Comments on: About Those WMDs

By: Saxxon

Saxxon — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:36:13 +0000

Wilson, the least credible factor here of any is you. Some others who know you better spelled it out. Sadly there are a lot of clones of you running about, otherwise Jerry Springer would run out of guests.

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:33:59 +0000

Drgreeforce, now you’re talking!! Although, you almost make it sound like Saddam was no more dangerous than your father. I don’t think that would be true.

By: Drgeeforce

Drgeeforce — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:57:57 +0000

When I was in Russia, my father had a farm and he made his own metaltools. He had extensive knowledge of metallurgy and skills to make exotic alloys and what would be considered then, high-tech metals. He was considered a threat, not because he made guns or weapons, but had the creativity and potential to create new things never before seen. He disappeared when I was 4 and 28 years later he was released from prison. Like you, they did not wait for him to make a weapon, they felt threatened because they did not know and acted, rather than gather all the information necessary. My blame is not the administration, but the persons responsible for gathering the proper information to arrive at a just conclusion. All the evidence you aforementioned are just pieces of the puzzle yet unfinished.
It is the wiseman who thinks first before acting. Let us not be governed by our emotions. Let us restore the intelligentsia and make rational decisions like the only superpower of the world should do.

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:05:20 +0000

Drgeeforce, first off, it wasn’t Bush making those claims. But, let’s use the liberal paranoid argument that Bush planted these people and assume it WAS his message. Yes, if all we had found was 1.77 tons of uranium I may buy this argument with ammonium nitrate. But, that wasn’t all that was found. If all that was found was ONE chemical lab, I may be able to buy it.

What’s happening here is the anti-Bush agenda again picking and choosing what they’re going to argue about to tear him down. I realize that what people like you would rather have had happen was that all these components were put together and were actually used on us while we were in Iraq. More dead soldiers equals happy left.

Thankfully, we have an administration (finally!) that won’t wait for that to happen. Bottom line is that the uranium wasn’t the ONLY thing found, as you insinuate by ignoring all other evidence.

By: Drgeeforce

Drgeeforce — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:18:38 +0000

Bush claiming 1.77 tons of low-grade uranium as WMDs is like the your local police calling 1.77 tons of fertilizer(ammonium nitrate) a deadly weapon. Alone, it’s just fertilizer, modified and used in Oklahoma, it took out the Murrah Federal building.

By: Drgeeforce

Drgeeforce — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:14:11 +0000

First of all it’s easy to say, “why did they seek yellowcake when they had 1.77 tons of low-grade?
Basic physics, let me enlighten your education in simple terms: low grade uranium requires alot of purification to become high/weapons grade, a process Iraq didn’t have or was in the process of obtaining thru the black market. It is cheaper to buy yellowcake on the black market, but Saddam would have to deal with a certain Russian mafia, something he found distasteful. Seeking yellow cake from Niger, was more expensive, but probable since they(sic) are Muslims.

By: Noumenon

Noumenon — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:40:08 +0000

If comments are closed, why is there still a posting box here?

…For what it’s worth, Wilson, I found your posts pretty persuasive. Miniter got my attention with “1.77 tons of enriched uranium,” but the natural next question is “Why didn’t Bush proclaim that as WMD?” and it looks like you have a good answer for that.

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:00:02 +0000

“Youâ€™re not presenting any evidence. Youâ€™re presenting some wingnutâ€™s assertions and calling them evidence.”

So, I’m a wingnut now? Because much of the evidence I’ve presented has been first person accounts, while yours have been links to other people.

“You canâ€™t just keep on rattling off the lies and think people will swallow them.”

But, I guess you can?

The comments on this topic are hereby closed. You’re not listening anyway and I’d like to move on.

By: Wilson Kolb

Wilson Kolb — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:59:53 +0000

Correcting two bad links in the post above:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0803-01.htm

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg02939.html

By: Wilson Kolb

Wilson Kolb — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:39:37 +0000

You’re not presenting any evidence. You’re presenting some wingnut’s assertions and calling them evidence. Let’s take a look at one item on Podhoretz’s list, the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium. This implies nuclear bomb materials, and on some of the wingnut websites that’s what people are calling it.

Okay, then if that’s the case then why did it take the U.S. military WEEKS after the blitzgrieg to get to Iraq’s nuclear facility? Wouldn’t you think it would have been one of the first places to secure? After all, your Liar-in-Chief had listed “WMD” as the big reason for this adventure. Wouldn’t he have wanted to grab the fissile material right away, or at least post someone to guard it?

http://www.commondreams.org/head…s03/0803- 01.htm

And if Iraq had had 1.77 tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium, then why the need to buy more from Niger, as the Bush people falsely claimed? It doesn’t take much “HEU” (highly enriched uranium) to make a nuke. The “little boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima, for example, contained 60 kg of highly-enriched U-235.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Therefore, I think we can safely assume that the “1.77 metric tons of uranium” seized in Iraq was not weapons-grade material, but instead was something else. And in fact is WAS something else. It was low-level enriched uranium + 500 tons of natural uranium, i.e., yellowcake.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2…3/ msg02939.html

Now, if Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake then why were they supposedly trying to buy more from Niger, as Bush falsely claimed in his state of the union speech? And what is low-level uranium used for?

Neither Bush nor any of his spokesliars ever explained the Niger accusation other than continuing to lie about it. As for low-level enriched uranium, it’s used in civilian nuclear power plants. What was Iraq’s profile on that front?

Iraq built three nuclear reactors. One was destroyed by Israel in an attack in 1981. The other two were shut down after the first Gulf War. The uranium supplies were sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and they remained sealed U.S. invasion, at which point they were left unguarded for nearly a month.

Of course, Podheretz’s article mentions none of this, nor do any other wingnuts on the Web. This is because it interferes with their ability to do what they do best, which is to lie about every single subject they discuss. Fortunately, the American public is finally waking up to the lying.

Earth the C.J.: You can’t just keep on rattling off the lies and think people will swallow them. We’re onto you.