Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ATOMIC SCIENCE COMMISSION: IRAQ 6 MONTHS AWAY FROM HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPON!
FOX NEWS CHANNEL ^

Posted on 09/07/2002 1:22:23 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat

FOX NEWS ALERT: IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association?) REPORTS TO PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ IS SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM HAVING A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Nothing else follows, details forthcoming.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; saddam; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
Nukes in 6 months, but they have oil now, so quick let's invade.
21 posted on 09/07/2002 1:36:49 PM PDT by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Definitely one of Rush's better shows. Too bad the mainstream media would never inform Americans about this story.
22 posted on 09/07/2002 1:37:05 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
"Six months from developing" means he probably has it already.

Good bet. If Iraq has it, it will use it. Saddam will use everything in his arsenal, because this time he knows it's HIS bacon. (Pork ref. was intentional).

The sad part about it, like burning the oil fields in Kuwait, is that a good portion of the Iraqi population (good & bad) will be vaporized.

Plus, Iran is down wind.

5.56mm

23 posted on 09/07/2002 1:39:13 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Let's suppose the report is correct, or even behind so that Saddam already has nukes.

Let me play devil's advocate (OK, Saddam's advocate) for a minute.

If we did nothing, what would Saddam do with them? More generally: If we do nothing about Iraq, what threat does Iraq really pose?

I don't want to get into a flame war over this. What I'd like to see is a good list of reasons for why it would be so important to take Saddam out.

By the same token, it would be interesting to see if there are any good reasons for letting him live.

Any volunteers?

24 posted on 09/07/2002 1:39:14 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Was glad to hear President Bush reiterate in a press conference with Blair a few minutes ago that both Congress and Clinton in 1998 supported a regime change through any means necessary. This needs to be said over and over by the current administration, using some of the same commentary Rush used yesterday.
25 posted on 09/07/2002 1:39:17 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Of course they really did throw those babies out of the incubators too. The only thing more scary than this propaganda is that people are falling for it.
26 posted on 09/07/2002 1:39:19 PM PDT by droberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
FAE = Fuel Air Expolsive:

From this page:

Fuel-Air Explosives [FAE] disperse an aerosol cloud of fuel which is ignited by an embedded detonator to produce an explosion. The rapidly expanding wave front due to overpressure flattens all objects within close proximity of the epicenter of the aerosol fuel cloud, and produces debilitating damage well beyond the flattened area. The main destructive force of FAE is high overpressure, useful against soft targets such as minefields, armored vehicles, aircraft parked in the open, and bunkers.

Fuel/air explosive represent the military application of the vapor cloud explosions and dust explosions accidents that have long bedeviled a variety of industries.

Here's a great visual demonstration.

27 posted on 09/07/2002 1:40:29 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
THIS GUARANTEES AN OCTOBER "SURPRISE"

October 6th new moon.

28 posted on 09/07/2002 1:40:48 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
WOW,this is a bonafide agency making this claim,and a muslim is it's director,time to take heed America.
29 posted on 09/07/2002 1:41:28 PM PDT by eastforker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Can we send Bubba and Jimmah to Iraq, the day before we strike?
30 posted on 09/07/2002 1:41:37 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
I'm starting to wonder if Saddamn and co. have been spending their money on something else besides weapons. Know what I mean?

Do you mean chemical or biological weapons? I don't think your tin foil hat is on - I think you're right. Read a post today from the Scotsman (sorry - don't know how to link) that detailed Saddam's arsenal. It was the most frightening thing I've read to date.

31 posted on 09/07/2002 1:41:53 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Easy, give the bomb to some terrorists and let them blow it up in some American port.
32 posted on 09/07/2002 1:41:54 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Hip, Hip, Hooray!!!! I'm glad to hear they mentioned it, and I hope they continue to do so every chance they get!!!
33 posted on 09/07/2002 1:42:44 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Agreed. It's the one thing the Republicans do that angers me - they don't defend themselves fully and don't use information at their fingertips.
34 posted on 09/07/2002 1:44:00 PM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
If he has it, he will use it. If he can use it at his leisure, then he has time to plan and get the most bang for his buck. If however, he is under pressure because he's being attacked by the U.S., he has to rush. Haste makes waste. He would most likely be less successful than if he has all the time in the world to plan out the nth detail, or maybe completely unsuccessful.
35 posted on 09/07/2002 1:44:55 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Let's see: Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, China, probably several former Soviet satellites all have or will have the "bomb"

Who do you trust?

All but Iraq have either a treaty with us or are a friend to the USA. or at least a stable government.

China tells us their ICBM missiles are pointed away from U.S targets (like you can trust a commie) but we have ours locked on Beijing

Russia does not have the internal structure to maintain their arsenal, plus we buy their oil to support Putin.

India and Pakistan are too busy pointing fingers at each other.

At what point do the democrats put survival of the country over politics?

What will it take: half of New York City, a nuclear hot zone

Saddam must be stopped.

Dasshole is a traitor

36 posted on 09/07/2002 1:46:00 PM PDT by JZoback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
If we did nothing, what would Saddam do with them? More generally: If we do nothing about Iraq, what threat does Iraq really pose?

Didn't a lot of people appease Hitler? Didn't Bubba have the chance to get Osama, and pass on it? Never discount the power of a single man with a populace of blind followers.

37 posted on 09/07/2002 1:46:25 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Terroristic regimes, if we've learned anything, use the weapons they have. Saddam had chemical weapons, he used 'em. If he had/has nukes, there is no good purpose in believing he wouldn't use them, based on his history.

He must be crushed. With extreme prejudice.

38 posted on 09/07/2002 1:46:26 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: evolved_rage
Yeah, we should wait. Afterall, saddam doesn't have any -- not even one -- nuclear weapon up and running just yet, so they are absolutely no threat at all at the moment. It would be far too presumptious and too aggressive of us to go in now for crying out loud. I mean who do we think we are, a great nation trying to throw our weight around the world in the interests of peace or something?! Anyway, we all know how very difficult it is to get nuclear weaponry perfected even when all the needed materials are available, materials of which we also know are extremely difficult to get your hands on in the first place. I mean who is this Atomic Science Commission anyhow -- can we trust them or are they just hawks with war interests? Let's not rush to judgement, people. < shut down sarcasm right about now >
39 posted on 09/07/2002 1:47:31 PM PDT by Donna Lee Nardo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
New Intelligence Exposes Iraq's Nuke Push
AP
President George W. Bush
Friday, September 06, 2002
By Carl Cameron

WASHINGTON — Intelligence on Iraq that the Bush administration will present to Congress includes information on how dangerously close Saddam Hussein has come to developing a nuclear weapon, Fox News has learned. 

Sources told Fox News that there is also new information indicating that Iraq has developed new methods of chemical- and biological-weapon delivery, and also of contact between Baghdad and Al Qaeda before and after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. 

From Vienna, the head of the U.N. nuclear inspection team said Friday that satellite photographs shows unexplained recent construction at Iraqi nuclear sites. 

French physicist Jacques Baute, of the International Atomic Energy Organization, said reviews of images taken since 1999 show "some buildings that have been reconstructed ... and some new buildings [that] have been erected," at sites his team had visited in the past. 

Without identifying them, Baute described the sites as having potential "dual-use capabilities," meaning they could potentially be locations for both civilian and military nuclear programs. 

Surrounded by security, Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director George Tenet arrived on Capitol Hill Thursday to brief the top two lawmakers from each party in the House and Senate. 

Afterward, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., spoke to Fox News and said: "It was an important briefing -- there was some new information included in it. ... Is there evidence that he is getting prepared to be able to use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and be able to deliver them? Yes!" 

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert seemed dour as he left the meeting -- and he also confirmed to Fox News that new intelligence about Saddam's threat and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction had been provided. 

AP
AP
Thursday: A man walks down a street lined with posters of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, Iraq.

Despite the new information, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told Fox News he remains reluctant to support military action. 

While President Bush began taking his case for ousting Saddam to Americans outside the Beltway Thursday, members of his administration worked to energize a dialogue for action touched off this week by the White House. 

"I take the fact that he [Saddam] develops weapons of mass destruction very seriously. I remember the fact that he has invaded two countries before. I know for a fact that he's poisoned his own people," Bush told his audience at a welcome rally in Louisville, Ky. 

"He doesn't believe in the worth of each individual," he added. "He doesn't believe in public dissent." 

Bush said Wednesday that he would seek congressional approval before any military action against Iraq. Sources told Fox News that two rough dates have been set for hearings by the House International Relations Committee -- one for closed-door, classified hearings with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 16; the other a week later on Sept. 23 for open hearings with Secretary of State Colin Powell. 

Hastert confirmed Congress would indeed vote before the Nov. 5 midterm elections on how to deal with Saddam. 

Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, told a Washington, D.C., luncheon audience Thursday that he believed it "very incumbent upon us to explain our case very well throughout the world, including the Arab world of course, and then to enlist as many like-minded folks to move forward with us," he said. "My own view is all of these efforts are better off done in a multilateral context." 

Bush administration officials have also told Fox News that they are looking at a proposal that would utilize 50,000 troops to back up U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq as they attempt to assess the magnitude of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Officials concede that it would be unlikely that the Iraqi dictator would go along with such a scheme. 

Powell said the proposal did not come up in his discussions Thursday. He also said that the administration did not think it wise to prematurely "pigeonhole" any future move as multilateral or unilateral "but to make sure that the world understands the threat as clearly as we believe it should understand this threat, because it is a real one," he told reporters. 

Meanwhile, Democrats on the Hill said Thursday that they are looking forward to the additional information the administration has promised to provide regarding its arguments that a regime change in Iraq is in order. Daschle told reporters that he hopes that Bush will seek out not only the support of congress, but that of the U.N. as well. 

"I would think the United States would want to be in the same position it was at the point when we went to the U.N. in the early 90s [for the Persian Gulf War]," Daschle said. "If the international community supports it, if we can get the information we've been seeking, then I think we can move to a resolution. 

"But short of that, I think it would be difficult for us to move until that information is provided and some indication of the level of international support is also evident," he added. 

The White House certainly faces touch scrutiny of its plans, including that of former President Jimmy Carter, who declared in a Washington Post op-ed piece Thursday that "a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer," and that such action would "alienate our necessary allies." 

But Bush promised Wednesday to approach world leaders with his arguments for ousting the Iraqi dictator. He is meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has expressed agreement already that Saddam is a threat to global security, at Camp David this weekend. And the president will be speaking at the U.N. on Sept. 12. 

Arab League chief Amr Moussa charged Thursday that any strike by the U.S. would "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East, and urged Baghdad to re-admit weapons inspectors. 

"We will continue to work to avoid a military confrontation or a military action because we believe that it will open the gates of hell in the Middle East," he told reporters. 

Meanwhile, it was reported today that the Army recently moved weaponry and war supplies from the Gulf nation of Qatar to a base in Kuwait near the Iraqi border to check their condition and test procedures that would be used in the event Bush orders preparations for war. 

Army Secretary Thomas White said the movement was designed to periodically validate the condition of the military's weaponry and equipment, but "we've done nothing specifically against any particular scenario" for war. 

Fox News' Andrew Hard and The Associated Press contributed to this report


40 posted on 09/07/2002 1:47:37 PM PDT by glock rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson