Posted on 10/08/2004 4:00:16 PM PDT by SandRat
Thanks, I love it!
So you're assuming that if that particular centrifuge was inoperable, that means Saddam had lost interest in acquiring an operable centrifuge? Why did Saddam have Obedi keep the blueprint, then? What was he planning to use the yellowcake for? Why did he continue to develop long-range missiles in violation of the UN resolution? Was he in violation of the UN resolution or not, in your opinion?
"Yellowcake is an unenriched form of uranium that is commonly used in nuclear power production. It must be enriched to use it for either power or weapons. There's no evidence he had the ability to enrich it for either."
So what did he store 500 tons of it for, then?--and why did he cache the centrifuge for ten years and keep the blueprint? The purpose of having yellowcake is to enrich it for one of two major applications: power or weapons. It's evident Saddam didn't need it for power. The stored material was kept at a site we know Saddam had used as a nuclear weapons development plant. It's not hard to deduce what Saddam was storing it for. That's sufficient evidence under the UN resolutions, where the burden of evidence is on Saddam to prove he's not developing nuclear weapons, not on the UN to prove he is.
Glad we agree on the long-range missiles, at least.
"That's sufficient evidence under the UN resolutions"
worth repeating, we knew Saddam was a threat, we had the justification to do something by unanimous vote in the security council , we acted and have been proven right as this alone is sufficient evidence under the UN resolutions of banned stockpiles.
Why Bush doesn't stand up to the hate America crowd and accuse them of propagandizing that we didn't find WMDS has been puzzling.....
"Why Bush doesn't stand up to the hate America crowd and accuse them of propagandizing that we didn't find WMDS has been puzzling....."
I've been pondering that as well. I've considered several possible reasons. One is that the President's legal advisors seem to have been trying to base their case as much as possible on undisputed facts rather than ones which might be contested by hostile parties in the UN, which I believe was why they based the case for war on Saddam's violation of UN resolutions rather than trying to prove a link to 9/11 (even though that link was being argued by James Woolsey and others). Another, related reason I've heard suggested which sounds plausible to me is that any WMD claims the President would make would be attacked by Clinton holdovers in the intelligence community, creating more Joe Wilson-type controversies, and the administration would prefer to avoid stepping into that type of potential PR trap. Finally, my own theory, based on some comments the President has made and some other things, is that he's protecting an ongoing investigation which is diplomatically touchy, i.e., stating the facts openly at this point would escalate conflicts with the nations that helped arm Saddam and helped him conceal his WMD, and on the diplomatic and military timetable the administration has scheduled it would be premature to pursue that at this point. I do believe it will be pursued in due course.
"The inspectors reported it years ago"
Yet the article says :
"And press reports going back more than a decade give no indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel until the U.S. invaded."
But would a " staggering amount " be allowed?
Perhaps it is the fact they did not declare the yellow cake, is the issue
In any case if it walks like a duck and talks like one it must be one, and a staggering amount of anything indeed for only one use, e.g. war, must be WMD stockpile?
My understanding is that the resolutions required all yellowcake remaining in Iraq as of 1991 to be placed under IAEA seal at Tuwaitha, with no further yellowcake to be acquired, so whatever amount of yellowcake remained in 1991 was permitted under those conditions only. However this was premised on the assumed condition of Saddam otherwise complying with the resolutions, which he wasn't. Despite the spin the Duelfer Report is getting, a close reading indicates that Saddam did not abandon his nuclear weapons program: "after 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. . .In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community. . .ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted." In this context, Saddam's possession of yellowcake constituted a potential threat.
"the government has admitted there were have been no WMD found so far"
They've admitted finding no "stockpiles" of WMD. They've also stated Saddam had some WMD that were transferred to other countries.
TOMMY FRANKS' No.2: "IRAQ's WMDs IN SYRIA, LEBANON, IRAN
According to DeLong - U.S. Military Intelligence had been able to determine that WMDs were smuggled out of the country as U.S. military forces were preparing to liberate Iraq. DeLong made the remarks to New York talk radio listeners: "I do know for a fact that some of those weapons went into Syria, Lebanon, and Iran."
Saddam's WMDs are in Syria: Michael Evans compiles multiple reports of weapons transfer
David Kay, the recently resigned head of an American WMD search team in Iraq, confirmed that part of Saddam's weapons was hidden in Syria, Britain's Sunday Telegraph reported on Jan. 25, 2004. Kay said he had uncovered conclusive evidence shortly before last year's U.S. invasion. "We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons, but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program," Kay said.
Show me one instance where the government has found WMD...not "stockpiles", but any WMD. The fact is, they haven't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.