'Yellowcake' found in Iraq

If this report is true then I guess I owe president Bush an apology because I never believed the WMD story one bit.

 

I still don't believe Bush; there weren't WMD's in Iraq. The war was started on fabricated evidence.

 

I have been of the opinion that they have been using
depleted uranium since the first gulf war - they put it
into the bombs and rockets. It's what's caused the
"gulf war" sickness - there have been a lot of reports about
cancer and birth defects amongst the local population
since the first gulf war happened.

 

"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."

- rest at http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=240637

 

This came out some time ago but it never hit ANY news casts I viewed then or since, it is still a secret to be kept by the media.

"I still don't believe Bush; there weren't WMD's in Iraq. The war was started on fabricated evidence."

If you really believe this to be true and have facts to back it up start the movement to impeach. :thumbs:

 

Thanks Ken, I see there is more to the story and the way it was written was as deceptive of the WMD story.

So you're saying the large stockpile of concentrated natural Uranium, known as "yellowcake," that recently made it to the Canadian port was a pre-Gulf war find? My only question is why or how was it still in Baghdad? Or where has it been since 1991?

 

Well, you are free to believe whatever you wish. However, you've made a very serious charge against the President here. If this is the case why haven't the Dems in charge of both houses of Congress brought him up for impeachment?

In order to maintain the position you are espousing here you have to completely disregard the information from the OP's article and this one as well:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076

 

What difference does the date that Iraq obtained the yellowcake make? If it was from 1991 and they still had it hidden in Iraq in 2003 they were clearly in violation of the treaty that ended the hostilities of the Gulf War. Thus, the primary reason for the return to hostilities was because Iraq failed to uphold its side of the 1991 treaty.

 

There is little doubt IMO that the war is predicated on some shoddy intelligence. But that is nowhere near the charge of fabrication (e.g., making up stuff in order to go to war). If this were true, it would make President Bush a heinous war criminal.

Poor intelligence? Likely.
Intentional fabrication? Nah.

 

I thought that conservatives didn't like the United Nations and, thus, doing its bidding.

 

They only like the UN when it gives them cover for Bush's illegal war in Iraq!

 

There is no evidence that the war in Iraq is illegal. That's a silly comment to make. It's the last resort of people who don't have any actual arguments.

 

What does illegal mean. Since the administration and most conservatives here don't recognize the authority of the World Court, there is no authority for making that determination. The U.N.? Same thing. In Bush's world view Might makes Right. We're the biggest dog on the block. Therefore America is always right.

 

And with good reason. We are a sovereign nation, not beholden to the World Court. We should not be.

Not always. But we are self-governing. And with all the Bush-haters in America, no one has been able to make a sustainable case that the war was illegal. The reality is that there are more Bush-haters than there were Clinton haters. And with Clinton, there was clear undeniable evidence of illegal activity. No one, with all their searching and pontificating, has been able to make such a case against Bush.

And I think Bush has been a horrible president ... the worst in the last thirty years. You have to go back to Carter to get someone this bad. Bush has done barely anything right. But illegal? Nothing has been shown to be illegal.

 

"They only like the UN when it gives them cover for Bush's illegal war in Iraq!"

Again, if you really believe that is true and you have the facts, start an organization to get the man out of office :thumbs:

 

I really don't know about that. The Bush-haters certainly get better press and include more celebs, but there were are still are an awful lot of Clinton haters. And while I think Bush has been an awful president I only have to go back to Bill Clinton to find one that was worse. JMHO

 

Here it is everyone the Yellow Cake!



It was hiding underneath a layer of chocolate icing, the Iraqi's kept it hidden
because Betty Crocker is not in burqua.

 

Read the U.S. Constitution. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Military Forces. The U.S. Congress is the sole authority for our nation to declare war. The President sought and obtained the approval of the U.S. Congress to send our Military Forces to war in Iraq. Therefore, it is foolish for anyone to claim that it is an "illegal war."

Nonsense. The U.S. Constitution clearly spells out what is legal and illegal for the Federal Government to do. Likewise, the various powers are controlled by a system of checks and balances between our three branches of government. Like Larry said we are a sovereign nation and we do not seek the approval of the World Court (or anyone one else) before we act in our own self defense. I don't know about you, but my ancestors fought, bled, and died to give this nation its freedom from European dictators. I will not sell my American birth-right of freedom for any price. Would you, like Esau, sell the American birth-right in order to see us grovel before the World Court?

Wrong. President Bush went to the UN repeatedly trying to get them to uphold and enforce the terms of the 1991 Treaty that brought about the end of hostilities for the Gulf War. Iraq refused to uphold its side of the Treaty. The President again called on the UN to act and uphold the terms of the 1991 Treaty. The UN passed a resolution requiring Iraq to comply with the 1991 Treaty terms or face "server consequences." Iraq still refused to comply. The President asked the UN to set a deadline for Iraq to comply and if they went past the deadline to authorize military force to bring Iraq into compliance. The UN balked, and balked, and balked. Finally, the President realized that the UN could not or would not bring itself to take action. Therefore, acting under the terms and the authority of the 1991 Treaty that the U.S. signed with Iraq to bring about a secession of the Gulf War hostilities the President asked the U.S. Congress to approve the use of Military Force once again in Iraq. The U.S. Congress gave its approval and the Commander-in-Chief sent our military into action with a coalition of other nations who were willing to take like action against Iraq. There was/is nothing illegal about the above outlined process.