Yellowcake as Evidence of WMD Threat

[nerdgirl 0]

I’m curious, as it has now been mentioned in a few threads over the last couple weeks.

How many folks think that the 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – unenriched, milled and leached uranium oxide ore (U3O8) – transferred to a Canadian firm represented evidence of Iraq having an active offensive nuclear weapons program in 2003 ... or being an immediate nuclear weapons threat … or even latent nuclear weapons technical capability/infrastructure in 2003 … or a radiological hazard, e.g., ‘dirty bomb’ or radiological dispersive device (RDD) capable in 2003?

Evidence of an immediate threat to the US and allies … not a question of whether Saddam Hussayn wanted Iraq to be a nuclear weapons state in 1981 or 2003.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[1969912 0]

Depends on the definition of "immediate threat." The following assumes a Uranium bomb, not Pu. If Iraq had no equipment to isolate fissionable U235 (and they apparently didn't), my guess is that it would take at least five years to put together a gaseous diffusion plant on their own, and much longer (2X?) to develop centrifuges on their own. If another country were to provide centrifuges, five+ years might also be a good guess. Once metallic U235 was available, (small, sub-20 kTon) bomb assembly would be a relatively simple task. So, I'd say 5-10 years starting from scratch. Not sure if that's immediate. What do the spooks have to say about the time-to-develop?
-----


Edit: Just noticed it's a poll. My vote: NO

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Depends on the definition of "immediate threat."

I think

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Depends on the definition of "immediate threat."

I think

Nope, the
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year. G.W. Bush, Sept 28,2002.

...

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

[kallend 2,150]

Some of these quotes will help put the threat in perspective:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan 1/27/04.



Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

...

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

[nanook 1]

I voted no. Mostly because of the "immediate" threat. That stuff was found during the first gulf war period and was under observation by U.N types between then and the second war. To me that stuff is evidence of his desires. It would have been more than yellow cake by now if he wasn't constantly under scrutiny/sanctions.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Nope, the <45 minute threat was for chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. The nukes were a year away …

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

To me that stuff is evidence of his desires.

That would indicate a very low standard for evidence. If you see ammonia under someone's sink, do you automatically assume they build bombs? If their medicine cabinet has Sudafed in it, does that imply they cook meth?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

To me that stuff is evidence of his desires.

That would indicate a very low standard for evidence. If you see ammonia under someone's sink, do you automatically assume they build bombs? If their medicine cabinet has Sudafed in it, does that imply they cook meth?

Well, how much sudafed are we talking about? If there's too much to fit in the medicine cabinet, you start thinking no one gets a cold that often.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Well, how much sudafed are we talking about? If there's too much to fit in the medicine cabinet, you start thinking no one gets a cold that often.

True, but I don't believe there was anything indicative about the quantity of yellow cake that was found with respect to determining its intended end use.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Evidence of an immediate threat to the US and allies …

No because aggression is always framed as defence and its fairly obvious why the US attacked Iraq.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

GWB and crew are not the only ones that have thought that Iraq was a legit threat.

Quotes from democratic leaders about Saddam's aquisition of WMD's (Snopes)

So, if your perspective is selective memory, then those one sided quotes might be considered to put it "into perspective".

[nerdgirl 0]

ALCON: (not anyone in particular), rather than a Speakers Corner referendum on the decision to launch OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) in 2003, I'm curious ...

Quote

How many folks think that the 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – unenriched, milled and leached uranium oxide ore (U3O8) – transferred to a Canadian firm represented evidence of Iraq having an active offensive nuclear weapons program in 2003 ... or being an immediate nuclear weapons threat … or even latent nuclear weapons technical capability/infrastructure in 2003 … or a radiological hazard, e.g., ‘dirty bomb’ or radiological dispersive device (RDD) capable in 2003?

Evidence of an immediate threat to the US and allies … not a question of whether Saddam Hussayn wanted Iraq to be a nuclear weapons state in 1981 or 2003.

Or one more way to put it, do you think 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake' represented an immediate offensive nuclear capability?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

GWB and crew are not the only ones that have thought that Iraq was a legit threat.

Quotes from democratic leaders about Saddam's aquisition of WMD's (Snopes)

So, if your perspective is selective memory, then those one sided quotes might be considered to put it "into perspective".

Very good. Of the quotes using the phrase "imminent threat" one was was part of a sentence saying " the evidence does NOT point to Iraq as an imminent threat or a major proliferator of WMDs." and another said "If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already?"

So the DEMS APPARENTLY DIDN'T CLAIM HE WAS AN IMMINENT OR IMMEDIATE THREAT

Maybe you also didn't read the part that mentioned the truncated or out of context quotes.

I guess you just didn't read the whole article you cited

...

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

[VTmotoMike08 0]

I did read the whole thing. And the part about about truncated or out of context quotes serves to help frame the article, it does not totally disqualify the whole thing. What about the other dozens of quotes that you did not address? The point is that many leading Dems did believe Saddam to be a significant threat, although not everyone aggreed on just how much of a threat.

The current position of the Democratic party seems to be that he was never a threat and "We told you so all along". This is simply untrue.

Edit: It's worth noting that most of the quotes in that article are from the Clinton era. Saddam sure did not get more cooperative after Clinton left, in fact he got to be even more of a pain. Would have been interesting to know what those Dems who thought he was a threat in the 90's would have said about him in the early 2000's if a Democrat was in office.

[lawrocket 3]

Professor:

The Dems have but limited options in this:
1) Say that they got swindled beecause they claimd to believe the guy that they've spent the last 8 years claiming was the biggest idiot to ever run for president - meaning they are more idiotic;
2) Claim that key information was withheld; or
3) Come clean and admit that there was th public reason for the war - and the private reason for the war. And they were all in on it.

I've been told the reason for going to war off the record. I was told a mere weeks before the War kicked off.

To claim that all of Congress was duped by an "idiot" is laughable.

What IS fair is that Bush's legacy turns on thee long-term outcome. HE staked his Presidency on this war. HE should

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Professor:

The Dems have but limited options in this:
1) Say that they got swindled beecause they claimd to believe the guy that they've spent the last 8 years claiming was the biggest idiot to ever run for president - meaning they are more idiotic;
2) Claim that key information was withheld; or
3) Come clean and admit that there was th public reason for the war - and the private reason for the war. And they were all in on it.

I've been told the reason for going to war off the record. I was told a mere weeks before the War kicked off.

To claim that all of Congress was duped by an "idiot" is laughable.

What IS fair is that Bush's legacy turns on thee long-term outcome. HE staked his Presidency on this war. HE should

Fact is, Counselor, none of the Dems claimed he was an "imminent" or "immediate" threat to the US that warranted urgent action to counter. The "imminent" rhetoric came from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld axis. And then McClellan denied ever having used the word "imminent" despite being on record as having said it.

PS does the "idiot" defense work in a trial court?

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

And they did not a damned thing to stop it. I seem to recall that there was passed a Joint Resolution to authorize the POTUS to use whatever force he deems necessary. Take a look and read it. Check the reasons for it as stated on the record.

WMD's were part of it. Fighting terrorism was part of it. Other factors includedthings like Saddam's brutality against his civilians and his demonstrated proclivity to gas people. His attempted assassination of Bush, Sr.

And most importantly, and what was cited by the Congressman I met with, was to enforce the US policy of installing a democratic government in Iraq and removal of Hussein. It turns out, that stemmed from the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It was unanimous in the senate, and I think only about 70 votes were against it in the House.

Read this: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Now, does that sound like something Dubya would say? Hell yeah, it does.

And this is not a "CLinton did it first" thing. This is a matter of "this is what they spent ten years believing."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And this is not a "CLinton did it first" thing. This is a matter of "this is what they spent ten years believing."

Clinton had him contained in his own shithole....festering away.. paranoid about which of his people was going to shoot him.

When he barked a little too loudly... he got slapped down and a few more of his assets went BOOM in the night.

Also the wonderful assholes on the RIGHT would have screamed bloody murder at the time if he would have taken ANY kind of serious action.. since he did not have the backing of the American people to do anything there..... talk about selective memory.. I remember the 90's really well and all the crap that was coming out of right wing radio at the time....but it is far more convienient for the RIGHT to have Selective Memory Disorder about their own actions during the 90's.

Public opinion did not support action in the 90's after Gulf 1... and the PNAC just waited till there was an action at a later date that allowed them to do exactly what they wanted to do adn was done by them...their fucked up idea of nation building that their glorious leader told us we would not ever get involved in. They have made fortunes off of that event on Sept 11th.

[JohnRich 4]

Your poll is skewed by the use of the word "immediate".
Remove that word, and the results will probably be far different.

[billvon 3,120]

> Your poll is skewed by the use of the word "immediate".

Of course. That was how the war was sold - it was an immediate threat. Saddam was a grave and gathering threat. We can't wait for the proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Had the administration been a bit more honest, and said "you know, we believe he wants to restart his weapons labs, but right now we don't have good evidence that he has any usable weapons" then they might not have gotten the war they so desperately wanted. 4000 US soldiers would be alive today, and 90,000 innocent Iraqis would be living in fear of an incompetent dictator instead of rotting in the ground.

So yes, remove that word and the results _would_ have been quite different.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I seem to recall that there was passed a Joint Resolution to authorize the POTUS to use whatever force he deems necessary. Take a look and read it. Check the reasons for it as stated on the record.

I think, sir, if you read said Joint Resolution, you will find that many of the reasons listed for the authorization were, in fact, lies claims made based on faulty intelligence by the Bush administration that were, unfortunately, taken at face value. Without those lies that faulty intelligence, it is highly doubtful the resolution would have passed.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

> And they did not a damned thing to stop it.

Agreed. They did not have the intelligence available to the president, and thus they had to trust him to some degree. But in the end they trusted him far too much, and neglected their own duties as lawmakers - an error for which we are now suffering.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Had the administration been a bit more honest, and said "you know, we believe he wants to restart his weapons labs, but right now we don't have good evidence that he has any usable weapons" then they might not have gotten the war they so desperately wanted. 4000 US soldiers would be alive today, and 90,000 innocent Iraqis would be living in fear of an incompetent dictator instead of rotting in the ground.

I couldn't agree more, also now that all this has happened, a precedent has been set that any country can attack another country if they don't like the way the leader is treating the country in question and if they feel they pose a threat.

for example, if country 'A' is Muslim and dosn't like the way the leader of christian country 'B' is treating its citizens and feels it poses a threat to its own muslum country....

Then they can freely open two cans of whip ass on that country.

Or does this rule only apply to America? i don't think so.

Whoever thinks this whole debarcle has made anyone on this planet safer from an invasion is kidding themselves.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think, sir, if you read said Joint Resolution, you will find that many of the reasons listed for the authorization were, in fact, lies claims made based on faulty intelligence by the Bush administration that were, unfortunately, taken at face value. Without those lies that faulty intelligence, it is highly doubtful the resolution would have passed.

So in less than two minutes of questioning a one-temr congressman who had just left office I was able to get the answer to why we were going there. And within the next few minutes had the full story.

See, anyone with a minimum of thought process would see that terror threats, etc., would have NoKo at the top of that list. He laughed that there was no way we could win a war with Korea without nukes, and any move would mean that a million man army would sweep through the DMZ and take Seoul in 3 days. He spoketh the truth.

Thus, Iraq was winnable, in the opinion of the Administration AND Congress. So, I told him, elimination of terrorism wasn't the first priority.

After another minute, he explained that we were foing there to "clean up the block" and help to put in a democracy in the Middle East. This would cause a good place to be that other countries would emulate, and thus stabilizing the whol area with democracies - eventually.

So I asked him why not just say that? To which he replied that the american public wouldn't support the deployment, but would support it for the terrorist and Hussein aspect. He stated that he believed that there was a weapons program, but unlike NoKo, there really isn't any containment in the Middle East.

So, this ex-congressman was honest upon questioning. Dontcha think that if this one-term guy knew that, the rest of fucking Congress knew that? Some guy who served all of one-term would likely have less knowledge than someone anyone in Congress, right?

And now none of them will go out with the announcement that the war was for anything else. They had their story and they'll stick with it.

When was the last time a politician said, "Hey. Sorry guys. I was wrong."

My wife is hotter than your wife.