Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney said Britain has "re-valuated" the Niger/Iraq/Uranium claim and

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:03 AM
Original message
Cheney said Britain has "re-valuated" the Niger/Iraq/Uranium claim and
that it was true...and that we have sealed up 500 tons of Uranium in Iraq that was found. Has anybody heard about this? I think it's just another goddamn lie...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lindashaw Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. whatever he says won't be legitimate, not without inspector...
confirmation... sadly, the world and even this country won't accept anything the administration says without 2 to 3 witnesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. The question then becomes ...
... how long did it take them to ship in such yellowcake? If this is supposedly a WMD, then so is any rock, stick, or stone. There is absolutely no demonstration whatsoever that the industrial processes and infrastructure necessary to convert such slightly-enriched uranium into an actual weapon existed or exists. Where's the weaponry, Sneer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. IIRC, the UN had accounted for Iraqi stocks of uranium
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 10:14 AM by JohnyCanuck

(They've even got Uranium mines in northern Iraq). However my understanding was that the UN inspections had pretty well accounted for it all and it was being stored under UN seal. Remember the hulabaloo during the war when the nuclear storage sites were looted and the UN complained that US troops had broken into the UN sanctioned storage sites where radioactive material was stored and consequently allowed the material to be looted. Dollars to donuts this is the same stuff Big Dick is referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is a sleight-of-hand trick...
... using the existing uranium which UNSCOM found years ago and was under IAEA seal, until our Marines broke that seal in the early stages of the war.

If Cheney said this on a news program today, why is the London Times reporting, in today's edition, that the Kay report is on hold? This smells to high heaven.

Moreover, this information supposedly comes from the British--why hasn't 10 Downing St. come screaming to the Hutton inquiry with this information? There's absolutely no indication in the British press that Blair's government has made this claim that I know of.

This sounds like pure disinformation meant to be thrown out and then forgotten. And, as you say, if they will not let the IAEA in to verify, Cheney's assertion is just that.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The Kay Report is on hold huh?
What do you want to bet that it's being "edited" by the same PNAC folks who phonied up the intel before the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
are_we_united_yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. Where when did you hear this?
Link?

I would have thought news would be reporting it if it were true but I don't see anything to this effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Sneer was to be on MTP today
I'm sure GE Russert was right on top of the facts and nailed him on the lie .... not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. Please tell me he did NOT say this
and not on his one hour show today with Russert.

Even he could not be so craven a liar. OR could he (actually he has - so I guess it is possible he has said this).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Oh yeah. He said it. I heard him. Not only that
he dragged out the two "mobil weapons labs" as "proof" of the existence of a WMD program and said WMD were there all right, just hidden in civilian places.

Timmy pushed him a bit, but then backed off.

He looked particularly nervous when asked about the no-bid Halliburton criminal contracts, but said he had "nothing to do" with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. You misquoted him on the Uranium. He said that the AIEU (or
whatever their name is sorry) found 500 tons and had them under seal. He didn't say when they did this. He pulled a lot of history and a lot of today stuff and made them all current.

As for the British, you would have think we would have heard of it before now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. He may be refering to Parliament's ISC report
which said:
The SIS continues to believe that the Iraqis were attempting to negotiate the purchase of uranium from Niger. We have questioned them about the basis of their judgment and conclude that it is reasonable.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812...
The basis for this, of course, remains secret. Which is convenient. While there was a good case for all sources being confidential while Saddam was still in power - he'd obviously kill anyone disloyal to him - there's much less reason for this now.

I don't know how much impact the report had in the US - coming out on Sept 11th, probably not that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
12. more BULLSHIT
they didn't NEED any yellowcake as IWaq already HAD uranium, lots of uranium that they could not use in any way. this is all more BULLSHIt to convince people who don't pay attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. Put that man under oath!
Then let him say what he wants....but with consequences for lying.

I don't believe a damned word Cheney says. He's the most blatant liar in the Administration. Let him spew this sh*t under oath, and then we'll see.

The Uranium he's talking about is the stuff that was already under UN seal before the invasion (which only got looted, BTW, because we invaded and left it sitting there without guards).

Remember when he said he'd 'just' read a report about the UK intelligence dossier, and the phrase 'just' actually meant 'over 8 months ago'?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC