• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

Montecresto said:
When did I deny that, and why would I deny that. All presidents lie, and it's always about political objectives. You think that you just said something profound? You think that an American citizen that holds no elected office who embellishes or fabricates a story that does nothing more than make themselves look good until caught, comes anywhere close to presidents lying to the American people!!!!!!!!! Are you............ok look dude, I think I've heard it all from you now.
Click to expand...

Did you take a course on twisting things purposely or what?
 
Fearandloathing said:
This is why the US is great deal less than what it could be.

At present the US has seven hot spots of terror with more on the rise in the greatest uprising in history, and Obama through his Grubers has the nation arguing about a twelve year old invasion.

Nothing is ever settled with the left. How the hell you can unite behind a common cause is beyond me, every discussion in here about what is plaguing America is "Bush's Fault"
Click to expand...

Absolutely...The "it was Bush's fault" meme these days is a clear and blatant diversion tactic to draw attention away from the utter failure Obama is as POTUS.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. The British report had nothing to do with the forgeries. Btw, no claim by anyone was based on the forgeries, which were quickly seen for what they were. The continued citing of this red herring is a marker for lack of familiarity with the facts.
Click to expand...

Can't you read? When UN officials pressed Britain and the US for information about the "other sources" they continually cited when faced with the fact of the Niger forgeries they admitted there were NONE. Their entire case was based on the forged documents.

The two countries maintain that they have additional evidence—from multiple sources—but do not elaborate. Pressed by journalists and inspectors to reveal their evidence, the two governments refuse. The IAEA tells Reuters that when it asked the US and Britain whether or not they have additional evidence that Iraq had tried to procure uranium, the answer was “no.” [Reuters, 3/26/2003]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Can't you read? When UN officials pressed Britain and the US for information about the "other sources" they continually cited when faced with the fact of the Niger forgeries they admitted there were NONE. Their entire case was based on the forged documents.
Click to expand...

No. They did not admit there were none. They declined to identify their sources. That's common in intelligence matters, and always a problem when dealing with the uninformed.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. They did not admit there were none. They declined to identify their sources. That's common in intelligence matters, and always a problem when dealing with the uninformed.
Click to expand...

This makes it pretty clear that they had NO additional sources and saying so was just a lie. Also very common in "intelligence matters" no doubt. From my original link.

The two countries maintain that they have additional evidence—from multiple sources—but do not elaborate. Pressed by journalists and inspectors to reveal their evidence, the two governments refuse. The IAEA tells Reuters that when it asked the US and Britain whether or not they have additional evidence that Iraq had tried to procure uranium, the answer was “no.” [Reuters, 3/26/2003]
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
This makes it pretty clear that they had NO additional sources and saying so was just a lie. From my original link.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the IAEA was wrong, or they were lying, or Reuters mischaracterized their response. Regardless, the British report in question had nothing to do with the forgeries, and remains valid to this day.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but the IAEA was wrong, or they were lying, or Reuters mischaracterized their response. Regardless, the British report in question had nothing to do with the forgeries, and remains valid to this day.
Click to expand...

I just showed you evidence that the British report was entirely based on the forged documents and that when pressed they admitted their were no other sources. Unless you can document what those supposed sources were you have NOTHING.
 
iguanaman said:
I just showed you evidence that the British report was entirely based on the forged documents and that when pressed they admitted their were no other sources. Unless you can document what those supposed sources were you have NOTHING.
Click to expand...

The forgeries were the basis of no one's claims. The British report had nothing to do with them.
 
iguanaman said:
I just showed you evidence that the British report was entirely based on the forged documents and that when pressed they admitted their were no other sources. Unless you can document what those supposed sources were you have NOTHING.
Click to expand...

From the Butler Review of British intelligence on Iraq:

The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a "well-founded" judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."
Stauber and Rampton, however, noted that "the Butler Report offers no details -- not even an approximate date when this may have happened, thus giving no way to assess its credibility. The British have also declined to share any information about this intelligence, even with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was responsible for prewar monitoring of Iraq's nuclear capability. In any case, the Congo's uranium mine was flooded and sealed several decades ago, which means that Iraq would not have been able to obtain uranium there even if it tried."[SUP][2][/SUP]
This intelligence (which had controversially found its way into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech) had previously (before September 2003 [C. May, 2004]) been thought to rely on forged documents. The Butler Review stated that "the forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made." (6.4 para. 503) Taking into account the American intelligence community’s findings on the matter, it is true that in December 2003, then CIA director George Tenet conceded that the inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union address was a mistake. (CNN.com, 2003) However, Tenet believed so, not due to any compelling evidence to the contrary, but rather because the CIA (criticized concerning this matter by the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq [Schmidt, 2004]) had failed to investigate the claim thoroughly; however again, the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA "agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought." In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents (6.4 Para. 502). (Times Online, 2003)
 
Jack Hays said:
From the Butler Review of British intelligence on Iraq:

The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a "well-founded" judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."
Stauber and Rampton, however, noted that "the Butler Report offers no details -- not even an approximate date when this may have happened, thus giving no way to assess its credibility. The British have also declined to share any information about this intelligence, even with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was responsible for prewar monitoring of Iraq's nuclear capability. In any case, the Congo's uranium mine was flooded and sealed several decades ago, which means that Iraq would not have been able to obtain uranium there even if it tried."[SUP][2][/SUP]
This intelligence (which had controversially found its way into George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech) had previously (before September 2003 [C. May, 2004]) been thought to rely on forged documents. The Butler Review stated that "the forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made." (6.4 para. 503) Taking into account the American intelligence community’s findings on the matter, it is true that in December 2003, then CIA director George Tenet conceded that the inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union address was a mistake. (CNN.com, 2003) However, Tenet believed so, not due to any compelling evidence to the contrary, but rather because the CIA (criticized concerning this matter by the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq [Schmidt, 2004]) had failed to investigate the claim thoroughly; however again, the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA "agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought." In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents (6.4 Para. 502). (Times Online, 2003)
Click to expand...

You rebutted your own claim. Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
What about "no evidence has been passed on to the IAEQ apart from the forged documents." is confusing to you? They had nothing else.
 
iguanaman said:
You rebutted your own claim. Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
What about "no evidence has been passed on to the IAEQ apart from the forged documents." is confusing to you? They had nothing else.
Click to expand...

Your reading is quite selective. What makes you think the IAEA would be entitled to sensitive British intelligence reports?
 
iguanaman said:
You rebutted your own claim. Oh what a tangled web we weave.....
What about "no evidence has been passed on to the IAEQ apart from the forged documents." is confusing to you? They had nothing else.
Click to expand...

The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a "well-founded" judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): "The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible."

QED
 
Top Cat said:
Rather than simply dealing with the lies, you summarily dismiss them all by condemning the source. As if somehow the source is the lie

Prove the lies wrong or run along.
Click to expand...

Its a strongly biased blog, guy. We know the media has a left wing bent, surely there must be dozens of stories at least, right?
 
LowDown said:
ISIL is invading the territories of these tribes and killing all their people, and they, in desperation, went to Bush for help. My heart goes out to them. There was a day when the US would have offered them some help.
Click to expand...

If Obama wanted to, he could lead the largest coalition of arab militaries in history to defeat ISIS, but he does not.

He's a coward and a politician first.
 
Fearandloathing said:
This is why the US is great deal less than what it could be.

At present the US has seven hot spots of terror with more on the rise in the greatest uprising in history, and Obama through his Grubers has the nation arguing about a twelve year old invasion.

Nothing is ever settled with the left. How the hell you can unite behind a common cause is beyond me, every discussion in here about what is plaguing America is "Bush's Fault"
Click to expand...

Welcome to the American nightmare. Thats how it is now. :doh
 
vesper said:
And I would say the next 18 months left in Obama's presidency can be devastating if he continues on the crooked path he has chosen. I am fed up to my eyeballs with his unwillingness to call these people Islamic terrorists. I am appalled at what lengths he will go to make a deal with Iran giving away the store in the process. I am fed up with our people having to flee embassies due to jihadist takeovers in certain parts of the world because of his fecklessness. And if that young female bimbo from the State Department gives one more press conference, I might kick my television.
What a moron! Her name is Jen Paski.
477654965-state-department-spokeswoman-jen-psaki-is-gettyimages.jpg


I have never in my life seen anyone dance around a direct question as she has. What a flake. Which leads me to believe that just about everyone envolved in foreign affairs within this administration are flakes and that is why we are at greater risk than ever before.
Click to expand...

The public opinion is that your president is an inept fool who is more concerned with political correctness than national security. That is the probable reason he has people like the one in the picture.
How sad. BHO is a disaster waiting to happen and has happened. How much longer will the the world have to suffer with such fools?

In the 20th. century you had nazisim and communism attempting to rule the world. In the early part of the 21st. century and beyond you now have these religious extremists who want to bring the world back to ancient times.
 
Glowpun said:
The public opinion is that your president is an inept fool who is more concerned with political correctness than national security. That is the probable reason he has people like the one in the picture.
How sad. BHO is a disaster waiting to happen and has happened. How much longer will the the world have to suffer with such fools?

In the 20th. century you had nazisim and communism attempting to rule the world. In the early part of the 21st. century and beyond you now have these religious extremists who want to bring the world back to ancient times.
Click to expand...

May I ask what country you are from?
 
Fenton said:
So the weapons inspectors had control of that yellow cake even after Saddam kicked them out ?
Click to expand...

It was not deemed worth the trouble and expense to remove given the fact that it was useless as a weapon. Yellow cake is low grade uranium it is not potent enough to even make a dirty bomb. There's so much info on this stuff it isn't even funny.

Why is it I always feel like I am talking to children on this board. Immature minds that need to be hand held through every excruciating detail because some sort of mental defect prevents them from using a simple search to find these things out for themselves. Either you are incredibly naïve or feigning ignorance.

What happened was that U.S. Marines stumbled across known stocks of uranium stored beneath the Tuwaitha nuclear research center, stocks that were not suitable for use in atomic weapons and had long since been cataloged, stored in sealed containers, and safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stored at a site that had been repeatedly surveyed by U.N. inspectors:
American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said. They said the U.S. troops may have broken U.N. seals meant to keep control of the radioactive material.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspected the Tuwaitha nuclear complex at least two dozen times and maintains a thick dossier on the site, had no immediate comment.

But an expert familiar with U.N. nuclear inspections told The Associated Press that it was implausible to believe that U.S. forces had uncovered anything new at the site. Instead, the official said, the Marines apparently broke U.N. seals designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands.

"What happened apparently was that they broke IAEA seals, which is very unfortunate because those seals are integral to ensuring that nuclear material doesn't get diverted," the expert said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several tons of low-grade uranium has been stored at Tuwaitha, Iraq's principal nuclear research center and a site that has been under IAEA safeguards for years, the official said. The Iraqis were allowed to keep the material because it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment. The uranium was inspected by the U.N. nuclear agency twice a year and was kept under IAEA seal at least until the Marines seized control of the site.
Click to expand...
snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

Yellowcake is (99%+) almost exclusively U-238, with very low radioactivity. It has an extremely long half-life, over 4 billion years, meaning that it emits radiation at a slow rate
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Your reading is quite selective. What makes you think the IAEA would be entitled to sensitive British intelligence reports?
Click to expand...

Because they told the IAEA that there was none in 2003. Why would they lie about it then? We had already found the allegation to be false first hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom