Skip to comments.U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT ADMITS -- SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR BOMB
Posted on 04/11/2008 2:47:24 PM PDT by Moseley
click here to read article
Actually, Wilson's article doesn't mention that fact. In later articles, as information bled out that he had lied in his first article, he would add detail attempting to cover himself. It was Tenet that first revealed that Wilson told him, verbally, what he didn't mention in his op-ed.
What Wilson's article does do, however, is play a sleight of hand. He ignores the charge that Saddam tried to obtain uranium, instead attempting to prove that such a sale didn't transpire.
His proof that it didn't happen is to say that IAEA monitored uranium mining too closely for such a thing to occur. The truth was otherwise; IAEA wasn't monitoring these mines at all. The reasons were as follows: Niger hadn't yet passed laws allowing the inspectors into the country; IAEA claimed it didn't have the personnel anyway, and thirdly, that yellowcake is considered by them to be low-grade ore not worthy of monitoring directly. Yellowcake sales are supposed to be self-monitored, the countries involved are requested to notify IAEA themselves.
Apropos probably of nothing, has anyone ever bothered to ask where Libya's yellowcake came from? Since, according to Wilson, contraband of uranium is impossible, where did theirs come from?
The answer is, Niger. Half their supply was smuggled in from Niger, and then later self-reported. The other half was smuggled in from Niger and never self-reported. Perhaps "smuggle" is too strong a word, since it was probably simply purchased and delivered. But Wilson's claim that uranium sales to rogue states are impossible, is just silly on the face of it.
Yes, they always demand to know everything, and “the public has a right to know” seems to be their mantra.
Well, I’m one of the “public” and am therefore entitled to have a lot of questions answered, too.
Like, why wasn’t Rockefeller hauled before a court for his treason?
Sometimes, I am not very hopeful for the future...
From a purely international law point of view, this is pretty much exactly the proper grounds for the war in Iraq. It's not actually a new war. It is a resumption of Gulf War I given that Iraq did not comply with the terms of cease-fire.
WELL! Isn’t this interesting.
Nobody in the press, of course. But there is evidence it definitely came from Niger.
And some of it, at least, may well have been Saddam's yellowcake.
You're aware, of course, that -- in Jan-Feb, before his NYT op-ed -- Joe Wilson was writing columns and making speeches arguing against any American intervention in Iraq. Why? Because Saddam had WMD...and he would use them.
Joe Wilson belongs in the nation's rogue's gallery.
The link is to a solicitation to buy a book the reveals the memo??????
How about posting the memo as a basis for the headline.
But yellow cake sounds so harmless...and tasty!
Thanks for the clarification. I did see/read that from the link you gave.
Gotta agree with you there. They have proof that the Iraqis did contact Niger officials, which the Bush Admin had discussed, and they are prosecuting Scooter about not remember something and saying one thing that wasn't correct... when the Bush Admin was right in the first place on the issue.
We need to deal a blow to the Democrats like the US troops are doing to al-Qaeda in Iraq. I am past the point of being able to call Democrats... Americans.
I hope Brit Hume has this.
Thanks for the clarification and for all of your post. I understand it better now.
NO, NO. The memo is available for free at the link below. The book is only confirmation of the story. The main story is from a website maintained by the Associated Press that posted all the documents from the trial. Sorry for the confusion. Go to:
THE STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT DECLASSIFIED IN THE SCOOTER LIBBEY TRIAL CANDIDLY ADMITS:
If you have any trouble start with the index of all the court exhibits posted by the Associated Press:
And the book has nothing to do with the website. It’s only there to show that the conclusions are not off-base
What does this article tell us that we didn’t know on or before October 2003?
WELL! Isnt this interesting.
Ain’t Dat The Truth...
Let me know if you get an answer on that
Yeah. No kidding.
Ummm... Who do you mean by “we?” (a) intelligent people with their eyes open, or (b) those trying mightily to hide from the truth? Yes, those of us with brains “knew” this in October 2003. But the MSM and the liberals have convinced themselves that “Bush lied.” They are the liars.
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.