Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was no nuclear material found, and that was all that anyone actually cared about. Nobody cares about chemical gases. Syria used chemical gas in Hama in 1982, and that was not met with a great deal of alarm. Had they bombed Hama with a nuclear device, though...
hmmmm
Quote:
U.S. REMOVES NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM IRAQ
WASHINGTON, JULY 8-- Iraqi radiological and nuclear materials with a potential use in weapons programs or dispersal devices have been removed from the country and airlifted to the United States, according to a July 6 press statement from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
In a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in the statement. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."
The DOE press statement said the Bush administration advised both the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iraqi officials in advance of the removal of the materials. It also said that less sensitive materials "that continue to serve useful medical, agricultural or industrial purposes" were not removed from the country.
Following is the text of the DOE press statement:
WASHINGTON, DC -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced today that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have completed a joint operation to secure and remove from Iraq radiological and nuclear materials that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.
"This operation was a major achievement for the Bush Administration's goal to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists," Secretary Abraham said. "It also puts this material out of reach for countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons."
Twenty experts from DOE's national laboratory complex packaged 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility. The DOD airlifted the material to the United States on June 23 and provided security, coordination, planning, ground transportation, and funding for the mission.
Due to safety and security issues surrounding the removed materials, the U.S., consistent with its authorities and relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, took possession of, and removed the materials to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people.
DOE also repackaged less sensitive materials that will remain in Iraq. Radiological sources that continue to serve useful medical, agricultural or industrial purposes were not removed from Iraq.
The low enriched uranium will be stored temporarily at a secure DOE facility and the radiological sources will initially be brought to a DOE laboratory for further characterization and disposition.
The International Atomic Energy Agency was advised in advance of the U.S. intentions to remove the nuclear materials. Iraqi officials were briefed about the removal of the materials and sources prior to evacuation.
The nuclear research complex, now under the responsibility of the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, was once a central institution for Iraq's nuclear weapons program before being dismantled in the early 1990s, following the first Gulf War. The complex was also the consolidation point for highly radioactive sources collected by the Department of Defense with assistance by employees of the Ministry of Science and Technology within Iraq over the last year.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
About 10 years ago, I didn't have much internet access to see arguments in the online political community. For those who did, how did conservatives defend GW after no WMDs were found in Iraq?
Saddam was still a dictator that murdered his people, we freed a nation and brought democracy to Iraq, we made the ME safer, blah blah blah.
They pretty much regurgitated all the soundbites they swallowed on FAUX News, Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity, etc.
I would gladly pay for any of them to fly to Baghdad for a week and get a firsthand look of what they shouted in favor of. I hear Scandals is opening up a new resort.
I notice you refuse to tell anyone what your interpretation is supposed to prove.
It passed and Bush was given the authority to proceed.
Right or wrong?
Yes...notice all the Democrats, some quite noticeable that voted YES.....or are you ignoring that?
I see you ignore all the posts in this thread that prove you wrong.
Ah, but you err again, grasshopper.
I say, Iraq = Bush's fault. Which it clearly and unarguably is.
Bush apologists twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny that obvious reality.
Quote:
If it was for oil....why didn't the USA take the oil or the profits? Gasoline prices were low prior to the war and Iraq's oil was embargoed....so we didn't need Saddam's oil. After Iraq was defeated, the USA took not one drop of oil. This is FACT. The UN took control of Iraq's oil.
If Bush lied, so did all the Democrats that spoke in favor or it. You also ignore that a majority of Democrats voted in favor of the war. Would you like me to post their speeches? Also, why did the New York Times and Washington Post support it?
Oh...and about Bush lying about the intelligence? Well, there were several investigations about that by different committees in Congress. The British also investigated that. All of them proved there was no lying or massaging of the intelligence.
Of course if you bothered to read the thread, you'd know that already....
From US News & World Report - posted on Real Clear Politics:
I realize this doesn't agree with your hyper-partisan hatred of Bush, but you don't get to rewrite history or the facts.
Posted with TapaTalk because I'm not technologically challenged.
You're highly upset and far too emotionally invested in trying to defend Bush's honor.
He stupidly allowed Cheney to twist his arm on this and other issues, but he and he alone was commander in chief and issued the go order. Not congress. Congress encouraged him to exhaust all avenues before taking military action. He tried SO hard to get the UN, France and Germany to back his play. But they wisely declined, having access to the same info Dubya had. They didn't have Cheney breathing down their necks. pushing them in a direction that was reckless, and ultimately stupid beyond belief.
No, Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.
But keep up your valiant effort to salvage his credibility.
Based on what I remember from back then and based on what I've read, they said that they were acting on the best available evidence back then and/or they said that the Iraq War is necessary in order to (help) bring democracy to the Middle East.
Ask the Clinton administration who started the talk of "weapons of mass destruction" back in 1996.
Ask the democrat leaders who also started the "WMD" talk in 1996.
Ask the democrats why most of them supported the war in 2001. (They did so because it was politically expedient at the time)
Ask Obama where Syria got the "WMD" that they used on their own people just this year.
It took 19 months of games by Iraq.....plenty of time to ship the "WMD" to Syria.....for our take down of saddam Hussein.
Why would Saddam give away his most powerful weapons when he knew an invasion was imminent? That scenario makes zero sense. He was about to face the fight of his life, but decided to give his WMDs away? Uhhhhh....
Why would Saddam give away his most powerful weapons when he knew an invasion was imminent? That scenario makes zero sense. He was about to face the fight of his life, but decided to give his WMDs away? Uhhhhh....
How would Saddam know an invasion was imminent, 7 years before it actually happened? And furthermore, why would he keep weapons that were deemed illegal during war, let alone times of peace?
Based on what I remember from back then and based on what I've read, they said that they were acting on the best available evidence back then and/or they said that the Iraq War is necessary in order to (help) bring democracy to the Middle East.
There were a lot of claims by the then Administration that they were using the best available information. What came out later was that that the CIA had reported that their information was full of caveats but the Bushies relayed it without the caveats.
Other CIA data concluded Iraq did not have WMD but was hushed.
On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
I say, Iraq = Bush's fault. Which it clearly and unarguably is.
Bush apologists twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny that obvious reality.
You're highly upset and far too emotionally invested in trying to defend Bush's honor.
He stupidly allowed Cheney to twist his arm on this and other issues, but he and he alone was commander in chief and issued the go order. Not congress. Congress encouraged him to exhaust all avenues before taking military action. He tried SO hard to get the UN, France and Germany to back his play. But they wisely declined, having access to the same info Dubya had. They didn't have Cheney breathing down their necks. pushing them in a direction that was reckless, and ultimately stupid beyond belief.
No, Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.
But keep up your valiant effort to salvage his credibility.
So that was ALL you had?
Congress VOTED....including a majority of Democrats for the war.
France, Germany, Russia and others didn't want their involvement in violating the oil embargo exposed so it's no surprise they opposed it.
What's your reason to attempt to rewrite history anyhow? Unwilling to admit that people you'll be voting for in the next few years made the same decision as Bush?
Posted with TapaTalk
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
