Comments on: VIDEO: Bartlett Falsely Claims Saddam Had The ‘Capability’ For A Nuclear Weapons Program

By: James

James — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 03:50:37 +0000

What I can not understand is why after Bush’s people said they did NOT want to post those 90’s papers.
Bush 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.

By: Socrates

Socrates — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:40:34 +0000

The psyops are working,…. they are so confused..,funny little creatures…wait till we turn off the lights….

By: A Real American

A Real American — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:01:02 +0000

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”.

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:17:29 +0000

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.
And that North Korea would have been unable to fund their program if Clinton hadn’t personally decided to save their economy?

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:13:05 +0000

#98, #99
I 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.

By: pete

pete — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:12:01 +0000

where do these losers keep coming from, is there no end?

By: barfly

barfly — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:31:29 +0000

As 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.

By: The Jerk Store Called » Blog Archive » Missing For Another Week

The Jerk Store Called » Blog Archive » Missing For Another Week — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:26:20 +0000

[...] Dan Bartlett â€“ White House Counselor â€“ made claim that Saddam Hussein Saddam Hussein â€œhad the capability and he had the know-how toâ€ develop nuclear weapons. BULLSHIT read the Duelfer Report.Â [...]

By: latichever

latichever — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:50:07 +0000

It’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.

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:41:11 +0000

Ted, 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?

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:21:13 +0000

Ted, you just quoted the NYT. Chalabi was feeding the very hawkish (at the time) paper false information. Is that really a trustworthy source?

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:17:12 +0000

#94
When referring to the 2002 report the NYT story said “Experts say that at the time, Mr. Husseinâ€™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.

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:50:10 +0000

Come on barfly, stop with the facts. They are inconvenient.

By: barfly

barfly — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:45:58 +0000

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 â€œwith 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?

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:20:23 +0000

#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.

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:13:30 +0000

I 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.

By: Marie

Marie — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:12:04 +0000

David Kay said this was incredibly stupid even for this White House.

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:40:57 +0000

Ted, it comes down to the fact that they didn’t have any you fricking moron. Or did you miss that?

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:40:17 +0000

Wow, 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.

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:31:49 +0000

Re :#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.