Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

According to this story, it's true. I feel I've been lied to and given false information based on bad intelligence from many on this site.

I do not believe they ever tried to do it and it has been proven Chany tried to frame the whole thing to build support for invasion of Iraq.......Look up Yellowcake.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373567507

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Apparently the CIA was wron again on this one. The truth is Iraq did try to buy Uranium from Niger. Spin it anyway you like.

"wrong" is spelled with a g at the end...
The claims were false. It was made public before Bush used it in his speech to gain support for the invasion of iraq. He should never have mentioned it at all. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. There's no evidence anywhere supporting this claim was true. No WMD's, no programs, no threat, no evidence... Prove it any different. There's nothing to spin!

(I'm fighting off bursting out in laughter)

Iraq is a noun and should be spelled with a capital "I" Believe what you want.

"Americans are quite possibly the dumbest people on the planet". - Michael Moore. Judging by his ticket sales, this appears to be true.

[gkc1436 3]

ahhh yes.....another FOX news watcher....
ie ...brainwash the masses....

no purchase of uranium...or attempt
no wmd......
chem weapons.....only the ones we gave him during the 80's to fight IRAN

homeland security??der fatherland.....
dude....you could walk across the border with anything....
the only people getting searched at airports are us citizens
could someone make a list of how much of the constitution has been flushed by bush???

wake up before its gone.....
or watch fox news....

your choice

g

[tunaplanet 0]

ROFLMAO.

I can't tell if you're post is in tongue and cheek or if you're really a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Which is it?

Forty-two

[TheAnvil 0]

From Jeff Jacoby today.

Clicky

Yours in agave,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

ROFLMAO.

I can't tell if you're post is in tongue and cheek or if you're really a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Which is it?

You can't? I can.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Uh oh...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn11.html

Quote

Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man the CIA sent to Africa to investigate, wrote a piece for the New York Times titled ''What I didn't find in Africa.''

Can you guess what he didn't find, dear reader? That's right, he didn't find a big package of uranium bearing the address label ''S. Hussein, Suite 27, the Saddam Hussein Centre for Armageddon Studies, Saddam Hussein Parkway, Baghdad.'' Ambassador Wilson said relax, he'd been to Niger, spent "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people,'' and there's nothing going on.

Well, on Wednesday in London, Lord Butler will publish his report into the quality of the intelligence on which rested Britain's case for going to war with Iraq. The report is said to be critical of some of Tony Blair's claims, supportive of others. And, among the latter, he says that the statements about Iraq and Niger are justified and supported by the intelligence. In other words, the British Government did learn that Saddam Hussein did seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

[freeflydrew 0]

Yawn... So let's see the chain of thought here... Bush says something in his speech for invading a country that had already been publicly rebuked and deemed false by the CIA and other intelligence organizations. He talks about WMD's, the ability to strike in 45 minutes, implies the link to Al-Queda, mobile labs, seeking nuclear, and chemical weapons, blah, blah, blah... I'm scared now, we better invade Iraq. Let's assume that he gets his information from the CIA, right? Surely he can't take the time to research all the many facets of threat coming out of Iraq? Even though there was never any evidence for anything, literally, no evidence of a single thing, oh wait, they did show some shady satellite imagery of a couple backyards, they managed to convince people in the US that invading Iraq was warranted, justified, and necessary. So we attack Iraq, and accomplish pretty much nothing. There were no weapons found, no mobile weapons labs, no programs, no threat, no nothing... simply 1000 US deaths, and 10,000 Iraqi deaths. Then, after an independent investigation, we hear that all the evidence was flawed, and that there was literally no threat from Iraq, they had no WMDs, no WMD related program activity, no link to Al-Queda, no threat... Those of us who read the news and researched for ourselves had figured out all of this before we invaded, but whatever, right? So now. after everyone points blame at the CIA for exaggerating the threat from Iraq (which I think is a such a freakin' joke! and the President of the United States should take complete responsibility for this HUGE mistake), we turn around and are saying that although all their information about the threat was wrong, AND now, the information about Iraq NOT seeking Uranium from Nigeria was actually true???????... The CIA was wrong to think that it was wrong, the President was right to use the information in his speech, even though it was deemed wrong, and it was the last piece of the puzzle that was used to justify invading Iraq.
Give me a freakin break... I can't believe that anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence here actually believes the bullshit that we are being fed.

There is no evidence for anything that was used to justify invading Iraq... You're arguing something without merit...

The article you referenced was written to justify the evidence used by Tony Blair to support his case for invading Iraq. It offers no evidence to anything that it claims and contradicts the finding of the CIAs investigation... funny how it comes at a time where the CIA has been deemed the scapecoat for bad intel leading up to the invasion, and Tony Blair's political career is out the window. It didn't take a genius to make that connection.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Apparently the CIA was wron again on this one. The truth is Iraq did try to buy Uranium from Niger. Spin it anyway you like.

AMAZING! Even when Bush intends to lie, it turns out to be the truth. He's even MORE inept than I first thought.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Nice little myopic view of world events you have there. You would have us believe that even thought every intelligence agency on the face of the Earth including France, Britian, Russia, Germany etc all thought there were WMDs in Iraq, that you.. Freeflydrew knew better than all of them because you read newspapers?
You are too funny!!

[freeflydrew 0]

When George Bush attempted to convince the US that Iraq was actively seeking Uranium from Nigeria, he did so knowing that the CIA had already concluded that those claims were false... There is no evidence at all that they were, and that is probably why the US media, with the exception of fox news, is not even touching the topic.

The arguement of what these other countries believed Iraq possessed, and the reasons they did or didn't support the invasion of Iraq is one of opinion and very little fact. We have no idea what was said behind closed doors, and what deals, and/or sanctions may have been offered or threatened. Since we have no evidence to base any claim like this on, let's not argue what every intelligence agency on earth believed...

No WMDs, no programs, no attempts to gain Uranium, no connection to Al-Queda, no nuclear capability, no threat... Prove it any different!

You believe what ever you want to believe... I'm not going to buy into all the obvious BS that is being fed to us... I actually don't read newspapers... Too much liberal, left wing crap... Ha Ha Ha

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

When George Bush attempted to convince the US that Iraq was actively seeking Uranium from Nigeria, he did so knowing that the CIA had already concluded that those claims were false

You work for the CIA? Wow. I never knew.

Forty-two

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

Quote

When George Bush attempted to convince the US that Iraq was actively seeking Uranium from Nigeria, he did so knowing that the CIA had already concluded that those claims were false

You work for the CIA? Wow. I never knew.

Hey Tuna, It was in the news before Bush used it in his speech... The day after Bush used it in his speech there were plenty of articles in the news questioning why he used it when the claims had already been determined to be false by the CIA. You don't have to be in the CIA to know that, you just have to pay attention to the details when the President is trying to justify invading a country that poses no threat, and read a little to see if it's true or not. But thank you for the scarcism...

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and assume Tunaplanet served in the military from the intelligence and logic of his statements.
...

[TheAnvil 0]

Odd bit of selective reading you've been doing in the news:

Quote

No WMDs

Incorrect. Several sarin filled shells found. We also know during the cold war (post Iran-hostage crisis) we gave Hussein chemical weapons. Do you expect us to really believe they all just disappeared? That works on two year olds. Not us.

Quote

, no programs

Not true again. Re-read Mr. Kay's report and this time, pay attention to what it says vice what you want to read.

Quote

, no attempts to gain Uranium,

Though you are trying to make this non-sequitur, along with the leftist media, this just doesn't hold water either. He WAS trying to get uranium - as it was the intent of this thread to convey. Deny it all you like - the rest of us will continue to live in reality.

Quote

no connection to Al-Queda,

Wrong yet again. No connection to 9/11. Connection to al-Quaeda has been shown. You should really READ reports for content and not what you want to see.

Quote

no nuclear capability

Yet.

Quote

, no threat

So you approve of paying homicide bombers' families? No threat to peace loving people? Not a chance in hell that holds water.

Quote

... Prove it any different!

Done. Try again.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[freeflydrew 0]

There's no evidence that Saddam was trying to aquire uranium from nigeria... You guys can say there was, and I can say there wasn't, but the fact remains that both before and after Bush gave his speech, it had already been concluded that saddam was not doing this. It's a stupid arguement... with no evidence to support what you're saying.

A couple of empty shells on the side of the road is such a stretch from Saddams ability to strike in 45 minutes, nor having WMD. Empty shells from the early 90's hardly account for WMDs and WMD programs... It's been debated a bunch... Nobody is saying it's what Bush was talking about... not even Bush and Cheney. The threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent, and in no way justified our invading Iraq. The things that Bush said in the speech were bs, it's been all over the news and still is. Maybe he knew at the time, maybe he didn't, but regardless, we now know that it was... bs that is

Thank you for responding, but You really didn't prove anything other than you believe what Bush said...

From the Kay Report:
"I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:

Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.

In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.

In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre."

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01302004.html
Defending Aggression
January 30, 2004
The David Kay Report
By MIKE WHITNEY

"We were all wrong"
David Kay

"We can finally put Weapons of Mass Destruction issue to rest.

With the publishing of the Kay report it is clear that the entire pretense for the Iraq war was nothing more than a hoax. Kay appeared before a Senate subcommittee to disclose his findings and admitted that he and his team had found no stockpiles of proscribed weapons in Iraq.

At one point he opined, "We were wrong, we were all wrong."

Wrong?

An estimated 8,000 innocent Iraqis died in the invasion, more than 500 American servicemen were killed in action, an entire country was destabilized and plunged into insurgency, and David Kay talks about being wrong like it was some minor miscalculation on the phone bill?

This is the reality of the Bush Administration's new "preemptive" theory; hundreds of billions of dollars are spent, countless lives are lost or ruined, and the world community is thrown into turmoil, and yet, no justification is provided.

Even worse, the head of the weapons inspection team presents his case to Congress as though it was all "just an honest mistake".

So, why did Kay choose to address the Senate in the first place?

After all, Kay has been a reliable Bush loyalist, and that hasn't changed.

Kay's real intention in addressing the Senate was to use the CIA as a scapegoat for the bad information that led to the war. Now, that the election is approaching, the President's chief advisor, Karl Rove, is trying to put as much distance as he can between the White House and the myriad lies about the non-existent weapons.

This is a delicate situation and has to be handled with great subtlety or intelligence agencies will see that Bush is trying to bury them in the media. Hence, the appearance of David Kay is intended to reinforce the false notion that the war was the result of faulty intelligence. Kay's testimony challenged the reliability of intelligence gathering methods and suggested that we may need a "major overhaul" of the intelligence services.

Absent from the testimony was any detailed recounting of the many fabrications that were repeated with propaganda-like precision to support the war. Also, absent was the clear implication that the Administration was directly involved in "cherry-picking" intelligence to suit its own purposes..."

Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, which Bush "never said, nor implied", and didn't really do anything major over the past 12 years, why did invading Iraq suddenly become the most important priority of the Bush Administration's agenda after 9/11? It's so interesting that it was spelled out in the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document written by the Project for the New American Century back in 2000.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and assume Tunaplanet served in the military

Wow. Was it the navy symbol as my avatar or me making references to my naval career in previous threads that gave it away? Nothing gets by you.

You is smart.

Forty-two

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...so your argument has evolved from:

Quote

No WMDs, no programs, no attempts to gain Uranium, no connection to Al-Queda, no nuclear capability, no threat... Prove it any different!

to something of this sort:

WMDs -
Well, he had WMDs, but not enough of them and er...the ones we gave him...well...they disappeared into thin air.
Programs -
Yes, he had programs, but they weren't really programs just almost programs. Other countries think Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger, but the CIA - and we all know Bush's CIA doesn't know anything - said that he didn't try to buy uranium from Niger and Bush knew what the CIA said, but Bush, unlike us lefties, DOESN'T know that the CIA doesn't know anything, so he's clearly a liar.
Al Quaeda Connections -
Er...well...Iraq might have had connections/dealings with Al Quaeda and might have been paying families of homicide bombers but the ones he had connections with were the GOOD Al Quaeda - you know, the ones that didn't have any direct involvement in 9/11.
No Nuclear Capability
Well, Hussein might have wanted nuclear capability but he didn't actually have it and nor was he close to getting it so GWB is a liar.
No threat
Well, he wasn't a direct threat to the US even though he did pursue programs, have WMDs (just not enough) and was in violation of the U.N. (who we want to monitor US elections) sanctions. But he wasn't a threat. This might actually be tenable, but not the way lefties spin it

Everything is clear now.

In truth, you can form an excellent argument that we pursued the wrong course of action in invading Iraq. Unfortunately, all such arguments I see are not focused on foreign policy paradigms and theory - they are focused on Bush bashing.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[quade 4]

Quote

In truth, you can form an excellent argument that we pursued the wrong course of action in invading Iraq. Unfortunately, all such arguments I see are not focused on foreign policy paradigms and theory - they are focused on Bush bashing.

GWB being the President, well, that's kinda natural -- isn't it?

I mean, he -is- supposed to sort of leading all these people and all these policies.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ahhh...so your argument has evolved from:

Quote

No WMDs, no programs, no attempts to gain Uranium, no connection to Al-Queda, no nuclear capability, no threat... Prove it any different!

to something of this sort:

WMDs -
Well, he had WMDs, but not enough of them and er...the ones we gave him...well...they disappeared into thin air.
Programs -
Yes, he had programs, but they weren't really programs just almost programs. Other countries think Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger, but the CIA - and we all know Bush's CIA doesn't know anything - said that he didn't try to buy uranium from Niger and Bush knew what the CIA said, but Bush, unlike us lefties, DOESN'T know that the CIA doesn't know anything, so he's clearly a liar.
Al Quaeda Connections -
Er...well...Iraq might have had connections/dealings with Al Quaeda and might have been paying families of homicide bombers but the ones he had connections with were the GOOD Al Quaeda - you know, the ones that didn't have any direct involvement in 9/11.
No Nuclear Capability
Well, Hussein might have wanted nuclear capability but he didn't actually have it and nor was he close to getting it so GWB is a liar.
No threat
Well, he wasn't a direct threat to the US even though he did pursue programs, have WMDs (just not enough) and was in violation of the U.N. (who we want to monitor US elections) sanctions. But he wasn't a threat. This might actually be tenable, but not the way lefties spin it

Everything is clear now.

In truth, you can form an excellent argument that we pursued the wrong course of action in invading Iraq. Unfortunately, all such arguments I see are not focused on foreign policy paradigms and theory - they are focused on Bush bashing.

Why is that any surprise? Kerry and Edwards looked at exactly the same CIA evidence Bush looked at and came to exactly the same conclusion Bush did. They both then voted to go to war with Iraq and now, try to distance themselves from their own comments and decisions at the time and blame it all on Bush.

[tunaplanet 0]

The Financial Times reported that 5 countries were involved in attemting to obtain yellow cake from Niger. One of those being Iraq.

Forty-two

[freeflydrew 0]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10086641%255E10949,00.html
It was one year ago today that: The CIA accepts responsibility for the false claim regarding Iraq obtaining uranium from Niger in US President George W Bush's January State of the Union address.

http://www.news24.com/News24/On_this_day/On_this_day/0,,2-1602-1492_1550278,00.html
US President George W Bush's administration acknowledges for the first time that Bush relied on faulty intelligence when he claimed in his January State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1258767,00.html
"There was only one point of substance on which the British disagreed with the US: the claim in the September dossier that Saddam had tried to buy uranium in Niger, seized on as evidence of an attempt by Saddam to build a nuclear bomb. MI6 believed it; American analysts did not. However, the British view still has some support: last week's Senate report appeared to confirm that some Iraqi inquiries were made. The British also strongly resisted American conclusions that Saddam had co-operated with al-Qaeda, a claim British ministers went out of their way to knock down.

Bush eventually ignored the CIA's concerns and raised the Niger issue in his State of the Union address, but he was careful to source the claim to Britain, giving the administration room to back away from it when the CIA's scepticism became public.

'Calling the Niger intelligence somewhat flawed is being very polite about what happened. "Fucked up" would be more accurate,' said Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent and ex-deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counter-Terrorism.

Butler may, however, take a different view. The ISC concluded last year that, having been allowed to study the raw intelligence, it believed the NIger claim was true.

But as the autumn of 2002 wore on, the hunt for fresh material became ever more urgent. With almost no presence in Iraq itself, the intelligence community became increasingly reliant on the testimony of defectors, filtered through groups including the Iraqi National Congress, led by the convicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi, and the Iraqi National Accord, headed by Iraq's current prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Both groups had much to gain from exaggerating their stories. The INC has since openly admitted spreading false information, arguing that the end - deposing Saddam - justified the means."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040628-012643-7517r.htm
July 5th, In 2003, North Korea said work had begun on nuclear weapons with enough plutonium on hand to build six bombs.

Oh wait a second... that's not some sketchy report about Iraq, it's North Korea, part of the "axis of evil"... 6 bombs! Now that's a threat!


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/94342/1/.html
Posted: 07 July 2004 1628 hrs

North Korea steps up combat readiness after US war in Iraq: South Korea

SEOUL : North Korea has beefed up its combat readiness since the US-led invasion of Iraq, fortifying military facilities, digging tunnels and testing new missiles, South Korea's defence ministry said.

The ministry said in a report that North Korea had dug trenches and camouflaged bases near the front line. It had also been developing weapons of mass destruction at a five-megawatt nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.

"North Korea has been building up its combat preparedness along the front lines and in the rear as well," the ministry said in the report.

"Following the outbreak of the war on Iraq, construction projects have been underway at more than 80 sites to build tunnels and trenches and to camouflage (military facilities)," it said."

300 billion dollars spent on Iraq... over 13,000 Iraqi deaths (civilian and military), and over 1000 US deaths...

[tunaplanet 0]

Incorrect. Iraq was negotiating yellow cake from Niger. Do some leg work. You'll see many sites showing you this. Read the Financial Times report.

Forty-two

[freeflydrew 0]

If it were true, no one would be debating it!

So basically what you're saying is that you are convinced that something happened , based on claims by Iraqi defectors, that many intelligence organizations have deemed completely false, and without having any evidence what so ever.

Hey Tuna, the moon is made of cheese... ha hA HA

[tunaplanet 0]

Read. Do some research.

Forty-two

[kiltboy 0]

Unfortunately according to the Independent story Hans Blix, the IAEA and the CIA said that the Uranium claim was inaccurate.

A former diplomat, Joseph Wilson, visited Niger in 2002 on behalf of the CIA, and reported that there was no evidence that Saddam had sought to buy uranium from the country. George Tenet, the CIA director at the time, declared that the Niger claim was "not tenable". And in last week's damning senate report on pre-war intelligence, a memo by a senior CIA official was revealed which said: "We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue."

Mr Blair's Iraq dossier claimed Saddam "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active, civil nuclear programme that could require it." But the IAEA points out that it would have been impossible for Iraq to acquire uranium from Niger without this being discovered. The country's entire output at the time came from two mines controlled by a French company, and its entire output was pre-sold to France, Japan and Spain.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=540446

David