, and history has shown us that's always worth fighting for.

Clearly stated, factually correct, BINGO!

 

[KCConservative]

I will stop saying he lied when he admits that he is not a veteran and deserted his military duty.

So you're saying that he didn't lie but that you only say it due to his service record?

I think we're stuck in a circle here...

Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.

 

[Stinger]

What a load of rubbish...it says right at the end of your second link that inspectors found the 'stash' before the war began, and throughout both links, it states that Saddam did not have the capacity to enrich that uranium to weapons grade material.

It's just another big scare tactic by SnoozeMax to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.

Yes he had obtained before the war and had partially enriched some of it, enough to make a bomb with. And between the time he kicked the inspectors out and we kicked him out he had control over it. And as Kay and Duelfer both documented he had begun to rebuild his nuclear lab and had already engaged in some experimentation.

But we should have left him alone according the Democrats................now.

 

[KCConservative]

Yes he had obtained before the war and had partially enriched some of it, enough to make a bomb with. And between the time he kicked the inspectors out and we kicked him out he had control over it. And as Kay and Duelfer both documented he had begun to rebuild his nuclear lab and had already engaged in some experimentation.

But we should have left him alone according the Democrats................now.

Yes, I'm sure he would have complied had we only given him an 18th resolution. :mrgreen:

 

[Stinger]

Yes, I'm sure he would have complied had we only given him an 18th resolution. :mrgreen:

touche'...........

 

[shuamort]

Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.

I guess we'll have to go into the way back machine just before the Pentagon accidentally destroyed the records. Go figure. The one piece that would've helped him out, gone. What are the odds?

Documents that could have decided a dispute over President George W Bush's days in the military 30 years ago have been destroyed, the Pentagon says.

 

[aps]

So you're saying that he didn't lie but that you only say it due to his service record?

I think we're stuck in a circle here...

Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.

http://www.seamlesstransition.va.gov/res_grd_elig.asp

VA Benefits Eligibility for Reserve and National Guard Personnel

The primary factor in determining basic eligibility to VA benefits is “veteran status,” which is established by active military, naval, or air service and a discharge or release from active service under conditions other than dishonorable.

Reservists who served on active duty establish veteran status and may therefore be eligible for VA benefits, depending on the length of active military service and the character of discharge or release. In addition, reservists who are never called to active duty may qualify for some VA benefits.

National Guard members can establish eligibility for VA benefits only if the President activated them for Federal duty.

See also 38 USC section 101 (which defines who is a veteran).

"active military" is Army
"active naval" is Navy and Marines
"active air" is Air Force

The National Guard has special rules because the only way a person may be deemed a veteran is by being called to active duty. BUSH WAS NEVER CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY. Thus, he is not a veteran.

 

[aps]

LOL I see that KCConservative is incapable of refuting my post. There, there, KC. I hope the fact that your president is not a veteran does not affect your love for him.

 

[KCConservative]

LOL I see that KCConservative is incapable of refuting my post. There, there, KC. I hope the fact that your president is not a veteran does not affect your love for him.

Incapable? That's cute, but the charge was that he was awol from duty, dodged the draft, etc. Do you have anything to offer the discussion at hand? Better yet, the thread is about Saddams weapons.

 

[BWG]

Incapable? That's cute, but the charge was that he was awol from duty, dodged the draft, etc. Do you have anything to offer the discussion at hand? Better yet, the thread is about Saddams weapons.

No, YOU asked for PROOF that he is not a real veteran.

Post #8 this thread

Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.

 

[hipsterdufus]

OK, it's a fact that Saddam had a 500 ton stockpile of uranium. Some of it may or may not of been enriched, depending upon who you listen to. Whether or not it was or was not enriched, while important, is not the most important question. A more important question is why the UN inspectors did not know about it. Why was Saddam keeping it a secret if he had no plans to create a weapon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

Well, if Newsmax says it, it must be true...:roll:

 

[hipsterdufus]

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, just the fact that his worst enemy(Iran) was already years ahead of him, speaks volumes. We were keeping him unable to do this, through sanctions, and close policing of his activities, but after the oil for food scandal, we could see this was not working. What was also obviously not working was punishing Saddam through these sanctions, as it didn't punish Saddam, but starved his people. This is exactly why I supported a pre-emptive strike, WMD's or not, he had to be removed from power, it was just one less mad man for the world to be preoccupied with, and history has shown us that's always worth fighting for.

Deegan,

That's a great example of mission creep. If Bush sold that line of reasoning to the Congress, we NEVER would have went to war in Iraq.

No, we were warned about the inevitable mushroom clouds, and the Saddam - Bin Laden links ad nauseum. Bush cherry picked the intel to give the Senate leaders, minus the PDBs amongst other items. The Downing Street memo confirms that the facts were manipulated in the run up to war. On 9/12 Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq - Richard Clarke thought he was joking, but was asked by Bush to look for evidence of a 9/11 = Saddam connection that just wasn't there.

The investigation by the Senate on this has been a sham up to this point. But do you know what. Through all of this garbage the public is finally starting to realize what a moral and political debacle the president got us in to.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I guess we'll have to go into the way back machine just before the Pentagon accidentally destroyed the records. Go figure. The one piece that would've helped him out, gone. What are the odds?

Documents that could have decided a dispute over President George W Bush's days in the military 30 years ago have been destroyed, the Pentagon says.

In the rush to be first, Rather went with a story that has never been disproved about Bush, but didn't check his source. I was never a big Rather fan, but it's funny that when Rather makes a mistake he's forced into early retirement.

Fox can just make stuff up at will, and there is NEVER any retribution, or even a correction. P.S. where do I send an email to their ombudsmen ? :roll:

 

[aps]

No, YOU asked for PROOF that he is not a real veteran.

Post #8 this thread

Thanks BWG for pointing out that I was merely rising to his challenge.

Awww, KC, guess you can't stand that you cannot refute my post. It'll be okay. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[KCConservative]

Thanks BWG for pointing out that I was merely rising to his challenge.

Awww, KC, guess you can't stand that you cannot refute my post. It'll be okay. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm going to concede this one, aps. Besides, your gloating is kind of cute. So has the president lied or not?

 

[aps]

I'm going to concede this one, aps. Besides, your gloating is kind of cute. So has the president lied or not?

I am proud of you. I think Bush exaggerated the intelligence. I will let Congress figure out what he exaggerated specifically. But I will say this--the intelligence showed that the Dept. of Defense and the CIA doubted what both Chalabi and the Al Qaeda person were saying. There were serious doubts expressed in intelligence documents in 2002. But if you go back and see Cheney on Meet the Press at that time, it shows him saying that there was no doubt that there was evidence of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and how Iraq was making nuclear weapons. In March 2003, Bush said the same things that Cheney said. The way they presented it, they made it seem as there were NO doubts, when there were. To me, that is an exaggeration of the evidence.

It's one thing if they both said, "There is evidence," but they were asserting that there could be only one way to interpret the evidence on this issue, which is wholly inaccurate.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes, I'm sure he would have complied had we only given him an 18th resolution. :mrgreen:

LMAO. nice.

and as far as Bushes "lie" the left should just try reading my sig.

 

[aps]

LMAO. nice.

and as far as Bushes "lie" the left should just try reading my sig.

So if I lie, then it's okay for you to lie? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't give a rat's a$$ what Clinton said in 1998. What was presented to us by the White House in 2002 and 2003 was not an accurate reflection of what was shown in intelligence reports (which intelligence reports were created AFTER Clinton left office). The Bushies were put on notice as to doubts about intelligence provided to the United States and they failed to relay those doubts to the American people. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is. Sorry, but the right's continued assertion that Clinton said X while in office isn't going to take away the fact that Bush furthered the inaccurate intelligence. He's the one that did a thorough investigationn and got us into this war.

There is a reason that the majority of Americans think Bush misled us into this war and that question the President's integrity. Restore integrity to the White House? My a$$....................

 

[ProudAmerican]

So if I lie, then it's okay for you to lie? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't give a rat's a$$ what Clinton said in 1998. What was presented to us by the White House in 2002 and 2003 was not an accurate reflection of what was shown in intelligence reports (which intelligence reports were created AFTER Clinton left office). The Bushies were put on notice as to doubts about intelligence provided to the United States and they failed to relay those doubts to the American people. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is. Sorry, but the right's continued assertion that Clinton said X while in office isn't going to take away the fact that Bush furthered the inaccurate intelligence. He's the one that did a thorough investigationn and got us into this war.

There is a reason that the majority of Americans think Bush misled us into this war and that question the President's integrity. Restore integrity to the White House? My a$$....................

the point is NO ONE LIED.

if 1998 isnt good enough....what about these.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
---------------------------------------

There is a reason that the majority of Americans think Bush misled us into this war

there sure is, its called a biased media with an agenda.

ask yourself this question.......if Bill Clinton were president today, would you feel the EXACT SAME WAY ABOUT IRAQ as you do right now? if you can answer yes....then you arent a partisan hack.

the lefts credibility on this issue is absolute ***** and anyone that isnt a blind partisan knows it.

the president had all this info and congress was just oblivious. LMAO. you had DEMOCRATS ON THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITY THAT VOTED FOR THIS WAR.

explain that one away with "Bush Lies"