Tale of the Yellowcake - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sun Tzu · 07-08-2008, 01:16 AM

Is there anyone that carries the opinion that credabilty was sacrificed for the sole purpose of security. I'm hearing this more and more: the President withdrew his stance that Sadam had WMDs and admitted the it was an intelligence blunder to keep the Canadian purchase secure. I only know what I have briefly read about yellowcake, but from what I gather the process to convert it to weapon grade material was beyond Iraq's program. Still, it was purchased for a reason. The evolution of the story from five years ago to now is interesting.

July 8, 2003

Quote:

White House Admits WMD Error
Withdraws Claim That Iraq Tried To Buy Uranium From Africa

(CBS/AP) Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

Claims about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a primary justification for the war, but U.S. forces have yet to find any such weapons. The House and Senate intelligence panels are looking into prewar intelligence on Iraq and how it was used by the Bush administration.

Mr. Bush said in his address to Congress in January that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The president's statement in the State of the Union was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday.

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake" uranium "from Niger," Fleischer told reporters. "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

Fleischer's remarks follow assertions by an envoy sent by the CIA to Africa to investigate allegations about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The envoy, Joseph Wilson, said Sunday that the Bush administration manipulated his findings, possibly to strengthen the rationale for war.

Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to the West African nation of Gabon, was dispatched in February 2002 to explore whether Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Writing in a New York Times op-ed piece, Wilson said it did not take him long "to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

In an interview on NBC, Wilson insisted his doubts about the purported Iraq-Niger connection reached the highest levels of government, including Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

In fact, he said, Cheney's office inquired about the purported Niger-Iraq link.

"The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there," Wilson said.

Yet nearly a year after he had returned and briefed CIA officials, the assertion that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa was included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address.

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the United Nations in March — after the State of the Union — that the information about the uranium procurement efforts was based on forged documents.

A British parliamentary committee concluded Monday that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government mishandled intelligence material on Iraqi weapons — and said key questions remain about the allegations of an attempted uranium deal with Nigeria.

The committee, however, cleared ministers of deliberately misleading lawmakers.

Blair said Tuesday he had made a valid case for military action.

"I refute any suggestion that we misled Parliament or the people," Blair told the House of Commons Liaison Committee, stressing he stands "totally" behind the case he made for war.

"I am quite sure we did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein because not merely was he a threat…to the wider world but it was an appalling regime that the world is well rid of."

On Monday, the Foreign Affairs Committee said Blair "misrepresented" the status of a dossier published in January.

Blair had referred to it as "further intelligence," although he acknowledged later that it contained material from a graduate thesis published on the Internet.

The committee said that another dossier on Iraqi weapons, published in September, gave undue prominence to an uncorroborated claim that Iraq could deploy biological or chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order being given. It also said the "jury is still out" on the accuracy of the information contained in the intelligence document.

"The jury is not out at all," Blair retorted Tuesday. "There is no doubt that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction."

Blair said Tuesday he had no doubts that evidence of weapons of mass destruction programs would be found in Iraq, but said his case would not be weakened if no weapons were found.

Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon that coalition forces needed at least another four months to search for banned arms in Iraq.

The weapons dispute is taking a toll on support for the war in Britain. The Times of London says a poll of 1,000 adults over the weekend find support for the war slipped from 64 percent in April to 47 percent now. Opposition rose from 24 percent in April to 45 percent now.

The poll also found Blair was deemed less trustworthy than rival political leaders.

The dispute is also affecting Australia's government, which will undergo a parliamentary inquiry on the matter next month.

The Australian Broadcasting Company reports Prime Minister John Howard, while continuing to express confidence in the prewar intelligence, is distancing himself from the data passed to him by the United States and Britain.

"I had discussions myself with senior figures in the intelligence community, very senior figures in both countries," Howard said. "I believe that they believed very strongly in their judgments…We had lots of material put to us over a period of months and it built a case, necessarily judgments had to be made by the agencies."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in562312.shtml

July. 5, 2008

Quote:

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq
Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.
Secret mission
The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.
And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.
Yellowcake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like color and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.
"The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

The bit of information I have not been able to find is if there were any pieces of evidence the Sadam had recently imported material just prior to the second invasion. I have read mixed reports that the yellowcake is material obtained in the late 80s and is nothing more than left over materials from an already destroyed nuclear weapons program. If that is the case they were left after Desert Storm.

loquitur · 07-08-2008, 07:12 AM

it means Saddam wanted nukes but his program was less far along than people thought, at least less far along toward making a nuclear bomb. I may be wrong about this - if other people know they can enlighten me - but I can't think of any innocent reason for keeping yellowcake around. There might be, I just don't know.

Once again, the facts turn out to be more complicated than either side of the political divide is acknowledging. Subject to further information, I find this fact neither conclusive nor dismissible.

hiredgun · 07-08-2008, 07:40 AM

I don't think it's in dispute whether or not Saddam at one point had a functioning nuclear program. Therefore this revelation by itself doesn't do terribly much to bolster the original case for war.

Is there any evidence that this is the African yellowcake in question? I feel as if it would be trumpeted all over the airwaves if it were. Let me know if there is any.

More broadly, is it evidence of a nuclear program that was active in 2003 when we invaded? This is the question that bears most directly on whether or not the idea of any kind of 'imminent threat' warranting 'preemption' is even remotely plausible in the context of 2003.

If it is old yellowcake, then it merely echoes what we already knew - that Saddam had several defunct illicit weapons programs, that he violated scores of international commitments in order to keep them concealed rather than destroying or surrendering them, and that some people thought this was sufficient grounds for a war and others did not.

loquitur · 07-08-2008, 07:51 AM

well yeah, but why was he keeping yellowcake around? IIRC when South Africa under the new majority govt gave up its nukes it also gave up all its nuke ingredients as well. Same for Ukraine. There may be logical reasons for Saddam to have kept that stuff around, I just don't know. But as I said, it's not the sort of thing you can just wave the back of your hand and dismiss. On the other hand, there isn't much you can do with just plain yellowcake, as I understand the process. (Again, if others know more about the physics involved, please enlighten us.)

hiredgun · 07-08-2008, 08:10 AM

Oh, of course. Pre-invasion Iraq is not comparable to South Africa or Brazil - those cases bear more resemblance to Libya. I would not wave my hands at the nuclear material - it has some significance. It is merely one piece of evidence (among many) that Saddam was deliberately confounding the inspections regime, a fact which is not in serious dispute. Most likely he wanted what any leader in his position would want, which is to keep the stuff around either to restart the program at a later date, or to bargain it away for something more valuable in future negotiations, or to sell it, or simply to satisfy his own ego.

This has some bearing on any evaluation of the original decision to go to war, but I fail to see why it is earth-shattering, unless we learn something that indicates that a nuclear program was active in 2003.

And even then, it wouldn't a priori make the course we took the best possible course.

loquitur · 07-08-2008, 09:55 AM

well sure, but it takes you down several stages of analysis. All I'm saying is that the decisional flowchart does get rearranged a bit based on this nugget. It may or may not change the evaulation of the decision what to do.

host · 07-08-2008, 09:57 AM

Not to post shameless, self serving hype in this thread....but I sincerely wish more folks would read the "PTB" OP that I posted in this forum last night, and comment on it....sometimes, I feel like I might be losing my mind, because of my disappointment about the general level of distraction, disinterest, and superficiality exhibited in the posts and in the interests I perceive of so many of my fellow "TFPers", because the apathy and disinterest is EXACTLY WHAT ENABLES SHIT LIKE THE FOLLOWING, and what I detailed in the "PTB" thread, to happen to the US, and by extension, to the rest of the world, over and over, all the way back to the turn of the last century, and probably long before.....

People!!!! This is your country, your lives, and the lives of your children we are talking about, here. Can we poke our collective heads up from the distractions of everyday living, even just once and a while, to examine and consider who is running "the show", and what they are doing, and why they are doing it?

The "colleagues" of this Mr. Bush and of his father's and grandfather's generation, either are themselves, or serve at the pleasure and on the approval of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country (and thus, in the world....). These are people, as I documented in the "Robert A. Lovett" segment in the PTB thread, who were so zealous in their prosecution of war, that they built and studied a top secret weapons "proving ground" in Utah during WWII, models of German and Japanese "villages"...duplicated clusters of civilian residential buildings in order to bomb them with chemical, biological, explosive, and incendiary aerial bombs, for the purpose of learning which weapons would be most effective in killing civilian populations in residential districts.....

I further documented how, beginning in the 1930's these "people", purchased residences next to each other on a small, private Florida island, an island purchased with weapons sales profits, from sales to all sides, during WWI.

In contrast, the most recent US foray into "ginned up" rationale for unnecessary war, seems almost routine, for this group of ruling class Americans:

The "16 words"....they came on the background of events and decisions documented below:

Quote:

President Delivers "State of the Union"
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

Leaving uranium in Iraq is our standard practice....it's what our leadership does:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul7.html
U.S. Faulted for Leaving Tons of Uranium in Iraq

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2004; Page A12

Nuclear experts yesterday questioned a decision by the Energy Department to leave in Iraq nearly 400 tons of natural uranium that could be enriched for a nuclear weapon or used to build a radioactive "dirty bomb."

On Tuesday, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced that about two tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 radioactive sources had recently been removed from an old Iraqi nuclear facility and brought to the United States for safety reasons.

Although low-enriched uranium can be made usable for a bomb much faster, the "natural uranium is still dangerous and could be used in a nuclear weapons program or sold to somebody that would misuse it," said David Albright, a nuclear analyst and former weapons inspector in Iraq.....

...... The decision to remove the more dangerous materials was made by the National Security Council nearly one year after the invasion. The operation was completed on June 23, several days before the United States transferred political authority to the Iraqis.

"They lost a real opportunity to move the natural uranium, and that's disappointing since they had well over a year to do it when the country was exclusively under American control," Albright said. "We have no idea what Iraq will look like in a year."

The International Atomic Energy Agency kept Iraq's uranium under seal in storage facilities for more than a decade before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, but the storerooms were looted when Baghdad fell several weeks later.

The IAEA was allowed back into Iraq to help clean up the facility, and it urged U.S. officials to protect Iraq's former weapons sites from further looting.

But in recent months, radioactive equipment and Iraqi weapons components have been showing up in scrap yards and ports in Europe and the Middle East.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, has unsuccessfully lobbied the White House to let international inspectors return to Iraq. He is now discussing the matter with Iraqi authorities. Before the war, ElBaradei reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program, despite assertions to the contrary by the Bush administration, which went to war to remove weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons have not been found.

In a letter to the U.N. Security Council yesterday, ElBaradei said the IAEA had been told about the operation to remove the low-grade uranium and radiological sources, but he made it clear that the international nuclear agency -- which has a mandate to oversee Iraq's nuclear materials -- was not consulted or asked to participate.

Quote:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/24/182733/96
Niger/Uranium: FACTS everyone NEEDS to know
by Todd Johnston
Mon Oct 24, 2005 at 03:27:33 PM PDT

....some historical persepctive is in order:

* In 1991, Iraq was discovered to have about 500 metric tons (~1 million lbs.) of yellowcake they'd 'forgotten' to mention. George Herbert Walker Bush, his coalition pals, and the International Atomic Energy Agency were so alarmed that Iraq had yellowcake, they decided to leave it in Iraq. The "prudent" course of action as they saw it: put it drums, seal it up, and check the seals once a year. They knew an entire year was not long enough for Hussein to make anything dangerous out of yellowcake. [3, .pdf]

* That yellowcake was inspected and remained untouched until Hussein barred the U.N. inspectors in late 1998. [see 3 above]

* On Oct. 6, 2002, the CIA sent a fax to the White House that stated "the procurement [of yellowcake] is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide [yellowcake] in their inventory. [4, para. 7, emphasis added]

* During Dec. 9-11, 2002, before Bush's SOTU claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Africa, U.N. Inspectors verified that the yellowcake from 1991 was in Iraq, undisturbed, and still sealed. [see 3 above]

I hope you've made it this far. This background is crucial to truly understanding what happened, and what may yet happen, i.e. Iran (with an "n") who is processing uranium, not enriching it yet. Here's the payoff:

Repeated claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, initiated and bolstered solely by the CIA's Directorate of Operations were irrelevant. The idea was never credible, never implied Iraq was re-starting their nuclear programs, and never taken seriously. Iraq had all the yellowcake it needed and 4 years to use it ('99-'02) -- they had no facilities to enrich uranium.

Ask yourself: why would Iraq try to buy 500-550 mT of yellowcake when they already had the same amount, during a period and no one was inspecting it?

Care to guess where Iraq originally bought it's yellowcake back in the late 80's? About 1/2 of it came from Niger, receipts they turned over in the early 90's. Receipts from the 80's for 500-550 mT of yellowcake.

And finally, yes finally, ask yourself who in the Bush administration during '02-'03 didn't understand the unspannable gap between yellowcake and a nuclear bomb:

* George W. Bush? Who's father left 500 mT of yellowcake in Hussein's possession?

* Dick Cheney? The Secretary of Defense in 1991? The energy mogul with interests in nuclear power?

* Condoleeza Rice? The head of NSC who got her undergraduate degree at age 19 and her master's at 20? Who served on the board of Chevron and had a tanker named after her?

* George Tenet? Whose agency said buying yellowcake "was not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions?"

Colin Powell knew. That's why he left out references to yellowcake in his speech to the U.N., focusing instead on the "aluminum tubes." Though still a lie, at least those tubes were supposedly part of a centrifuge, a device used to enrich uranium.

See the sentences in expanded sized lettering, below, and the yellow highlighted sentences? Mr. Bush knew, and or certainly his staff and advisors knew....all of that "stuff" in those sentences, BEFORE he delivered the "16 words", in his January, 2003 SOTU address, accusing Iraq of attempting recent (irrelevant and unfounded....) purchases of uranium:

Quote:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...ort_110403.pdf
(.pdf page= 7)

Nuclear Material Availability
32. All known procured, indigenously produced and practically recoverable uranium compounds
which were not removed by 1994, in accordance with resolution 687 (1991), have remained in
the custody of the IAEA, and are presently stored under IAEA seal. This includes the depleted
uranium imported in 1979, natural uranium imported in 1979 and 1981–1982, low enriched
uranium imported in 1982, yellow cake produced at the Al Qaim facility, uranium dioxide and
uranium tetrachloride produced by the Al Jesira facilities, and uranium compounds produced at
Tuwaitha. After the resumption of inspections in November 2002, verification of the nuclear
material subject to IAEA safeguards which is stored in the nuclear material store of Tuwaitha
“Location C”, was performed from 9 to 11 December 2002. The inspection activities (i.e. item
counting, tag checks, gross defect tests, enrichment measurements and weighing) did not
uncover any discrepancies....

....Centrifuge Enrichment
35. During the four years preceding the resumption of inspections in Iraq, there was much
speculation about the possible revitalization of a gas centrifuge enrichment programme in Iraq.
Of main concern were the efforts of Iraq to procure high strength quality aluminium tubes,
declared for use in an unguided rocket programme, as possible cylinders in a gas centrifuge
programme. The IAEA conducted a thorough investigation of Iraq’s attempts to purchase large
quantities of such tubes. As previously reported, Iraq has maintained that these aluminium tubes
were sought for rocket production. Extensive field investigation and document analysis have
failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these tubes for any project other.....

....34. The IAEA investigated reports that centred on documents provided to it by a number of States
that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq on the sale of uranium to Iraq between
1999 and 2001. Based on its analysis, the IAEA concluded, with the concurrence of outside
experts, that these documents were in fact forged documents. The IAEA therefore concluded
that these specific allegations were unfounded. However, as the IAEA pointed out to the
Security Council, it could not automatically be extrapolated from this that Iraq had never sought
to import uranium, and the IAEA would continue to investigate the matter....

....Other Enrichment routes
38. The IAEA has not observed any indication related to other enrichment routes, such as the
electromagnetic isotopic separation process (EMIS) that was favoured by Iraq in the 1980s.
39. Nothing contained in the documents related to Iraq’s pre-1991 laser enrichment programme
which were found at the home of a former Iraqi scientist altered the conclusions previously
drawn by the IAEA concerning the extent of Iraq’s laser enrichment programme. Nor did they
contain any evidence of efforts by Iraq to resume research in this field after 1991.
Weapons Development Related Activities
40. No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq. However, to draw a
definitive conclusion in that regard, the IAEA would have needed additional time. Assurances
that there are no weaponization capabilities in Iraq are essential not only for ensuring that any
possible undetected domestically produced weapons-grade material could be transformed into a
nuclear device, but also for ensuring that no illegally imported or smuggled weapons-grade
material can be so used....

.....CONCLUSION
43. In the nearly four months during which the IAEA was able to conduct inspections in Iraq,
significant progress was made in assessing the status of Iraq’s nuclear-related capabilities. On
17 March 2003, the IAEA, in consultation with the President of the Security Council and the
United Nations Secretary-General, had to withdraw its staff from Iraq, as part of the decision to
withdraw the staff of UNMOVIC and other UN staff, out of concern for their safety and
following an advisory of upcoming military action.
44. As of 17 March 2003, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of
a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the IAEA had
completed its investigations on whether Iraq had attempted to revive its nuclear programme
between 1998 and 2002. Provided that Iraq’s co-operation had remained active, and barring
unforeseen circumstances, the IAEA would have been able to provide the Security Council with
credible assurance regarding the absence of such revival within two to three months of
continuing verification activities. However, any such assurance, as with any verification
process, would have had a degree of uncertainty. It is for that reason that the IAEA, as requested
by the Security Council, would have moved to the implementation of its reinforced OMV
system, which was designed to act as an effective deterrent to and insurance against resumption
by Iraq of its nuclear weapons programme, while permitting the IAEA to continue to look for
possible past activities, thus providing the international community with an ongoing and realtime
assessment of Iraq’s compliance with its obligations.
45. While the implementation of the IAEA mandate in Iraq has been interrupted because of the
ongoing military action, the IAEA’s mandate in Iraq, pursuant to Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement
to the Treaty on the Non–Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the relevant Security Council
resolutions, remains valid and thus not changed. The IAEA, as the sole legal authority to verify
Iraq’s nuclear activities, remains ready, subject to Security Council guidance, to resume its
verification activities as soon as conditions permit.

Quote:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...chapter2-f.htm

or... (report page=55 .pdf page=20):
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/c...8-301/sec2.pdf

or... (report page=55 .pdf page=67): http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...id=f:sr301.pdf

F. The Cincinnati Speech

(U) On October 4, 2002, the NSC sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa - an essential ingredient in the enrichment process."

(U) The CIA's former Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence (ADDI) for Strategic Programs, told Committee staff he was tasked by the Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) to handle coordination of the speech within the CIA. On October 5, 2002, the ADDI brought together representatives for each of the areas of Iraq that the speech covered and asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst - he could not remember who - raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq.

( ) Both WINPAC Iraq nuclear analysts who had followed the Iraq-Niger uranium issue told Committee staff they were not involved in coordinating the Cincinnati speech and did not participate in the speech coordination session on October 5, 2002. The WINPAC Deputy Director for Analysis also told Committee staff he did not recall being involved in the Cincinnati speech, but later clarified his remarks to the Committee in writing saying that he remembered participating in the speech, but did not recall commenting on the section of the speech dealing with the Niger information. Committee staff asked the CIA to identify who might have attended the Cincinnati speech coordination meeting and raised concerns with the ADDI about the sourcing and facts of the Niger reporting. The CIA told Committee staff that the NESA Iraq analyst, ( ) believes he may have been the one who attended the meeting and raised concerns about the Niger reporting with the ADDI.

(U) Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

( ) Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

( ) The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

( ) Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

(U) On October 7, 2002, President Bush delivered the speech in Cincinnati without the uranium reference. On the same day, the CIA prepared comments on a draft White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger. The comments suggested a change to the draft language saying "better to generalize the first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process" The original text from the White House had said "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." The White House did not publish the paper.

aceventura3 · 07-08-2008, 11:18 AM

Host,

Forgive me, but I am trying to understand your posts. I am not clear on what your view is regarding yellow cake, Saddam, and his possible nuclear weapons program. Do you think he had a nuclear weapons program? Do you think he was waiting to reinstitute his nuclear weapons program? Do you think he never had a nuclear weapon program? Do you think he never had any intent of having a nuclear weapon program? Do you think that even if he had a nuclear weapon he would not have been a threat? What do you think Sadaam was doing with all the "oil for fod" money he was stealing? And, do you think that regardless of the answers to the previous questions, that Bush just lied and manipulated intelligence simply to go to war with Iraq?

host · 07-08-2008, 11:35 AM

ace, I posted material that supports what I think, I highlighted it, and I included an explanation from a Kos diarist who explained it better than I could. I also referenced Robert Lovett and his "background"....these are very bad men, "leading" us, ace!

Willravel · 07-08-2008, 11:58 AM

Saddam may have wanted a nuclear program, but it's the same thing as me wanting to marry supermodel Gisele Bündchen. It was completely infeasible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you think he had a nuclear weapons program?

You can call it a nuclear program, but without the necessary funds, connections, and capability to produce any kind of nuclear weapon you might as well call it an "I wish" program.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you think he was waiting to reinstitute his nuclear weapons program?

He was going to die of old age before the UN stopped inspecting Iraq.
infeasible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you think he never had a nuclear weapon program?

In the 80s, yes, but it was stopped and (as host posted) the nuclear material was stored and checked once a year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you think he never had any intent of having a nuclear weapon program?

Do any of these questions strike you as a bit redundant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you think that even if he had a nuclear weapon he would not have been a threat?

Anyone with a nuclear weapon is a threat. He didn't have the military infrastructure to develop a delivery system to hit even Europe, let alone the US. Israel? I dunno.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What do you think Sadaam was doing with all the "oil for fod" money he was stealing?

Several things. First off, it's extremely expensive to maintain dictatorial control of a country. Second, his lifestyle and the lifestyles of his close family and friends was quite extravagant and required vast amounts of wealth to maintain. Third, the regular attempts on his life required very complex security measures from doubles to well trained personal guard.

If your argument is "he had lots of money therefore he was not only seeking but could probably get nuclear weapons" you've skipped a few steps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

And, do you think that regardless of the answers to the previous questions, that Bush just lied and manipulated intelligence simply to go to war with Iraq?

That depends on one's definition of a lie. My definition includes lies of omission, which Bush is clearly guilty of.

aceventura3 · 07-08-2008, 12:22 PM

You think he had or was motivated to have a nuclear weapons program, but even if he did, he was incapable or would not have been in power long enough to use any nuclear weapon he developed, and was therefore not a threat.

Is that a summation of you view?

Or would you start off by saying - He did not have and was not motivated to have...?

I guess that is where I get confused, by your position and the position of Host on this issue.

Sun Tzu · 07-08-2008, 12:28 PM

I didnt know about the substance. I won't attribute it to at least not trying to keep up date during the "shock and awe" show on everyone's television. Is there anyone here that knew about it at that time? The records show sales going back to the 80s. Regardless of what Saddam's intentions were with the stuff it would have been something to focus aside from "this is what our intel told us". Does this give foundation to eveything Bush was saying from the start.

I admit, I was waiting to hear some kind of "I told you so" from the administration. Or some way to use this as advantage or manner of regaining international "face". The quiet manner this seems to be easing in and out is strange.

Willravel · 07-08-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You think he had or was motivated to have a nuclear weapons program, but even if he did, he was incapable or would not have been in power long enough to use any nuclear weapon he developed, and was therefore not a threat.

He probably was motivated. Desert Storm basically took away all the power he thought he had. He went from a regional power to a toothless dictator who was really only able to terrorize his own people. So I'm sure he was motivated to try and get his power back. But. He had neither the finances nor the infrastructure to wage conventional war, let alone nuclear war. At the very most (and this is stretching the realm of what's reasonably possible), he might have gotten some very low yield uranium but wouldn't have been able to enrich it enough for power (3% enrichment), let alone nuclear weapons (90+% enrichment).

He may have been a minor threat to Israel in that he could help to fund and supply small and medium arms to Palestinian or Lebanese extremist organizations, but he really didn't even do that. All he did was pay a few families of suicide bombers in order to try and rebuild his popularity among Arab neighbors. And it didn't work to do that.

aceventura3 · 07-08-2008, 01:29 PM

Thanks. It seems we only differ in regards to perhaps how motivated he was and how quickly or if he would he would have been capable of producing a "deliverable" nuclear weapon. As you know I think he was very motivated, I think he would have used the billions from the oil for food program to fund his goals. I think he also was close to securing the support of Russia and France and could have soon persuaded the UN to back down. I think our actions prevented the potential for a much more costly war. I understand your disagreement.

Willravel · 07-08-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Thanks. It seems we only differ in regards to perhaps how motivated he was and how quickly or if he would he would have been capable of producing a "deliverable" nuclear weapon. As you know I think he was very motivated, I think he would have used the billions from the oil for food program to fund his goals. I think he also was close to securing the support of Russia and France and could have soon persuaded the UN to back down. I think our actions prevented the potential for a much more costly war. I understand your disagreement.

You have to actually support these assertions, though. The billions from oil for food were tied up in the fronts which he was trying to use to launder it. He was still in the process of laundering the money when the US and "coalition" invaded in 2003. As for getting Russian and French back up? It wouldn't have mattered one bit. Putin had essentially done a 180 from Yeltsin's pro-Iraq policies, and France would have faced a lot of trouble from it's fellow EU buddies from the UK to Germany. That means, in no uncertain terms, that Iraq stood virtually alone. On top of all that, the UN inspectors were 100% clear on exactly how many WMDs Iraq had, and they were absolutely right.

The cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq will soon reach the trillions. The collective (every country involved) cost off WW2 is estimated at about $288b total (which translates to less than $5T in current money). Currently, Iraq is at about $500b. If we stay as long as McCain believes we will, $5t will look like pocket change compared to what we'll pay and the US government will implode.

robot_parade · 07-08-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

it means Saddam wanted nukes but his program was less far along than people thought, at least less far along toward making a nuclear bomb. I may be wrong about this - if other people know they can enlighten me - but I can't think of any innocent reason for keeping yellowcake around. There might be, I just don't know.

Once again, the facts turn out to be more complicated than either side of the political divide is acknowledging. Subject to further information, I find this fact neither conclusive nor dismissible.

Yellowcake is the first product made from uranium ore after it's mined. It's stable and easy to transport. It can then be enriched for use in nuclear power plants or enriched further for nuclear weapons. In other words, it has other uses than weapons.

OTOH, I'm sure Saddam would've loved to have a nuclear warhead or three. Can't really blame him. If you're a country we don't like, and you have nukes, we negotiate with you. If you don't, we invade. Pretty simple math, even for a dictator.

aceventura3 · 07-08-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You have to actually support these assertions, though.

No, I don't. If I think someone or something is a threat, I will act and answer questions later. I have no problem with being held accountable for my actions. But I don't have an obligation to wait until there is 100% certainty. My "support" may never pass your test and it may be unwise for me to wait for it. In the case of the Iraq war, we had imperfect information. Everyone knew the information was imperfect. Bush made his case. People knew Bush was a "hawk". He got the needed support, and he acted. If you never supported the war, I doubt there would be any "support" that could change your view at this point. Given the the imperfect information, and trying to interpret someone's intent we will never know what might have been. To me the threat is gone. To you the threat was never there. I can clearly see why this Iraq question never can be resolved.

A fundamental question for the future is how do we elect people who share our views on how we would individually respond to a real or perceived threat. I voted for Bush, we are in sync in that regard. Democrats voted for people who supported and did not support the war at the same time. Democrats voted for people who failed to do their due diligence before voting to commit our military to war. Democrats voted for people who continually funded the war, etc.,etc. It seems when I point this out, Democrats get offended, I don't understand why.

Willravel · 07-08-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No, I don't.

This is the very model of the same narcissism that is directly responsible for 1.2m Iraqi lives and thousands of US troops' lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If I think someone or something is a threat, I will act and answer questions later.

I think you're a threat, therefore I have the right to attack you? That's absurd and you don't even believe this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have no problem with being held accountable for my actions. But I don't have an obligation to wait until there is 100% certainty. My "support" may never pass your test and it may be unwise for me to wait for it. In the case of the Iraq war, we had imperfect information. Everyone knew the information was imperfect. Bush made his case. People knew Bush was a "hawk". He got the needed support, and he acted. If you never supported the war, I doubt there would be any "support" that could change your view at this point. Given the the imperfect information, and trying to interpret someone's intent we will never know what might have been. To me the threat is gone. To you the threat was never there. I can clearly see why this Iraq question never can be resolved.

I'm not talking about "imperfect" information (the word you're looking for is incorrect, not imperfect). I'm talking about the removal of reasonable doubt, which never occurred. And guess what? Bushco was totally wrong. The UN tried to warn them, most of Europe and our other allies tried to warn them. Shit most people in the US who weren't sheep tried to warn them: the intel is bad, don't do this.

aceventura3 · 07-09-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

This is the very model of the same narcissism that is directly responsible for 1.2m Iraqi lives and thousands of US troops' lives.

Like I wrote, I doubt any "support" would meet your standard, and we don't have the benefit of knowing what would have happened if other actions were taken.

Quote:

I think you're a threat, therefore I have the right to attack you? That's absurd and you don't even believe this.

You certainly can take my position to an absurd extreme. However, there are legal standards for people to use to determine if a response to threat is reasonable. For example in my state, legally I would be justified in using deadly force if:

I believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
And, the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to hold that belief.
And, I am not the instigator or initial aggressor
And, the force is not excessive - greater than reasonable needed to overcome the threat.

That standard as it would apply to my wife may be different than it would apply to me because of my size and strength compared to my wife's size and strength.

So, on an individual basis, you could take an absurd action but legally you would be held accountable for it. On the other hand if you responded to a threat in a reasonable manner within legal parameters you may save your life or the life of another.

Quote:

I'm not talking about "imperfect" information (the word you're looking for is incorrect, not imperfect). I'm talking about the removal of reasonable doubt, which never occurred. And guess what? Bushco was totally wrong. The UN tried to warn them, most of Europe and our other allies tried to warn them. Shit most people in the US who weren't sheep tried to warn them: the intel is bad, don't do this.

No. The word I chose was imperfect because it encompasses not only the possibility of information being incorrect it also encompasses the possibility of the information being incomplete. Was it Rumsfeld who said: "There are known , knowns; known, unknowns; unknown, knowns; and unknown, unknowns. Or, it may have just been the voice of Samuel Jackson from an episode of the Boondocks. Either way information available can be "imperfect".

Willravel · 07-09-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Like I wrote, I doubt any "support" would meet your standard, and we don't have the benefit of knowing what would have happened if other actions were taken.

I asked you to support all of the arguments you made, and you said that you didn't have to. That's not how life works, Ace. People are held accountable not only after they've made decisions, but as they're making them and even when they're proposing them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You certainly can take my position to an absurd extreme.

Absurd? You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If I think someone or something is a threat, I will act and answer questions later.

I essentially said the same thing back to you and you called it absurd. I agree, it's a completely unreasonable and absurd ideal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

However, there are legal standards for people to use to determine if a response to threat is reasonable. For example in my state, legally I would be justified in using deadly force if:

I believe deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
And, the facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to hold that belief.
And, I am not the instigator or initial aggressor
And, the force is not excessive - greater than reasonable needed to overcome the threat.

None of those were met in the case of Iraq. Not by a mile, even.
1) As I've stated, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way shape or form.
2) No reasonable person could look at all the information available in 2003 (and I can post it if you'd like) and come to the conclusion that the US was in any danger.
3) We were the instigator.
4) Excessive? 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and many still don't have water and power 5 years later.

It seems, actually, that WE were the danger, and that Iraq had a right to defend itself... only it didn't have the means. Now they can in a way because the US military has trouble with guerrilla tactics, but they've already lost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, on an individual basis, you could take an absurd action but legally you would be held accountable for it. On the other hand if you responded to a threat in a reasonable manner within legal parameters you may save your life or the life of another.

The problem is that the US sits in a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which means that we can't be held accountable by the legal body under which we fall. It was absurd, and not only most of the world, but finally most of the US thinks so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No. The word I chose was imperfect because it encompasses not only the possibility of information being incorrect it also encompasses the possibility of the information being incomplete. Was it Rumsfeld who said: "There are known , knowns; known, unknowns; unknown, knowns; and unknown, unknowns. Or, it may have just been the voice of Samuel Jackson from an episode of the Boondocks. Either way information available can be "imperfect".

Imperfect means that it's not perfect. That can still mean it's correct. Incorrect would be a perfect description for the intelligence that Iraq had WMDs. Not imperfect, incorrect; and the difference therein is gross, not subtle.

aceventura3 · 07-09-2008, 11:45 AM

Here is my bottom line. If Bush acted incorrectly or illegally, those who have that belief need to address the issue. Bush made his case for war, he got approval. Bush ran for re-election on "staying the course" and won. Bush repeatedly asked for funding for the war and the funding was given. Bush appointed Sec. of Defense on the basis of his war strategy, Congress approved. Bush appointed a general on the basis of a surge strategy, Congress approved. If Congress felt Bush lacked support for the war, how do you explain their actions? If you want more support than what has already been provided, I can't give it to you, because there is nothing new I can add.

On the issue of a personal response to a threat, I accept being held accountable. I never said I had a "right to attack" you or anyone. Even when the threat is real there are legal standards which would be used to determine if the threat was in fact real and if the response to the threat was reasonable. Your example ignored these key factors and implied that I would just capriciously say someone was a threat and use that to justify an attack. I would not do that.

Willravel · 07-09-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here is my bottom line. If Bush acted incorrectly or illegally, those who have that belief need to address the issue.

Should I post a link to TFPolitics? Because a lot of us have done that, repeatedly; even in this thread, actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Bush made his case for war, he got approval. Bush ran for re-election on "staying the course" and won. Bush repeatedly asked for funding for the war and the funding was given. Bush appointed Sec. of Defense on the basis of his war strategy, Congress approved. Bush appointed a general on the basis of a surge strategy, Congress approved. If Congress felt Bush lacked support for the war, how do you explain their actions?

Most of the Democrats in the House and Senate are complete and utter cowards. They knew it was wrong, just like many Republicans, but they were more concerned with reelection than putting their career at risk by standing against a "war-time" president and a powerful executive who seem to still have at least some control over the media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If you want more support than what has already been provided, I can't give it to you, because there is nothing new I can add.

None of that is support, though. You simply gave a brief time line.

How about this? I can make a list of every single pre-war claim made by Bush or anyone under Bush, and then debunk it using information available at the time the claim was made. Would that convince you of anything? It'd really only require me to click on Host's profile and then go back a few years in his posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

On the issue of a personal response to a threat, I accept being held accountable. I never said I had a "right to attack" you or anyone. Even when the threat is real there are legal standards which would be used to determine if the threat was in fact real and if the response to the threat was reasonable. Your example ignored these key factors and implied that I would just capriciously say someone was a threat and use that to justify an attack. I would not do that.

Yes, saying someone is a threat is not the same as that individual actually being a threat, and therein lies the issue. Iraq was said to have been a threat, but wasn't a threat. At all. Do you see the distinction? Using the philosophy you just posted, you would have to agree that the Bush administration was wrong.

hiredgun · 07-10-2008, 05:04 AM

Ace, I'm reading your posts and it sounds as if you are trying to demonstrate that the use of force can sometimes be justified. Rest assured that you don't have to make that point - most of those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq are not pacifists.

What willravel is getting at is the question of Iraq in particular and not self-defense or self-interest in general. Here he explains why the war was unjustified based on the criteria that you yourself laid out.

Quote:

None of those were met in the case of Iraq. Not by a mile, even.
1) As I've stated, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way shape or form.
2) No reasonable person could look at all the information available in 2003 (and I can post it if you'd like) and come to the conclusion that the US was in any danger.
3) We were the instigator.
4) Excessive? 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and many still don't have water and power 5 years later.

You keep saying that you are comfortable with people acting as they see fit so long as they are willing to be held accountable, and that is a completely fair point. But holding the administration accountable is precisely what will is doing now. How else would you like him to do it, if not by speaking out as he and others do? Will criticizes the way the decision to go to war was made and you shrug it off by saying that the administration can do what it likes and 'ask questions later'. Well, when is 'later', exactly?

aceventura3 · 07-10-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Ace, I'm reading your posts and it sounds as if you are trying to demonstrate that the use of force can sometimes be justified. Rest assured that you don't have to make that point - most of those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq are not pacifists.

What willravel is getting at is the question of Iraq in particular and not self-defense or self-interest in general. Here he explains why the war was unjustified based on the criteria that you yourself laid out.

Quote:

None of those were met in the case of Iraq. Not by a mile, even.
1) As I've stated, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way shape or form.
2) No reasonable person could look at all the information available in 2003 (and I can post it if you'd like) and come to the conclusion that the US was in any danger.
3) We were the instigator.
4) Excessive? 1,200,000 dead Iraqis and many still don't have water and power 5 years later.

You keep saying that you are comfortable with people acting as they see fit so long as they are willing to be held accountable, and that is a completely fair point. But holding the administration accountable is precisely what will is doing now. How else would you like him to do it, if not by speaking out as he and others do? Will criticizes the way the decision to go to war was made and you shrug it off by saying that the administration can do what it likes and 'ask questions later'. Well, when is 'later', exactly?

In the items 1 through 4 there is disagreement.

Items 1 and 2 - The UN, Congress, and other nations saw Saddam as a threat. Former President Clinton saw him as a threat. Credible people like Colin Powell saw him as a threat and many others in the military, CIA, and members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I think reasonable people can disagree on how big of a threat he was and what would have been the appropriate course of action. Parsing the language regarding him being a threat but not a threat to the US because he could not deliver a nuclear bomb is problematic to me. Also, I believe real economic sanctions target innocent civilians more than it targets those in political power and the military. Also in my view real economic sanctions, being enforced using force if needed, is defacto - a declaration of war. I would not have supported economic sanctions. To me military force was the only real option to deal with the Saddam threat.

Item 3 - I live in an area where we have hornets, In my view saying we were the instigator is like saying I am the instigator in removing a hornets nest from my back porch so my family won't be at risk. Certainly preemptive, but also the right thing to do.

Item 4 - Our initial primary military objective was to remove Saddam from power, the force used was not excessive to accomplish that mission. Our second military objective, to bring stability to the country for political progress was impeded by insurgents. I would argue that the insurgents were primarily responsible for the Iraqi deaths.

So, again we come to the basic question was Saddam a threat. Those who don't think he was will think any action taken was inappropriate. Those who think he was a threat to others but not to the US, will think our actions were excessive. Nothing at this point can be said to change those views, just as there is nothing that can be said to change my view, because we will never know what might have been.

The data has been reviewed and investigated, if we acted inappropriate now is the time to address the issue. Those who have the power to address the issue either agreed with Bush or all their rhetoric was b.s.

Willravel · 07-10-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Items 1 and 2 - The UN, Congress, and other nations saw Saddam as a threat. Former President Clinton saw him as a threat. Credible people like Colin Powell saw him as a threat and many others in the military, CIA, and members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations. I think reasonable people can disagree on how big of a threat he was and what would have been the appropriate course of action. Parsing the language regarding him being a threat but not a threat to the US because he could not deliver a nuclear bomb is problematic to me. Also, I believe real economic sanctions target innocent civilians more than it targets those in political power and the military. Also in my view real economic sanctions, being enforced using force if needed, is defacto - a declaration of war. I would not have supported economic sanctions. To me military force was the only real option to deal with the Saddam threat.

President Clinton and the UN didn't see Saddam as a threat in the same way you seem to suggest. The UN was concerned, so they sent in inspectors, and Bill Clinton supported that (unless there was a certain intern in the news, and then he'd inexplicably bomb Iraq). Neither of them wanted to invade Iraq. Why? I think that's obvious now. Moreover, Bill and the UN knew that so long as Saddam was declawed, he was only a danger to his own country (like hundreds of other dictators around the world), and that didn't require the US or UN to intervene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Item 3 - I live in an area where we have hornets, In my view saying we were the instigator is like saying I am the instigator in removing a hornets nest from my back porch so my family won't be at risk. Certainly preemptive, but also the right thing to do.

I'll keep saying it until you get it: Iraq had no WMDs. There's no evidence Iraq was even seeking them out. Iraq could not have hurt the US in any way. We were totally safe from Saddam. Hornets can sting. Saddam had no stinger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Item 4 - Our initial primary military objective was to remove Saddam from power, the force used was not excessive to accomplish that mission. Our second military objective, to bring stability to the country for political progress was impeded by insurgents. I would argue that the insurgents were primarily responsible for the Iraqi deaths.

The aggressors/instigators are responsible. Were they killing each other by the thousand before we invaded? Saddam was killing some, but no one in their right mind could compare that to what's happening today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, again we come to the basic question was Saddam a threat. Those who don't think he was will think any action taken was inappropriate. Those who think he was a threat to others but not to the US, will think our actions were excessive. Nothing at this point can be said to change those views, just as there is nothing that can be said to change my view, because we will never know what might have been.

The data has been reviewed and investigated, if we acted inappropriate now is the time to address the issue. Those who have the power to address the issue either agreed with Bush or all their rhetoric was b.s.

All their rhetoric was BS.

aceventura3 · 07-10-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

President Clinton and the UN didn't see Saddam as a threat in the same way you seem to suggest. The UN was concerned, so they sent in inspectors, and Bill Clinton supported that (unless there was a certain intern in the news, and then he'd inexplicably bomb Iraq). Neither of them wanted to invade Iraq. Why? I think that's obvious now. Moreover, Bill and the UN knew that so long as Saddam was declawed, he was only a danger to his own country (like hundreds of other dictators around the world), and that didn't require the US or UN to intervene.

I don't do well with shades of gray. I don't understand when a concern becomes a threat in your view or even what the real difference is. In my view a concern requires action just as a threat requires action. If the issue is what strategy to employ in addressing a concern/threat, I get it. Reasonable people can disagree on strategy, but that does not seem to be what our disagreement is.

Willravel · 07-10-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't do well with shades of gray.

That's unfortunate, because we don't live in a world of black and white. Everything is a shade of gray, and as such it's something people should become accustomed to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't understand when a concern becomes a threat in your view or even what the real difference is.

If Iraq had ANY weapons that could reach the US, I'd have considered them a threat. If there was any verifiable evidence that they were seeking out any such weapons, I'd probably consider them a threat. If they had the ability to seriously put our allies in danger, I'd have considered them a threat. None of these were met, therefore Iraq was not a threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In my view a concern requires action just as a threat requires action. If the issue is what strategy to employ in addressing a concern/threat, I get it. Reasonable people can disagree on strategy, but that does not seem to be what our disagreement is.

Every time you explain why you thought Iraq was a threat, you use incorrect information. How, now knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had no WMDs and that they weren't even seeking out WMDs, was Iraq a threat?

aceventura3 · 07-10-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

That's unfortunate, because we don't live in a world of black and white. Everything is a shade of gray, and as such it's something people should become accustomed to.

Like the fact that you can use a military to impose your will or that you can use some other means. In my way of looking at it, you are imposing your will. In the world of gray, you get to rationalize it. Unfortunately, the grayness can lead to long-term pain and suffering and no clarity. I say if you are going to impose your will, do it, do it big, do it decisively. One of the problems with our occupation (the part after removing Saddam) is that we lacked real comitment and conviction to do the job.

I am not going to get accustomed to the gray, and I have no interest in it.

Quote:

Every time you explain why you thought Iraq was a threat, you use incorrect information. How, now knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had no WMDs and that they weren't even seeking out WMDs, was Iraq a threat?

What do you want from me? The prewar intel was incorrect. We now know that. Even without that intel, I saw Saddam as a threat. My belief dates back to the first Gulf War. I stated several times, Saddam should have been removed from power then, I was in the minority then thinking we should have marched into Baghdad. I supported Bush in his first election in-part because I felt he would not tolerate Saddam's defiance and would not hesitate to use military force. I felt we needed to act when we did, or we would have had a bigger mess at some future date. You and I disagree. However, more people agreed with me than with you - including the Democrats in Congress who voted for the use of military force and our ongoing occupation. Perhaps, before debating with me (I am as far to the extreme as you can reasonably get on this issue), perhaps you would be better having an exchange with those who marginally could have gone either way, find out what caused them to swing Bush's way. Find out why they don't want to hold Bush accountable, if they now think he lied or whatever..

Willravel · 07-10-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Like the fact that you can use a military to impose your will or that you can use some other means. In my way of looking at it, you are imposing your will. In the world of gray, you get to rationalize it. Unfortunately, the grayness can lead to long-term pain and suffering and no clarity. I say if you are going to impose your will, do it, do it big, do it decisively. One of the problems with our occupation (the part after removing Saddam) is that we lacked real commitment and conviction to do the job.

I am not going to get accustomed to the gray, and I have no interest in it.

You can use your military to impose your will if you're willing to ignore the law and morality, sure. The biggest problem with our occupation was it was impossible. The US doesn't do "occupations" anymore (at least doesn't win them) , because we can't maintain law and order in a country where the occupants don't want us there. The problem with our occupation? It was impossible. Short of having 25 million American troops on the ground, it was unreasonable from day one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What do you want from me? The prewar intel was incorrect. We now know that. Even without that intel, I saw Saddam as a threat. My belief dates back to the first Gulf War. I stated several times, Saddam should have been removed from power then, I was in the minority then thinking we should have marched into Baghdad. I supported Bush in his first election in-part because I felt he would not tolerate Saddam's defiance and would not hesitate to use military force. I felt we needed to act when we did, or we would have had a bigger mess at some future date. You and I disagree. However, more people agreed with me than with you - including the Democrats in Congress who voted for the use of military force and our ongoing occupation. Perhaps, before debating with me (I am as far to the extreme as you can reasonably get on this issue), perhaps you would be better having an exchange with those who marginally could have gone either way, find out what caused them to swing Bush's way. Find out why they don't want to hold Bush accountable, if they now think he lied or whatever..

Had we marched on Baghdad in 1991, we'd be in year 17 of the occupation (as the UN wouldn't have backed us then, either) and we'd still be losing. Or Clinton would have pulled out and been considered a hero for it. George H. W. Bush would go down in history as a war criminal and W. Bush likely never would have been elected.

How was Saddam a threat, Ace?

aceventura3 · 07-11-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You can use your military to impose your will if you're willing to ignore the law and morality, sure. The biggest problem with our occupation was it was impossible. The US doesn't do "occupations" anymore (at least doesn't win them) , because we can't maintain law and order in a country where the occupants don't want us there. The problem with our occupation? It was impossible. Short of having 25 million American troops on the ground, it was unreasonable from day one.

One way of a nation imposing its will on another country is by using its military. There are other methods. We can impose our will through cultural means, which is one reason Muslim extremists dislike the West. Another method is economic, many countries have evolved strictly based on their ability to trade with economically powerful countries. Some would argue that the use of a beautiful woman (i.e.-Nefertiti) was enough to impose one nation's will upon another, at least for a brief time. Missionaries have been used to tame the "savages" in other nations as a mean of imposing one nation's will on another. The UN uses guilt to try to impose its will on the US. So, I am not sure why you would think one form of "imposing will" is better or worse than another. It is what it is. And by the way, using the military does not have to result in in more or less death than other methods. The cold war between the US and USSR was clearly military without blood. Sometimes all you need is a show of force.

Quote:

Had we marched on Baghdad in 1991, we'd be in year 17 of the occupation (as the UN wouldn't have backed us then, either) and we'd still be losing. Or Clinton would have pulled out and been considered a hero for it. George H. W. Bush would go down in history as a war criminal and W. Bush likely never would have been elected.

If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Quote:

How was Saddam a threat, Ace?

Ask the people he had killed. Ask the Kuwait, the country he attacked. Ask Israel, the country he bombed. Ask the UN, the international body that subjected him to inspections and monitoring for some reason. Ask Clinton. Ask Congress. Ask the countries who assisted us. Ask our jet pilots who were fired upon as they flew their missions. Ask the victims of suicide bombers, suicide bombers who were told they would be given money for their families. Asking me is pointless, I have already stated what I would have done and why. Everyone who ever talked to me on the subject prior to our invasion of Iraq knew my opinion. People knew Bush's opinion too, long before he made his formal case for war.

Poppinjay · 07-11-2008, 07:28 AM

More people are being killed in Iran now than Hussein killed. It's just not him doing the killing.

The U.S. was quite happy with Hussein from 1979 to 1991.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

More people are being killed in Iran now than Hussein killed. It's just not him doing the killing.

How do we know what might have been?

Quote:

The U.S. was quite happy with Hussein from 1979 to 1991.

things change

Willravel · 07-11-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask the people he had killed. Ask the Kuwait, the country he attacked. Ask Israel, the country he bombed. Ask the UN, the international body that subjected him to inspections and monitoring for some reason. Ask Clinton. Ask Congress. Ask the countries who assisted us. Ask our jet pilots who were fired upon as they flew their missions. Ask the victims of suicide bombers, suicide bombers who were told they would be given money for their families. Asking me is pointless, I have already stated what I would have done and why. Everyone who ever talked to me on the subject prior to our invasion of Iraq knew my opinion. People knew Bush's opinion too, long before he made his formal case for war.

Fantastic job in dodging the question. Why don't you give me numbers and statistics, because it seems like you don't know what was going on in Iraq before the invasion. How many Iraqi people were killed by Saddam between 1992 and 2003? What's the yearly distribution of those deaths? Was he a danger at all to Kuwait after Desert Storm, and if yes, can you provide any evidence? Did the UN think he was a threat as each year after Desert Storm they found no weapons?

What I'm subtly getting at is that you're blowing smoke. You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think Saddam was a threat, which has been demonstrated time and again.

Poppinjay · 07-11-2008, 07:48 AM

Considering he had his country arranged by ethnicity just the way he liked it, probably not much more killing was likely to happen. Just a general sort of oppression. Now, the Sunnis and Ba'athists are killing the Christians and Kurds and each other.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Fantastic job in dodging the question. Why don't you give me numbers and statistics, because it seems like you don't know what was going on in Iraq before the invasion. How many Iraqi people were killed by Saddam between 1992 and 2003? What's the yearly distribution of those deaths? Was he a danger at all to Kuwait after Desert Storm, and if yes, can you provide any evidence? Did the UN think he was a threat as each year after Desert Storm they found no weapons?

What I'm subtly getting at is that you're blowing smoke. You have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think Saddam was a threat, which has been demonstrated time and again.

I don't blow smoke, but you made your point. You don't think I had reason to believe Saddam was a threat. You used your judgment to conclude that, given the known information, it was not reasonable to conclude that Saddam was a threat. Based on your judgment, the use of the military was excessive and not needed. I disagree. Our nation acted based on my beliefs. Now, which was my point much earlier, what are "we" going to do about it?

Willravel · 07-11-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't blow smoke, but you made your point. You don't think I had reason to believe Saddam was a threat. You used your judgment to conclude that, given the known information, it was not reasonable to conclude that Saddam was a threat. Based on your judgment, the use of the military was excessive and not needed. I disagree.

Why? If you can't provide me with any reason that you think Saddam was a threat, how can you be so sure?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Our nation acted based on my beliefs. Now, which was my point much earlier, what are "we" going to do about it?

Lose or leave. If McCain wins, we'll lose. If Obama wins, we'll leave. There is no victory.

aceventura3 · 07-11-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Why? If you can't provide me with any reason that you think Saddam was a threat, how can you be so sure?

You don't accept my reasons. After every attempt to offer my reasons - You have considered them baseless and without merit.. In your view I have no legitimate reasons, and I have over reacted to what was not a real threat. To you my reasons don't exist. To you, there is nothing, nada, zippo. So, what do you want? You have read what I have submitted on this subject, I have nothing else to give you.

Quote:

Lose or leave. If McCain wins, we'll lose. If Obama wins, we'll leave. There is no victory.

Basically, I wanted Saddam out of power. He is out of power, mission accomplished. The occupation is another story. I have mixed feelings about it.

Willravel · 07-11-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You don't accept my reasons. After every attempt to offer my reasons - You have considered them baseless and without merit.. In your view I have no legitimate reasons, and I have over reacted to what was not a real threat. To you my reasons don't exist. To you, there is nothing, nada, zippo. So, what do you want? You have read what I have submitted on this subject, I have nothing else to give you.

I demonstrate that they are baseless and without merrit. You're acting like this is simply opinion. I'll break it down again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask the people he had killed.

Who were they? How many were there? Do you have any idea who they are or how many there were, or are you just guessing? Was it more or less than 1000? Was it more or less than the victims of the UN economic sanctions? If less, why didn't we invade the UN?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask the Kuwait, the country he attacked.

Demonstrate that Kuwait was in any danger after Desert Storm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask Israel, the country he bombed.

Okay, after that I'll ask Iraq, the country Israel bombed first

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask the UN, the international body that subjected him to inspections and monitoring for some reason.

We did ask them, remember? Powell appeared before the UN and said "
these guys are dangerous!" The UN replied "bullshit, prove it." We backed down and invaded without their consent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask Clinton.

He opposed the war from day one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask Congress.

The ones who the Bush Administration had to lie to (and by lie, I mean a lie of omission)? Yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask the countries who assisted us.

You men the other countries that weren't in any danger? Yes, several countries assisted us, but does that demonstrate that Iraq/Saddam was dangerous?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask our jet pilots who were fired upon as they flew their missions.

Bombing missions? Why would they fire on spy planes violating their space or bombers which were about to take out a hospital and call it collateral damage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Ask the victims of suicide bombers, suicide bombers who were told they would be given money for their families.

Oh yeah, that was very bad. Saddam was wrong to do that. Here's a question, have we invaded Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, or Syria, where the suicide bombers get most of their weapons and funding? Saddam only paid out a few times, really.

Sun Tzu · 07-11-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

More people are being killed in Iran now than Hussein killed. It's just not him doing the killing.

The U.S. was quite happy with Hussein from 1979 to 1991.

What is going on in Iran now? Chemical agents being dispersed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Oh yeah, that was very bad. Saddam was wrong to do that. Here's a question, have we invaded Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, or Syria, where the suicide bombers get most of their weapons and funding? Saddam only paid out a few times, really.

It's was the Saudis that really did it in bad taste with the telethons. But they stood fast as a member of OPEC not threatening to switch to the euro, so they seemed to be overlooked about a great many things.

Although, I am not entirely clear on this, I believe that Saddams action of switching from the dollar standard over to the euro was another contributing factor.

Willravel · 07-11-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

It's was the Saudis that really did it in bad taste with the telethons.

That's true. Add Saudi Arabia to the list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Although, I am not entirely clear on this, I believe that Saddams action of switching from the dollar standard over to the euro was another contributing factor.

Maybe we should invade Europe for having a more stable currency.

07-08-2008, 11:18 AM	#8 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, Forgive me, but I am trying to understand your posts. I am not clear on what your view is regarding yellow cake, Saddam, and his possible nuclear weapons program. Do you think he had a nuclear weapons program? Do you think he was waiting to reinstitute his nuclear weapons program? Do you think he never had a nuclear weapon program? Do you think he never had any intent of having a nuclear weapon program? Do you think that even if he had a nuclear weapon he would not have been a threat? What do you think Sadaam was doing with all the "oil for fod" money he was stealing? And, do you think that regardless of the answers to the previous questions, that Bush just lied and manipulated intelligence simply to go to war with Iraq? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-08-2008, 12:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	You think he had or was motivated to have a nuclear weapons program, but even if he did, he was incapable or would not have been in power long enough to use any nuclear weapon he developed, and was therefore not a threat. Is that a summation of you view? Or would you start off by saying - He did not have and was not motivated to have...? I guess that is where I get confused, by your position and the position of Host on this issue. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-08-2008, 12:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I didnt know about the substance. I won't attribute it to at least not trying to keep up date during the "shock and awe" show on everyone's television. Is there anyone here that knew about it at that time? The records show sales going back to the 80s. Regardless of what Saddam's intentions were with the stuff it would have been something to focus aside from "this is what our intel told us". Does this give foundation to eveything Bush was saying from the start. I admit, I was waiting to hear some kind of "I told you so" from the administration. Or some way to use this as advantage or manner of regaining international "face". The quiet manner this seems to be easing in and out is strange. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

07-08-2008, 01:29 PM	#14 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Thanks. It seems we only differ in regards to perhaps how motivated he was and how quickly or if he would he would have been capable of producing a "deliverable" nuclear weapon. As you know I think he was very motivated, I think he would have used the billions from the oil for food program to fund his goals. I think he also was close to securing the support of Russia and France and could have soon persuaded the UN to back down. I think our actions prevented the potential for a much more costly war. I understand your disagreement. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-09-2008, 11:45 AM	#21 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Here is my bottom line. If Bush acted incorrectly or illegally, those who have that belief need to address the issue. Bush made his case for war, he got approval. Bush ran for re-election on "staying the course" and won. Bush repeatedly asked for funding for the war and the funding was given. Bush appointed Sec. of Defense on the basis of his war strategy, Congress approved. Bush appointed a general on the basis of a surge strategy, Congress approved. If Congress felt Bush lacked support for the war, how do you explain their actions? If you want more support than what has already been provided, I can't give it to you, because there is nothing new I can add. On the issue of a personal response to a threat, I accept being held accountable. I never said I had a "right to attack" you or anyone. Even when the threat is real there are legal standards which would be used to determine if the threat was in fact real and if the response to the threat was reasonable. Your example ignored these key factors and implied that I would just capriciously say someone was a threat and use that to justify an attack. I would not do that. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

07-08-2008, 07:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	it means Saddam wanted nukes but his program was less far along than people thought, at least less far along toward making a nuclear bomb. I may be wrong about this - if other people know they can enlighten me - but I can't think of any innocent reason for keeping yellowcake around. There might be, I just don't know. Once again, the facts turn out to be more complicated than either side of the political divide is acknowledging. Subject to further information, I find this fact neither conclusive nor dismissible.

07-08-2008, 07:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	I don't think it's in dispute whether or not Saddam at one point had a functioning nuclear program. Therefore this revelation by itself doesn't do terribly much to bolster the original case for war. Is there any evidence that this is the African yellowcake in question? I feel as if it would be trumpeted all over the airwaves if it were. Let me know if there is any. More broadly, is it evidence of a nuclear program that was active in 2003 when we invaded? This is the question that bears most directly on whether or not the idea of any kind of 'imminent threat' warranting 'preemption' is even remotely plausible in the context of 2003. If it is old yellowcake, then it merely echoes what we already knew - that Saddam had several defunct illicit weapons programs, that he violated scores of international commitments in order to keep them concealed rather than destroying or surrendering them, and that some people thought this was sufficient grounds for a war and others did not.

07-08-2008, 07:51 AM	#4 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	well yeah, but why was he keeping yellowcake around? IIRC when South Africa under the new majority govt gave up its nukes it also gave up all its nuke ingredients as well. Same for Ukraine. There may be logical reasons for Saddam to have kept that stuff around, I just don't know. But as I said, it's not the sort of thing you can just wave the back of your hand and dismiss. On the other hand, there isn't much you can do with just plain yellowcake, as I understand the process. (Again, if others know more about the physics involved, please enlighten us.)

07-08-2008, 08:10 AM	#5 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Oh, of course. Pre-invasion Iraq is not comparable to South Africa or Brazil - those cases bear more resemblance to Libya. I would not wave my hands at the nuclear material - it has some significance. It is merely one piece of evidence (among many) that Saddam was deliberately confounding the inspections regime, a fact which is not in serious dispute. Most likely he wanted what any leader in his position would want, which is to keep the stuff around either to restart the program at a later date, or to bargain it away for something more valuable in future negotiations, or to sell it, or simply to satisfy his own ego. This has some bearing on any evaluation of the original decision to go to war, but I fail to see why it is earth-shattering, unless we learn something that indicates that a nuclear program was active in 2003. And even then, it wouldn't a priori make the course we took the best possible course.

07-08-2008, 09:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	well sure, but it takes you down several stages of analysis. All I'm saying is that the decisional flowchart does get rearranged a bit based on this nugget. It may or may not change the evaulation of the decision what to do.

07-08-2008, 11:35 AM	#9 (permalink)
host Banned	ace, I posted material that supports what I think, I highlighted it, and I included an explanation from a Kos diarist who explained it better than I could. I also referenced Robert Lovett and his "background"....these are very bad men, "leading" us, ace!

07-11-2008, 07:28 AM	#31 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	More people are being killed in Iran now than Hussein killed. It's just not him doing the killing. The U.S. was quite happy with Hussein from 1979 to 1991. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

07-11-2008, 07:48 AM	#34 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Considering he had his country arranged by ethnicity just the way he liked it, probably not much more killing was likely to happen. Just a general sort of oppression. Now, the Sunnis and Ba'athists are killing the Christians and Kurds and each other. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet