Gravitymaster 0 #51 July 14, 2004 Quote 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 Please note this is an A.P. report. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QKJ7G0.html Quote However, the report supported Britain's disputed claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger, saying it came from "several different sources" and had not relied on documents exposed as forgeries by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Would you like some cheese with your whine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #52 July 14, 2004 You are really clinging to straws: Quote Uranium from Niger British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim Quote ...which is at variance with that of the CIA. Quote It turns out that human sources used by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) were unreliable, including the source which reported the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. And the report criticises the government for not making clear in its September 2002 dossier that much of the intelligence should have had a health warning attached. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 July 15, 2004 Wrong again Mikkey. Please read the latest report from British Intelligence. You are incorrectly making the assumption that the US had better intelligence in Niger that the British and the Italians. They didn't. The original Intel was developed by the British not by the CIA, so for you to continue to insist that the CIA debunked this claim in the face of all the evidence put forward in the most recent report is beyond me. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5432975/ Quote However, the report backed the government’s claim that it had intelligence that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa, and that the claim was not based on forged documents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #54 July 15, 2004 Your primary problem is your assumption that this is not a whitewash job like the last report on HM Government's follies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #55 July 15, 2004 Quote Your primary problem is your assumption that this is not a whitewash job like the last report on HM Government's follies. Ah. And so begins the conspiracy theories. This should be entertaining. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #56 July 15, 2004 Quote Your primary problem is your assumption that this is not a whitewash job like the last report on HM Government's follies. Thats very convenient Kallend. It explains everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING ...... muhwooohahahaha..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #57 July 15, 2004 Quote If it were true, no one would be debating it! Uh huh. A guy in my office will happily debate with you whether or not we landed on the moon. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #58 July 15, 2004 1) The British inquiry states "British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim". So they had information that Iraq MAY have attempted to buy Uranium from Niger but certainly NO information that they actually did. 2) The CIA did not agree with the assessment 3) The main conclusion of the British inquiry is that while no attempt to deceive was made, the quality of the intelligence was very poor. 3) The "Kay task force", which has searched Iraq for 18 month now, has not found any active nuclear weapons program nor material for nuclear weapons. So in other words, after all the WMD claims have been discredited (and even Blair agreed yesterday in Parliament) - you are basing the "we went to war for WMD's" case on a probable attempt to buy Uranium from Niger. An attempt which – if it happened – was not successful.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #59 July 15, 2004 If you are going to debate this issue, at least try and understand what you are debating. Quote 1) The British inquiry states "British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim".[/reply Correct. Neither Blair nor Bush ever stated that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. Only that they had attempted to. Yet we were subjected by many on this site to the constant "Chinese Water Torture" mantra of "Bush lied, Bush lied" based on the "Sixteen words Bush used in his SOTUA. Quote So they had information that Iraq MAY have attempted to buy Uranium from Niger but certainly NO information that they actually did. Nor did Bush or Blair ever state they did. Only that they attempted to. Where were you when this was being made a huge deal on this site? Quote 2) The CIA did not agree with the assessment Incorrect. The CIA stated they were unable to confirm whether the intel was valid. One of the reasons they couldn't was because the intel was developed by French intel and under and agreement the French had with the Brits, the source of the intel could not be disclosed to any other country. The reason the French had such good intel in Niger in particular was because many French mining companies had contracts with the Nigerian Gov't. Therefore, French Intel Agents had better contacts that the Brits or U.S. As a side note, remember the huge budget cuts the Clinton Admin. made during the 1990s. I believe this had a major impact onthe abilities of the CIA and other US Intel agencies to collect good info. I believe the chickens have come home to roost on this point. Quote 3) The main conclusion of the British inquiry is that while no attempt to deceive was made, the quality of the intelligence was very poor. Correct. See above. They specified the intel on WMDs was poor quality. They were very definitive on Iraqs attempts to purchase uranium. I would also suggest you look at the title of this thread before trying to make more out of what is being debated than is. Quote 3) The "Kay task force", which has searched Iraq for 18 month now, has not found any active nuclear weapons program nor material for nuclear weapons. This statement has no value as it relates to this discussion except to cause "Thread drift". Quote So in other words, after all the WMD claims have been discredited (and even Blair agreed yesterday in Parliament) - you are basing the "we went to war for WMD's" case on a probable attempt to buy Uranium from Niger. An attempt which – if it happened – was not successful. Incorrect. Please quote where I have ever made such a statement. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #60 July 15, 2004 You are grasping at straws. A nuke program is impossible to hide with current technology. Too many tell-tale isotopes around to go undetected. No evidence whatever has been found that Iraq had a nuke program. That had ALREADY been established by the IAEA BEFORE Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #61 July 15, 2004 Quote A nuke program is impossible to hide with current technology. That is 100% false. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #62 July 16, 2004 Quote Quote A nuke program is impossible to hide with current technology. That is 100% false. Rubbish. No one's processes are so sterile that tell tale isotope leakages don't occur. Not even ours or Israel's. And our detectors will pick up anything a 3rd world country can test detonate, even underground.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #63 July 16, 2004 Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #64 July 16, 2004 Quote Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. God forbid someone changes their opinion about something... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #65 July 16, 2004 Quote Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #66 July 16, 2004 Quote Quote Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program. You were the one bantering on about how Bush lied in his SOTU Speech. It appears you were the one lying. And don't try to blame it on you getting bad intel. Where does that buck stop, again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 July 16, 2004 Quote Quote Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. God forbid someone changes their opinion about something... But we've been told over and over again that a person can't be wrong and be forgiven for being wrong by the Bush bashers. We have been told that even if you make a statement based on bad information, its a lie. I'm simply holding those who have made these kinds of statements to their own standards. Nothing more, nothing less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #68 July 17, 2004 Quote Quote Quote Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program. You were the one bantering on about how Bush lied in his SOTU Speech. It appears you were the one lying. And don't try to blame it on you getting bad intel. Where does that buck stop, again? You're grasping at straws. If the CIA told him it was bogus intel (which they did) and he used it anyway, he was lying. If it turns out the CIA was wrong (and that has yet to be proven), well, he was just so inept as a liar that he inadvertantly told the truth. Inept or lying, your choice. BTW, has his lie about the size and duration of the deficit turned out to be true too? I hope so, record deficits are such a burden on the economy. How about his speech about the importance of veterans' care on the same day he cut veterans' care budgets? And then there was the famous "nation building - absolutely not" speech.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #69 July 17, 2004 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quite a change in attitude from you. I remember last January and February you and others were on a rampage about "Bush Lied" about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger." Don't you remember? I can post your words if you like. I fail to see a connection between a lying president and technical means of detecting a nuclear program. You were the one bantering on about how Bush lied in his SOTU Speech. It appears you were the one lying. And don't try to blame it on you getting bad intel. Where does that buck stop, again? Quote You're grasping at straws. If the CIA told him it was bogus intel (which they did) and he used it anyway, he was lying. You are the one grasping at straws. The CIA never told him it was bogus. They only told him they could not confirm its accuracy. You also made statements about it being a lie based soley on the intel you gathered by reading newspapers and then falsely accused the President of the United States of being a liar based on your intel. Nice try though. Quote If it turns out the CIA was wrong (and that has yet to be proven), well, he was just so inept as a liar that he inadvertantly told the truth. Inept or lying, your choice. Or perhaps he was smarter than Tenet and the CIA and believed the British Intel. Quote BTW, has his lie about the size and duration of the deficit turned out to be true too? I hope so, record deficits are such a burden on the economy. How about his speech about the importance of veterans' care on the same day he cut veterans' care budgets? And then there was the famous "nation building - absolutely not" speech. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running deficits as long as they are temporary. You run a deficit every time you use a credit card. Please try to stay focused on the thread title and stop trying to change the subject because you don't want to discuss it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #70 July 18, 2004 Quote You are grasping at straws. A nuke program is impossible to hide with current technology. Too many tell-tale isotopes around to go undetected. No evidence whatever has been found that Iraq had a nuke program. That had ALREADY been established by the IAEA BEFORE Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/politics/14nige.html Quote In February 2002, the C.I.A. received more detailed information from the foreign intelligence service, including what was described as the verbatim text of the sales accord, but the State Department analyst still doubted its veracity. Until then, Iraq's possible relationship with Niger was an issue being debated by a handful of intelligence professionals. That changed on Feb. 12, 2002, when the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a follow-up report that said in its title that Niger "signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad,'' and that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney. Gee, I wonder what they were planning on using all that uranium for ? I mean, since you claim they couldn't have had a nuclear program. Any ideas? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #71 July 18, 2004 Quote That changed on Feb. 12, 2002, when the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a follow-up report that said in its title that Niger "signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad,'' and that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney. Gee, I wonder what they were planning on using all that uranium for ? I mean, since you claim they couldn't have had a nuclear program. Any ideas? If only Cheney came off as an honest man. There's no evidence to support the claim that Iraq had a nuclear program. That's the core of the arguement here (now that this thread has evolved), and there's no evidence to support otherwise. A reality check is in order. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #72 July 18, 2004 Quote Quote That changed on Feb. 12, 2002, when the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a follow-up report that said in its title that Niger "signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad,'' and that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney. Gee, I wonder what they were planning on using all that uranium for ? I mean, since you claim they couldn't have had a nuclear program. Any ideas? If only Cheney came off as an honest man. There's no evidence to support the claim that Iraq had a nuclear program. That's the core of the arguement here (now that this thread has evolved), and there's no evidence to support otherwise. A reality check is in order. Why were they trying to buy uranium? Are you really going to suggest the only reason they would buy it is if they had a nuclear program and therefore since they didn't the claim they tried to purchase uranium is false? How naive. Hint: One suggestion is they may have intended to explode a dirty nuke or sell the uranium. Don't you find it interesting that the Libs aren't all over this on TV and radio saying this claim is false? Don't you think it's kind of odd you are the only one making the claim? How is that moon cheese tasting lately? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #73 July 19, 2004 Gravity - you could have pictures of Saddam Hussein surrounded by scientists in lab coats holding up a sign that had 'Iraq Nuclear Weapons Research Team - Eat Shit America' written in Arabic, English, Cyrillic, and French' and the left wingers would still deny that such a program ever existed. They are going to continue their barrage against Bush regardless of what info becomes available for public release. The recently revealed Wilson lie about his wife's involvement in recommending him for the Niger mission, his own reports from that mission, and the British reports have all recently come to light and none of them have gotten press coverage - we all know why. The good thing about these left wing antics is while they are busy crowing merrilly about 'what Bush knew, when did he know it, etc.' the conservatives are busy doing useful things. Some of them anyway - this recent marriage ammendment being an obvious exception.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #74 July 19, 2004 Quote Don't you find it interesting that the Libs aren't all over this on TV and radio saying this claim is false? Don't you think it's kind of odd you are the only one making the claim? How is that moon cheese tasting lately? It seems to me that there isn't any news covering these claims as being true or false... Probably because there's still no evidence supporting the arguement, and the media knows the viewing public is over it... so, in some funny way, there's only me and you saying that our respective claims are true or false... You have no solid evidence to support what you're saying, and I haven't seen any solid evidence to dispute what I'm saying. What I did see on the news, however, is that there were 14 more civilian casualties as a result of US airstrikes. This brings the Iraqi civilian death toll well past 13,000. BAck to the Iraq nuclear program for a second... There's no evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program. That has been made clear by the US media, the Butler report, the UN weapons inspectors, and the Kay report. But I bet you're convinced that it did, right? Vinny, I could care less if Gore was in office... If the US was doing what it's doing now with Gore as Pres, I would feel exactly the same way I do now, and argue the exact same things I do now... so please don't confuse this with some petty political stance. Labeling democrat, republican, conservative or liberal is so freakin' stupid and elementary... You guys use it like you're name calling, and generalizing. geesh. Hello? We, the citizens of this country, have been lied to repeatedly by this administration! How can you not have a problem with that? I had a problem with it when it was Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #75 July 19, 2004 Quote Quote Don't you find it interesting that the Libs aren't all over this on TV and radio saying this claim is false? Don't you think it's kind of odd you are the only one making the claim? How is that moon cheese tasting lately? Quote It seems to me that there isn't any news covering these claims as being true or false... Probably because there's still no evidence supporting the arguement, and the media knows the viewing public is over it... so, in some funny way, there's only me and you saying that our respective claims are true or false... You have no solid evidence to support what you're saying, and I haven't seen any solid evidence to dispute what I'm saying. What a rediculous statement. You haven't bothered to read anything I've posted. Stick your head in the sand if that floats your boat. Vinny is correct. Quote BAck to the Iraq nuclear program for a second... There's no evidence that Iraq had a nuclear program. That has been made clear by the US media, the Butler report, the UN weapons inspectors, and the Kay report. But I bet you're convinced that it did, right? Is English your first language? I have never said Iraq had a nuclear program. Are you just making stuff up to have something to argue? The Butler report stated very clearly Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger. I agree Iraq didn't have a nuclear program and I never said they did. Now given that, why was Iraq trying to buy Uranium from Niger? If you want to discuss something, at least try to get some grip on whats being discussed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
