VIDEO: Bartlett Falsely Claims Saddam Had The ‘Capability’ For A Nuclear Weapons Program
VIDEO: Bartlett Falsely Claims Saddam Had The ‘Capability’ For A Nuclear Weapons Program
This morning on MSNBC, White House Counselor Dan Bartlett used a New York Times report to falsely claim Saddam Hussein “had the capability and he had the know-how to” develop nuclear weapons. Watch it:
The Times report documents Iraq’s efforts to conduct nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war and prior to sanctions. Contrary to Bartlett’s claim, Iraq had no nuclear capability at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Here are the facts, as reported in the Key Findings of the Duelfer Report:
– “Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.”
– “Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.”
– “The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions.”
Transcript:
BARTLETT: Obviously, in this case, Andrea, there has been a problem because these documents went on, and they reveal what many people knew, was that Saddam Hussein had the capability and was working toward a nuclear weapon program. They had the scientists and the documents.
MITCHELL: Before the first gulf war. These are dated documents, so they go back to what was discovered before the first gulf war.
BARTLETT: True, Andrea, but they didn’t lose that knowledge. They didn’t take down the scientific apparatus or the capabilities to develop that. And Charlie Duelfer and other weapons experts all said what Saddam Hussein was doing was waiting the international community out, to make sure they got the inspectors out, so that they can then restart their program. He had the capability and he had the know-how to do it. And I think that’s a stark reminder for people.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
97 Responses to “VIDEO: Bartlett Falsely Claims Saddam Had The ‘Capability’ For A Nuclear Weapons Program”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, Saddam had the capability to beat his chest and say he had something he didn’t and doofus Bush and friends fell for it.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:22 pmDon’t these turdburglers know that no-one cares about Friday news? Keep trying morons.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 pmAnd the madness of ole King George never stops. Can anyone say we need another American Revolution in this country.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 pmMy T-shirt for the day says “Remember Pat Tillman by voting Democrat”
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pmHans Blitz and Scott Ridder, expert people on the ground said there were no WMD and none have been found.
So, what’s up with this dip-shit? Is he in the barrel today?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:27 pmBartlett is a pathological liar. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Card, and the list goes on. All amoral people, all pathological liars. The evidence is overwhelming.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:32 pmBUSH (sotu): “We are seeking all the facts. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.”
BARTLETT (stfu): “Obviously, in this case, Andrea, there has been a problem because these documents went on, and they reveal what many people knew, was that Saddam Hussein had the capability and was working toward a nuclear weapon program. They had the scientists and the documents.”
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:32 pmhttp://www.rainews24.rai.it/ ran24/ inchieste/ video/ 18102006_rapporto41_eng.wmv
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ ran24/ inchieste/ 19102006_rapporto41-eng.asp
Oil, the neocon’s coal .
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm“And Charlie Duelfer and other weapons experts all said what Saddam Hussein was doing was waiting the international community out, to make sure they got the inspectors out, so that they can then restart their program. ”
And wasn’t it Bush who decided that the inspectors had had enough time and yanked them out again so that he could invade?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:34 pmIs it just me, or does Bartlett look like one of the Monty Python Upper Class Twits of the Year?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:36 pmpeejay - nice! - good choice on the T-message, and thanks for being out there helping.
leave-no-lie-untold program is in full swing now, and they’re sending out all the bootlicks to spread the word - wow, these guys sure are impressive……or something…
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:36 pmMan these neo-cons will stop at nothing. Kerry was right; they are stupid because they can’t figure out that we have seen through their lies.
They are like a bad musician; harping on the same tune and once you have had enough it, you don’t care to listen to it anymore.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm#9 Hi Jane…Remember, the inspectors never would have been back in Iraq had not Bush and Blair pressure Saddam into doing so by placing some 200,000 troops on Iraq’s border in 2002. There had been no inspectors in Iraq since 1998 when the inspectors left just as President Clinton and Tony Blair were about to launch Operation Desert Fox aimed at Saddam’s WMD capabilities.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:40 pm#10 - It’s not just you. John Cleese?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pmYou can have a cookbook, but without ingredients and a kitchen to cook in, you’re going to starve. Bartlett is a moron.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:42 pm#13 Hohohoho Exley, we’re going to debate about US supply Saddam materials for WMD?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:44 pmlibs are such fools
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:45 pmOh boy do we feel small as americans today or what?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:46 pmFirst the newspaper Guardian and some other countries think of our president as the most dangerous leader in the world, now i see italians talking about cold fusion, when our sorry a*s is stuck in Iraq for oil.
Damn we are becoming smaller and smaller every day.
Typical desperate scumbag tactics from typical scumbag republicans.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:46 pm“I think that’s a stark reminder for people”
Yes, a stark reminder that you and your neocon friends are lying sacks of shit. Thanks for the heads-up. Say Dan, since we’re talking about history, when did we find out that North Korea had a program, or Iran? And when did we find out that the Sudanese government was committing genocide in Darfur? What’s our plan there?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:46 pmHey, Exley. Yes, but once the inspectors were in, and were unable to find anything, Bush still yanked them over Saddam’s protests–Saddam wanted the inspectors to stay.
I guess the good news is that the Jets have a bye this weekend-they can’t lose!;-)
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:47 pm#17
Squat and trot somewhere else, goosestepper.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:48 pm#14 Exactly! Can’t you just see him struggling to put the bra on the mannequin, or jumping over a 2-high stack of matchboxes? :-D
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm13. And this is relevent to what is going on now how? The Bush administration had released the “Road map” on how to make a nuclear weapon. This information released on the web was dated Pre Gulf War. Your attempt to defend the indefensible is reflective of the general republican ideology. Ignore the realities and look at the shadows.
Wake up Exley. Are you a believer in the Republican views or this administrations? If it’s this admin. then you will be considered to be a blind follower. If you believe in the core values that Republicans are supposed to hold then this should be a great time for your party to cast off the one’s that have lead it down the wrong path.
If you are so adament about looking to the past, then don’t ignore what has taken place in this country and worldwide since 9/11.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pm#9 Hi Jane…Remember, the inspectors never would have been back in Iraq had not Bush and Blair pressure Saddam into doing so by placing some 200,000 troops on Iraq’s border in 2002.
Comment by Exley — November 3, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
And Exley, don’t forget what Bush said on the very first day that the first group of inspectors arrived. About 30 of them arrived by plane and were taken to their hotel. Having just arrived and checked into their hotel, you wouldn’t expect them to have done much inspecting on that first day, would you? Well, apparently the Liar-In-Chief did, because he told the news media that the inspections “weren’t going well”. On the very first day! This is when I knew for sure that he was going to war with Iraq.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:49 pmlibs are such fools
Comment by ct — November 3, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Please explain. Try to use at least one word with two or more syllables this time.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:50 pmJane, Good point….About the Jets, I mean! :)
The good news is that my hockey team is in first place.
ThinkProgress is being very … well, let’s say “selective” in which parts of Duelfer Report’s Key Findings they are quoting.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:52 pmPosting How to Build a Nuclear Bomb 101 on the internets? Tight work, W.
It seems like these fools want Iran and North Korea to have nuclear weapons, so they’ll have another cold war to fight.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:53 pmWe’ve known for years now that Saddam still had pre-1991 documents like these:
Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2003; Page A01
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:54 pmDefinitely a twit of the year runner up.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:55 pmOh, and another point, Exley. The inspectors were given a long list of places where the Bush administration claimed WMDs were being stored or manufactured. The inspectors went to site after site, and found that every single one of these sure bets was a dry well. So the inspectors were pulled out. It had simply become too embarrassing for the Administration to have its lies undercut by the truth.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm#31, Tom, I do what I can…Know what I mean, cha-cha?
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pmI pity the people who need so desperately to believe these lies.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:00 pmAnd I have nothing but contempt for legislators who continue to tell them.
That’s not 100% correct, RealScientist….The inspectors did find that Iraq’s Al Samoud missiles were in violation of the its disarmament obligations.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:02 pmOnly conservatives who continue to support Bush would be dumb enough and gullible enough to believe this claim that Saddam had a nuclear program capability. Bush and his cronies keep saying it with no proof, and all the experts who do the work on the ground and look at the evidence say just the opposite.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:04 pmThat’s not 100% correct, RealScientist….The inspectors did find that Iraq’s Al Samoud missiles were in violation of the its disarmament obligations.
Comment by Exley — November 3, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
What is it then? 99% correct? Wrong on a technicality? These missiles were a big enough threat to justify invading the country?
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:04 pmBush Rule #1 - it’s always Clinton’s fault.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:05 pmBush Rule #2 - never let the truth and facts get in the way of spin.
America’s Least Wanted
If having those documents amounts to having a nucelar weapons program then thanks to the Bush admin., anyone with an internet connection now potentially has a nuclear weapons program.
If I downloaded those docs (from a freely avaialble US government site, mind), am I guilty of having an illegal WMD program? Will the US army invade me?
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:07 pm#37 No, I am not saying that RealScientist…I just wanted to point out that fact. And that was not the only violation of its disarmament obligations committed by Iraq. I am glad that ThinkProgress has provided a link to the Duelfer Report. Hopefully, that will lead many people here to take a look at that document finally. The report documents numerous disarmament violations, as well as information about Iraq’s plans to reconstitute its WMD programs after UN sanctions were lifted.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:10 pmHow about this theory? The Bush thugs know the nuclear weapons information is there. But dammit, no one is finding it. So a week before the elections they leak it in a roundabout way to the arms-control community. Word gets around, people start complaining about it, and voila! The NY Times picks up on it. Three objectives are accomplished: the NY Times is made to look like they are guilty of revealing secrets, the documents get deliberately leaked to the terrorists without it appearing that way, and the WMD lies get some renewed legs before the election.
Paranoid, I know, but I wouldn’t put anything past these criminals.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:12 pm#41 Exley,
Yes, it is a good reason to keep sanctions in place. It is a good reason to have ongoing inspections. It is not sufficient reason to go to war. They lied to get their war.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:14 pmOnce again, the Republicans have put partisan political advantage ahead of national security. And this time, they may have just given Iran the recipe for a nuclear bomb as a result.
For the details, see:
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:16 pm“Documents of Mass Destruction: GOP Puts Party Before National Security with Iraq Papers.”
Exley,
No one was saying that Saddam should be left alone and given a free hand. The international community had him safely boxed in. His army was weaker than the armies of his neighbors, too weak to contemplate invading any of them. He had no WMDs. End of story.
Bush could have looked like a hero if he just let the inspectors work. He pressured Iraq to accept the inspections. He could have insisted on permanent monitoring by inspectors, boxing Hussein in even further. There was no need to go to war. But the inspections, the phony diplomacy, it was all a sham from the beginning.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm#40 It’s so funny Exley. Actually US never concern about Iraq WMD. It was for attack Saddam, now it’s for the election.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmPlease make up your mind. In the last post you say the report shows that Bush revealed how to build a bomb. In this you said the report cannot be trusted when it claims Iraq was a developing nuclear weapons. Please decide whether you trust your source or not. I realize Kerry has shown you that being on both sides of an issue is useful, but not on the same day!
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:21 pmOK so now we are looking for DWMD (docs of weapons of mass destruction)
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pmSaddam Hussein was doing was waiting the international community out, to make sure they got the inspectors out, so that they can then restart their program.
Bush threw the inspectors out. Bush has since claimed (twice) that Saddam did, but then again, Bush is sh!t on my shoe.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm.
What a spurious argument. We all have the capability to build nukes… That capability is increased if we actually have technical knowhow and the radioactive material. Of course, the technical knowhow is easy when the Bushites are posting the research done by other nations on the internet… And material shouldn’t be too hard to get with all the post-soviet nukes that haven’t been cleaned up during dubyas tenure.
The terrorists that have been created by the “War” in Iraq have more capability than Saddam had, and it is ALL thanks to Bush and his failed policies.
The parsing of language and bald faced political and emotional manipulation to disctact from the Sadministration’s criminal incompetence disgusts me.
Possibility does NOT imply probability.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 pmTed, you dumbass. They got the date wrong.
The IAEA says this info wasn’t available on the internet until Bush put it there. Republican hacks then claimed it was from more than ten years later, which it isn’t.
That explains your Kerry quote: you’re an idiot.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 pm.
B f. S
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 pmThe white house has been lying so long they don’t even know what the truth is.
Either that or they are manipulative SOBS.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmLet’s not forget: Under Bush’s watchful eye, North Korea built and tested a nuclear weapon.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pmThose missiles were discovered and destroyed before the invasion.
That’s how EFFECTIVE the inspectors were!!!!
And why INVASION was UNNECCESSARY!!
Is there anything more pathetic than a supporter of this war?
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm.
Squidbilly, why not both? They started out as manipulative SOBs, now they’ve been lying so long that they don’t even know what the truth is.
For gods’ sakes (pick a god, any god), Bush was talking in 1999 about how he wouldn’t have wasted the political capital that his father did after the Gulf War, and that he would have just swept through any changes he wanted. His attitude even then was that a ‘war president’ has so much political capital that he’d be able to do whatever he wanted. Sound familiar? Sound scary as hell?
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:48 pmThe gay community must love having the liberal bloggers on their team - running every homosexual act up the flag pole in an attempt to embarass conservatives. Talk show hosts are now starting to state what I did a few weeks ago during the Foley fiasco - gay are going to pound Dems / progs for their use of anti-gay slanders to attack Reps.
Once again, now that I’ve said it, I’ve doomed you to keep doing it - have fun.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:06 pmThe report documents numerous disarmament violations, as well as information about Iraq’s plans to reconstitute its WMD programs after UN sanctions were lifted.
Comment by Exley — November 3, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
And this is exactly what inspections are for: To make sure the country under scrutiny is complying with UN mandates.
You wouldn’t really expect anyone to abide the law from the goodness of their heart, would you?
Also, as you pointed out, the inspectors destroyed whatever they found to be in violation of international mandates -which was a good indication that Hussein was indeed contained and an armed conflict was unnnecessary.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:07 pmJason can’t tell the difference between hypocrisy and homosexuality. No wonder he’s a Republican: he can’t tell when he’s being used, and he can’t tell when he’s being, erm … used.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:11 pm.
#44 RealScientist, #60 Gregor…I don’t disagree with all of what you are saying.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pmSo, Exley, I’m glad you’re not completely on the dark side. :-)
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:20 pm#66…No, Jane…Not “completely.” But I think you and Wayne would still think where I reside is pretty darn dark! :)
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 pmYeah, but apparently there’s a few lights on there!
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm#44 RealScientist, #60 Gregor…I don’t disagree with all of what you are saying.
Comment by Exley
No, just the parts that disagree with what he’s saying. :)
(Couldn’t resist.)
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:36 pm#70 Wayne…Exactly!
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:38 pm#68…Well, maybe a candle or two, Jane.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm[…] Think Progress sets the record straight: The Times report documents Iraq’s efforts to conduct nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war and prior to sanctions. Contrary to Bartlett’s claim, Iraq had no nuclear capability at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Here are the facts, as reported in the Key Findings of the Duelfer Report: […]
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pmBush could have looked like a hero if he just let the inspectors work.
Comment by RealScientist — November 3, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
And Pres Bush had my support when he pressured Hussein into accepting the inspections.
He lost me very soon thereafter, because something smelled fishy in my opinion: Too much aggressive rhetoric, too much emphasis on the “irrelevancy” of the UN, too much insinuating links between Hussein and 9/11. I became apparent to me he was going to order an invasion regardless of the outcome of the inspections.
So many lives lost needlessly. So much devastation unleashed on the Iraqi people. Such a shame.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:50 pmGrand+Moff+Texan;
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:03 pmThe New York Times says the dates for the reports were the 1990’s and 2002. Europeans on the security council said those documents were from 2002. Yes, it wasn’t on the internet before the administration put it there. So some of its from ten years ago and some was just before the war. But the papers do say Iraq was actively pursuing nukes in 2002.
Facts. They explain my comments about Kerry too.
Another fact you seem to have missed. The inspectors did not destroy every violation they found. Many were just placed under seal, which is why there were return trips to many facilities that had been shut down and why some were listed as unaccounted for in the inventories done after the turn of the century. It also explains how over 500 canisters of old mustard gas were found after the war.
But hey, I’m an idiot for using facts in my argument. Insults would be much quicker and wouldn’t require thinking or research.
We know what he had, right
No.
We THINK we know, Intel said one thing, deserters have said oither things, and inspectors have said even less..
The truth is, everyone is an expert, nobody really knows unless they have first hand knowledge. , and Sadam is a crackpot that killed more of his own people than this current civil war in Iraq has come close to.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:05 pmOff topic, but interesting. From The Guardian.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country’s reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an “axis of evil”, but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
Way to go, liberator.
and Sadam is a crackpot that killed more of his own people than this current civil war in Iraq has come close to.
Comment by Douglas G.
You have to thank Rumsfeld, Reagan and the CIA´s nice fellas for that.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:08 pmEven Andrea Mitchell has referred to the White House as the Gang that can’t shoot straight.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 pmThey clumsily and prematurely released papers on the internet that alarmed some in security, so now they are hustling to cover their behinds.
God! When will people wake up — Bush&Co are incompetent, stupid and dangerous!
Bush could have looked like a hero if he just let the inspectors work.
Comment by RealScientist
Please, lets not vulgarize the semantics of hero. I dont see whats heroic in letting other people do their work and respect the UN (which is a US´s toy, we all know that).
And, come on. Everybody knew, at least here in Mexico, that if those WMD inspectors returned from Irak knowing there werent WMD´s, US would invade.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:25 pmThe 2002 reports were a synopsis of reports prepared before Desert Storm I (1991) in response to demands from the UN inspectors. On that basis, I could be declared responsible for the Peloponnesian wars because I wrote a report in high school history class on same when demanded to do so by my teacher.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:30 pm#77
Hey. we all know he had WMD in 1980, and we all know he used it against Iranians. But guess what , we US supplied WMD for him, we US did nothing when he used it, we US refused when Iran requested against Saddam. It is the truth.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:24 pmYeah, but apparently there’s a few lights on there!
Comment by JaneESchneider — November 3, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
i have noticed a few occasional glimmers, myself…
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:56 pmis good…
Speaking of Saddam, staging his trial right before the election is political dynamite… If they give him the death penalty… Iraq could go full tilt, crack-house crazy. What’s the Republican plan to handle this…. Bush, what’s your plan?
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:07 pmThe Republicans launched the IRAQ WAR without a plan for the peace, and asking the Democrats what’s your plan is Orwellian. Without full access to the truth of the situation on the ground, how could the Democrates state a plan, with incomplete information… and if they stated their plan for Iraq, wouldn’t that just telegraph their ideas to be countered by the terrorists? huh? makes no sense.
oh what tangled webs we weave
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:50 pmDouglas I don’t where you’re getting those numbers from must be fox. More Iraqis have died since the invasion than saddam could’ve dreamt of
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:54 pmRe :#82
This is what Hans Blix told the U.N. security council about the request for documents in 2002:
“Clearly, the most important thing was that whatever there existed by way of weapons programmes and proscribed items should be fully declared. I added that four years had passed since the last inspections and that many governments believed that WMD programmes remained in Iraq. The Council had wanted to offer Iraq a last opportunity.”
He wasn’t asking for a summary of old reports. When he later reported his initial assessment of the new report, he acknowledged that it was incomplete and that they were based on 1996-97 reports “with subsequent updates and explanations”.
So no, this report was not talking about Saddam’s programs from the 80’s but the current state of his program. Just like the NYT said it was.
So it still comes down to wether you trust the report. Either the administration released documents that revealed details on how to build a nuke that were in the possesion of Iraq AND Iraq was trying to get to get a nuke, or you don’t trust the report and neither can be stated.
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:31 pmWow, the trolls are having a rough time defending this one. Well, MAYBE Saddam had nukes…Guys, your king told you they had nukes. Don’t be pussies.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 pmTed, it comes down to the fact that they didn’t have any you fricking moron. Or did you miss that?
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 pmDavid Kay said this was incredibly stupid even for this White House.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 pmI never claimed that they had any. I was stating that if you don’t believe the report that says Saddam was developing them, don’t use the same report as the basis for the post that says Bush was revealing nuclear know-how from Iraqi documents.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:13 pm#93 Developing? What evidence is there that that was happening? We had Saddam contained…the proof is in these documents. They had the know-how. They didn’t have the opportunity.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:20 pmWhen he later reported his initial assessment of the new report, he acknowledged that it was incomplete and that they were based on 1996-97 reports “with subsequent updates and explanationsâ€.
This ‘02 UN report was prepared using the information contained in Saddam’s declaration, correct? Would this be the same 14,000 page document the Bush administration removed 10,000 pages from before turning it over to the UN?
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 pmCome on barfly, stop with the facts. They are inconvenient.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:50 pm#94
When referring to the 2002 report the NYT story said “Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
You say that story is full of crap, fine by me. My point is that the previous blog post, and many comments in this post, are using this same story you said was moronic as the basis for attacking Bush for revealing Saddam’s instructions for building a bomb.
Four years of no inspections seems like a decent window of opportunity. North Korea went from supposedly ’shut down’ in 2001 to a nuke test in less than six years. Materials were not an insurmountable issue, most of the goods needed were classified as ‘dual-use’ and could pass through the naval blockade. We didn’t control Iraq’s land border with Syria, other items could be trucked in.
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 pmTed, you just quoted the NYT. Chalabi was feeding the very hawkish (at the time) paper false information. Is that really a trustworthy source?
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 pmTed, you ignorant slut, nobody is using that story as a basis for attacking Bush. Your glorious leader had the freaking blueprints for making a nuke on his website.
Oh, and 4 years of no inspections in NK? You do realize that is all Bush right? Perhaps if we had somebody with a brain in the state department it wouldn’t be 4 years of no inspections….ya think?
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 pmIt’s very easy to make a nuclear bomb. The means are well known. Historically, there have been no failures. Everyone who tried succeeded. The key is obtaining or producing the material.
This is not even a new story. Years ago, Theodore Taylor–a nuclear engineer who built Davy Crockett, a 50 lb. nuke–while testifying before Congress, started talking about how to make a bomb. There was immediate outrage at his breach of national security. Taylor calmly replied he was reading from stuff he had just checked out at the local public library.
As for these documents, you could just as easil say that a high school physics text book is evidence of a wmd program.
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:50 pm[…] Dan Bartlett – White House Counselor – made claim that Saddam Hussein Saddam Hussein “had the capability and he had the know-how to†develop nuclear weapons. BULLSHIT read the Duelfer Report. […]
November 4th, 2006 at 12:26 amAs for these documents, you could just as easil say that a high school physics text book is evidence of a wmd program.
Comment by latichever
These documents contained specific information pertaining to Iran’s failed test, and how the failure could be fixed. Please provide a link to the high school’s physics book which includes that data.
November 4th, 2006 at 12:31 amwhere do these losers keep coming from, is there no end?
November 4th, 2006 at 9:12 am#98, #99
November 4th, 2006 at 9:13 amI already said I have no problem if you don’t trust the NYT article. But that qoute is from THIS WEEK, not before the war. It is from the exact same article that states Bush posted the details of how to build a nuke on his website.
So in the space of four sentences you went from saying the article could not be trusted to stating it as gospel truth. Congratulations. You have shown the point of my original post in one tidy package.
As for no inspections in NK, you realize that the four years of no inspectors in Iraq started under Clinton, right? So its not like the brain power in the State department went down any.
November 4th, 2006 at 9:17 amAnd that North Korea would have been unable to fund their program if Clinton hadn’t personally decided to save their economy?
Whether you vote Republican or Democrat, choose your poison. Whether you vote or dont, it doesnt matter (Voting hasnt existed since GWBush was selected to be our president). Like a great freedom fighter, Che Guevara, once said, ” A Revolution is the Only Solutions”.
November 4th, 2006 at 6:01 pmThe psyops are working,…. they are so confused..,funny little creatures…wait till we turn off the lights….
November 4th, 2006 at 9:40 pmWhat I can not understand is why after Bush’s people said they did NOT want to post those 90’s papers.
November 4th, 2006 at 10:50 pmBush ordered them to post them.
Bush wants to shut down the Internet as we know it.
This is just another excuse, as all his excuse, self made.
These neo cons have stolen our Constitution and our Rights. And it will get worse.
What makes me really nervous is the construction of the 114 FEMA concentration camps Bush has built and the closed bases turned into camps with razor wire and railroad tracks running through them.
30 million dollars to Kellog Brown and Root to build 3 more that will hold ONE MILLION PEOPLE. and Bush says they are for an influx of illegal immigrants. I don’t think so.
And lets not forget that the last person any congress gave the authority to go to war on any country that they wanted was named Hitler.
This Bush Administration is dangerous and deadly.
They want a One World Government and will not stop until they are stopped.