| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/17/2008 03:44:55 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmmmm... Since, if true, it would validate the Bush administration's position, I wonder why the administration isn't shouting this from the rooftops...
Why keep it all hush hush? |
Yep! Why?
If true, then it certainly should change some perceptions. It is an AP article. Would they print a lie? Especially one that benifitted the current administration? |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 04:08:12 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmmmm... Since, if true, it would validate the Bush administration's position, I wonder why the administration isn't shouting this from the rooftops...
Why keep it all hush hush? |
Yep! Why?
If true, then it certainly should change some perceptions. It is an AP article. Would they print a lie? Especially one that benifitted the current administration? |
I'd expect Bush and Cheney to be wagging their fingers at everyone saying, "Neener, neener, neener, we were right, you were wrong. You suck donkey ...." well, you get the point. |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 04:11:50 PM · #328 |
"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger ΓΆ€” and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims ΓΆ€” 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."
They knew about since 1981 it is not new yellowcake and holds no weight as to the reasons Bush took us to war.
Message edited by author 2008-07-17 16:18:04. |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 04:56:10 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'd expect Bush and Cheney to be wagging their fingers at everyone saying, "Neener, neener, neener, we were right, you were wrong. You suck donkey ...." well, you get the point. |
I guess for now it's still "Liar, liar, pants on fire ..." |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 06:14:28 PM · #330 |
I haven't read this entire thread, but the facts are:
1. When the story broke Bush promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case.
2. Yesterday he invoked executive privilege to prevent Chaney and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Way to lead W.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2008 07:29:20 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger ΓΆ€” and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims ΓΆ€” 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."
They knew about since 1981 it is not new yellowcake and holds no weight as to the reasons Bush took us to war. |
Your argument reads to me as though you think it was OK for Sadaam to stockpile 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium, as long as he didn't buy any more. Thus the premise that Sadaam had WMD's (550 metric tons of Uranium) well documented (as you state since before '91 and still in possession of it) was a false premise and this administration is guilty of lying - even though it was well documented that Sadaam has 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium. Since when did 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium not qualify as a reason for concern? Since when did the refusal to aknowledge and dispose of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium equate to complying with the UN resolutions? I am lost on your argument supporting Sadaam's retention of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium.
edit to add: useable Uranium as is evidenced by the Canadian firm that bought it to process.
Message edited by author 2008-07-17 19:31:38. |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 07:33:49 PM · #332 |
| I hear the Yellow Cake Uranium isn't the bad stuff, it's the Triple Chocolate Cake Uranium that's the serious stuff. |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 07:57:22 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger ΓΆ€” and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims ΓΆ€” 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."
They knew about since 1981 it is not new yellowcake and holds no weight as to the reasons Bush took us to war. |
Your argument reads to me as though you think it was OK for Sadaam to stockpile 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium, as long as he didn't buy any more. Thus the premise that Sadaam had WMD's (550 metric tons of Uranium) well documented (as you state since before '91 and still in possession of it) was a false premise and this administration is guilty of lying - even though it was well documented that Sadaam has 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium. Since when did 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium not qualify as a reason for concern? Since when did the refusal to aknowledge and dispose of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium equate to complying with the UN resolutions? I am lost on your argument supporting Sadaam's retention of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium.
edit to add: useable Uranium as is evidenced by the Canadian firm that bought it to process. |
No argument you just didn't read the article correctly that's all. It holds no weight to the issue in this thread. The yellowcake was not new and that is that.
Message edited by author 2008-07-17 19:57:36. |
|
|
|
07/19/2008 10:53:04 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I haven't read this entire thread, but the facts are:
1. When the story broke Bush promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case.
2. Yesterday he invoked executive privilege to prevent Chaney and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Way to lead W. |
There are 2 problems with your post: neither of your "facts" are, in fact, facts, as much as I'm sure you'd like to have us believe that they are.
1. President Bush never promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case, and
2. President Bush did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Chaney ( btw, if you mean the Vice-President, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney ) and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Do feel free to offer credible proof that my claim that your claims are false, is false.
|
|
|
|
07/19/2008 11:21:55 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by RonB:
President Bush did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Chaney ( btw, if you mean the Vice-President, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney ) and others from having to testify before the grand jury. |
No, but apparently he blocked the release of Cheney's interview with the prosecutor to the Congress, under the assertion of executive privilege. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 12:02:45 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by RonB:
( btw, if you mean the Vice-President, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney ) |
Yeah, but with Cheney around it's so easy to think you're stuck in a horror movie and get him confused with Lon Chaney.
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 00:03:19. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 12:28:32 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I haven't read this entire thread, but the facts are:
1. When the story broke Bush promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case.
2. Yesterday he invoked executive privilege to prevent Chaney and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Way to lead W. |
There are 2 problems with your post: neither of your "facts" are, in fact, facts, as much as I'm sure you'd like to have us believe that they are.
1. President Bush never promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case, and
2. President Bush did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Chaney ( btw, if you mean the Vice-President, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney ) and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Do feel free to offer credible proof that my claim that your claims are false, is false. |
//www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
OK, he didn't say prosecute, he said "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration"
Anyone fired over this? No, but the only one convicted of anything had his sentence commuted by Bush.
The executive privilege details
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
Semantics aside, Bush talked tough about rooting out the traitor that betrayed their country until he found out the traitor was Cheney or Chaney. Whatever it is, I can't wait until we call him former Vice President.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:53:43 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I haven't read this entire thread, but the facts are:
1. When the story broke Bush promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case.
2. Yesterday he invoked executive privilege to prevent Chaney and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Way to lead W. |
There are 2 problems with your post: neither of your "facts" are, in fact, facts, as much as I'm sure you'd like to have us believe that they are.
1. President Bush never promised to prosecute anyone in his administration involved in the CIA leak case, and
2. President Bush did not invoke executive privilege to prevent Chaney ( btw, if you mean the Vice-President, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney ) and others from having to testify before the grand jury.
Do feel free to offer credible proof that my claim that your claims are false, is false. |
//www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
OK, he didn't say prosecute, he said "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration"
Anyone fired over this? No, but the only one convicted of anything had his sentence commuted by Bush. |
No, no one was fired over this. Libby was not fired - he resigned, thus making the President's statement true: since Libby was the only one who was found guilty of committing a crime in the Plame affair, and no longer worked in Bush's administration.
And Libby's sentence was not commuted - not in its entirely, that is. Only the prison sentence was commuted. The felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation were not commuted.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The executive privilege details
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
Semantics aside, Bush talked tough about rooting out the traitor that betrayed their country until he found out the traitor was Cheney or Chaney. Whatever it is, I can't wait until we call him former Vice President. |
Ahh, more unsubstantiated accusations.
Bush never spoke of rooting out a "traitor", nor of "betrayal".
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, who DID interview Cheney, never brought charges against Cheney ( or anyone else for that matter ) for traitorious acts.
Not only was no one found guilty of betraying their country, but, in fact, no one was even TRIED for such acts.
As for semantics, I believe that Barack Obama points out, quite correctly, that "Words DO matter." And accusations that cannot be substantiated should not be tossed about without regard for the truth. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 06:07:42 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by RonB:
accusations that cannot be substantiated should not be tossed about without regard for the truth. |
unsubstantiated charges seemed to work against Clinton.
Maybe they could be substantiated if Bush didn't squash the release of the grand jury testimony. Pretty convenient.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2008 03:20:52 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger ΓΆ€” and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims ΓΆ€” 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."
They knew about since 1981 it is not new yellowcake and holds no weight as to the reasons Bush took us to war. |
Your argument reads to me as though you think it was OK for Sadaam to stockpile 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium, as long as he didn't buy any more. Thus the premise that Sadaam had WMD's (550 metric tons of Uranium) well documented (as you state since before '91 and still in possession of it) was a false premise and this administration is guilty of lying - even though it was well documented that Sadaam has 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium. Since when did 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium not qualify as a reason for concern? Since when did the refusal to aknowledge and dispose of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium equate to complying with the UN resolutions? I am lost on your argument supporting Sadaam's retention of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium.
edit to add: useable Uranium as is evidenced by the Canadian firm that bought it to process. |
No argument you just didn't read the article correctly that's all. It holds no weight to the issue in this thread. The yellowcake was not new and that is that. |
I'm still not clear on your position of Saddam having 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium. He did not get rid of it. We took possession (meaning guarding it) in 2003. Either you think Saddam possessing 550 metric tons was permissable or you don't. If you do think it was permissable, then please state so. If you do not think it permissable then please clarify that as well. If it was permissible, then please state why and if it wasn't, then when and who was going to remove it? Perhaps you think the UN guarding it made it safe. If so, then perhaps you would review the victims of Darfur whom were guarded by the UN.
In my opinion - the only reason the 550 metric tons is no longer in Iraq under Saddam, is due to the actions of the US and a few allies. Actions that would not have been taken, if Saddam didn't repeatedly violate UN mandates. I would think that Saddam's acquiring 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium might have given some (in the build up to the war) the suspicion that he was interested in more - contrary to the claims of Plame's husband. |
|
|
|
07/23/2008 03:30:30 PM · #341 |
|
|
|
07/23/2008 03:42:50 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger ΓΆ€” and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims ΓΆ€” 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."
They knew about since 1981 it is not new yellowcake and holds no weight as to the reasons Bush took us to war. |
Your argument reads to me as though you think it was OK for Sadaam to stockpile 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium, as long as he didn't buy any more. Thus the premise that Sadaam had WMD's (550 metric tons of Uranium) well documented (as you state since before '91 and still in possession of it) was a false premise and this administration is guilty of lying - even though it was well documented that Sadaam has 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium. Since when did 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium not qualify as a reason for concern? Since when did the refusal to aknowledge and dispose of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium equate to complying with the UN resolutions? I am lost on your argument supporting Sadaam's retention of 550 metric tons of Yellow Cake Uranium.
edit to add: useable Uranium as is evidenced by the Canadian firm that bought it to process. |
No argument you just didn't read the article correctly that's all. It holds no weight to the issue in this thread. The yellowcake was not new and that is that. |
I'm still not clear on your position of Saddam having 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium. He did not get rid of it. We took possession (meaning guarding it) in 2003. Either you think Saddam possessing 550 metric tons was permissable or you don't. If you do think it was permissable, then please state so. If you do not think it permissable then please clarify that as well. If it was permissible, then please state why and if it wasn't, then when and who was going to remove it? Perhaps you think the UN guarding it made it safe. If so, then perhaps you would review the victims of Darfur whom were guarded by the UN.
In my opinion - the only reason the 550 metric tons is no longer in Iraq under Saddam, is due to the actions of the US and a few allies. Actions that would not have been taken, if Saddam didn't repeatedly violate UN mandates. I would think that Saddam's acquiring 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium might have given some (in the build up to the war) the suspicion that he was interested in more - contrary to the claims of Plame's husband. |
Dude give it a rest. You misread the article and Saddam is DEAD. Yellowcake was moved and is presumed safe. If you are still confused ... well I am not sure what to tell you buddy. |
|
|
|
07/25/2008 07:56:48 AM · #343 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by RonB:
accusations that cannot be substantiated should not be tossed about without regard for the truth. |
unsubstantiated charges seemed to work against Clinton. |
From what I remember, Slick Willy pointed his stinky finger at the Nation on T.V, and said he didn't have sex with that young lady, Monica ...... Then a Blue Dress showed up! He was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury not for his act in the White House. He lost his licience to practice law in his great state of Arkansas too. but the Senate didn't have the balls to throw the bum out of the White House. Memories seem kind of shot when it comes to Liberals. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 04:37:55 AM EDT.
