Iraq/Niger documents used to justify invasion BAD forgeries.

[Yankhadenough]

weston27a2 That 550 metric tons of yellowcake in old barrels dating from 1991 and prior to that is NOT the justification Bush gave to the UN , Congress and the American people for his criminal pre-emptive war, and you know it. You are playing the dumb card.

[Fixhist]

The Picture of Honorable President George W.Bush,especially from 9:00 Minute roll.

I wish President to go for National POLL/refrendom to retain Life long HONOUR of President of United States.

Electoral process may continue as it is,but for electing Vice President (Political Government),Life long president will be a good idea to keep constitution as prime focus,while laws in House of commons & Senate may come and go :-)

Our suggestion,may not works!

Fixhist is not in Business Yet ;-)

[BI30]

Addendum: Saddam did *not* "kick the inspectors out in 1998". Clinton withdrew them in order to bomb his weapons facilities from off shore.

Nor did he kick them out prior to the '03 invasion. I have a video on that as well.

[BI30]

Left over from before the '91 Gulf War, the IAEA was aware of it (as was the UN Security Council), had tagged it and were monitoring it. It was too low-grade to be used in even a dirty bomb, and definitely did not come from Niger as Bush suggested to drum up support for his war.

Please note that, despite the knowing about this uranium, the Bush Administration NEVER pointed to it in the run-up to the invasion as evidence of Saddam's preparation for war.

[Yankhadenough]

With or without WMD, with or without forgeries, invading a sovereign nation that is not even in our hemisphere is just stupid, and could have caused WWIII if Saddam DID in fact have nuclear weapons.

[fredfighteru]

To BI30 , thank you so very much for posting this and

your other videos.

--

FF

[fredfighteru]

To be clear, the 550 tonnes of yellowcake that Vamoalla, nisseutlanning, and I referred to was NOT the yellowcake alleged in the forged documents. It was openly and legally purchased LONG before sanctions were imposed. Attempts to use that old material to prove the forgeries correct are completely dishonest. The documents shown in the video are indisputably forgeries. -- FF

[fredfighteru]

I responded to Vamoalla and nisseutlanning to show

that their insinuation that Iraq had violated

sanctions by buying yellowcake was false. 'Decades

before' and 1970's convey the same time frame. I

responded you your false statements about myself and

the IAEA, and would direct you to their website if

utube permitted urls in these messages.

--

FF

[fredfighteru]

No, I read the IAEA reports. Iraq purchased 550

tonnes of yellowcake and 2-3 tonnes of reactor fuel

decades before sanctions were imposed. Those materials

were properly declared to and monitored by the UN

inspectors. That is not 'both' ways, it is the one

way it happened. The forged documents were an attempt

to 'prove' more recent purchases that did not happen.

--

FF

[BI30]

By responding to this video, you are implying that the Niger documents were in fact correct when they have been repeatedly debunked and dismissed. Your first reply... "Iraq bought 550 tons of yellowcake" does not mention a year, implying that it is the same yellowcake mentioned in the debunked document. Now say you are talking about the 1970's and state "The forged documents were an attempt to 'prove' more recent purchases that did not happen". Your point then?

[fredfighteru]

Iraq bought 550 tonnes of yellowcake from Niger

and Portugal in the 1970s, which was inventoried

and monitored by the IAEA from the date of purchase

right up until the 2003 invasion. The UNSCOM and

IAEA reports are available online.

--

FF

[BI30]

You're reading "A" and concluding "C". 550 tons of "nuclear material" was verified by the IAEA to be in Iraq in 2004, but this was nuclear waste and destroyed supply from their pre-1990 nuclear program, not the highly touted and supposedly "recently purchased yellowcake from Niger". Please be aware the the same source you cite for acknowledging this nuclear material, is the SAME source that has reported no such transaction ever took place. You can't have it both ways.

[Vamoalla]

Show the real documents where Iraq got 550 tons of yellow cake uranium? No, YOU come up with the real documents. Put it on you tube so everyone can see them....that is IF you can come up with them. I have an idea! Maybe you will find them in the same place the weapons of mass destruction are located! Yeah! That's it! Show us where those are too!

[fredfighteru]

Go to the IAEA website and look up their report for June 2003: "The nuclear material - 1.8 tonnes of

low enriched uranium and 500 tonnes

of natural uranium - had been under

IAEA seal since 1991. It was last

visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003."

AFAIK the yellowcake is still there, safe and sound and under IAEA seal It was never diverted to weapons production.

--

FF

[BI30]

Fred, as I replied in your private message to me, go to that June 2003 IAEA report and search for the word "yellowcake". It's not there. Not now, not then, and there is no evidence it was ever there to begin with. I know how BADLY some people want to believe Bush was right all along and the war wasn't all a huge lie, but AFAIK, you're trying to shape the tiniest grain of truth into something it's not.

[BI30]

I should include, even if the yellowcake was there (which it wasn't), it would of been "under seal since 1991" and could not of possibly of been the yellowcake Bush spoke of in those infamous "16 words".

[fredfighteru]

As you note, the yellowcake at Tuwaitha was

legally purchased decades earlier and was

not a violation of the sanctions imposed

on Iraq after 1990.

Dunno why you say it wasn't there, the IAEA

inventoried it in February 2003, and again

when they cleaned up the site in June 2003.

[fredfighteru]

Uh, BI, the paragraph I quoted states "and 500 tonnes of natural uranium - had been under

IAEA seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003"

There it is, in plain English.

[BI30]

"Natural" uranium is not "Yellowcake". Neither is "enriched" uranium. "Yellowcake" is a mixture of 75% "uranium oxide" (and I'm not sure of the rest). And what the IAEA had "under seal since 1991" was not available for Saddam to use in any "reconstituted nuclear program" that Cheney Claimed Saddam was working on in 2003.

[nuculardude]

What is your point? Natural, enriched, and

for that matter depleted uranium all three

will combine with oxygen to form oxides.

"Natural", "enriched", or for that matter "depleted" refer to the nuclear properties of the Uranium atoms in the compounds and not in any way to the chemical compounds themselves or their chemical properties.

[BI30]

Hi ND. The "point" is that only one can be used in a nuclear weapon, and Saddam had access to none of them.

[nuculardude]

True, but irrelevant.

Your statements about yellowcake IMPLIED that Iraq had WMD material. Yellowcake is NOT WMD material precisely because it IS natural uranium.

In this guy's blog at beagle17 dot gnn dot tv slash blogs slash 24619 slash Yellowcake_Fever

he rambles a bit but gets it right--the uranium in yellowcake is natural uranium.

[BI30]

ND: You might want to review my comments to Fred a bit more. While I was never able to decipher his point, mine has consistently been that Saddam had no WMD materials nor capability.

[nuculardude]

I'm not trying to deduce or comment on the motives behind your remarks--only on the effect.

It is clear that Fredfighteru's main point is that the uranium found in Iraq post-2000 was the same material legally and openly purchased 3 decades previously. It was not purchased in violation of any sanctions and had not been diverted to any weapons use. In fact, it had not been used at all, not conventional uses.

[grouchobeer]

Hmm. Where else have I seen forged documents vis-a-vis Bush?

[nisseutlanning]

Why only show the fake documents, show the real ones that shows where Iraq got the 550 tons of yellow cake unanium from.

[fredfighteru]

IIRC, Utube does not allow links to be posted.

But if you go to the IAEA website and search through their documents you can find the history of Iraq's LEGAL purchases of yellowcake and reactor fuel, as well as their indigenous production Iraq has its own Uranium mine).

The fact that Iraq already had plenty of Uranium was reason to doubt the "16 words" even before the documents were proven to be forgeries.

[fredfighteru]

That is because the real ones date back to the 1970s and 1980s when Iraq LEGALLY bought Uranium in various forms from Niger, Italy, France, Portugal, and Russia.

Some of the forgeries are probably copies of those old ones with the dates altered to make them look more recent.

[StylesP1987]

Bush is screwed big time. They should censor media like they use to, to save themselves.

[ArmageddonAfterparty]

Nope, these doc's have long been known to exist, i can't remember where i read it, but there was talk of the italian secret sevice branding them forgeries even back then if i remember correctly.

[BI30]

Actually, the documents are FROM the Italian Secret Service. Google it.

[fredfighteru]

Actually the documents are FROM a Nigerien official who sold them to the Italians. That

makes his motive clear--money.

--

FF

[lvillecards]

Remember, we are talking about the Bush Administration. Condi probably created them on her home computer.

[devae]

wow Bush is the worst. www,HeadsConnect,com

[stihlman37]

Geez I wonder had they ability to make them in the first place? especialy to put the name of a Minister that goes back to 89 that held that position?, Who would have known he had been at all?, Who had to gain from ramming through?, Who would be upset if it was found to be false onfo? (Plame, Wilson) Hmmmmmmmmmm??

[fredfighteru]

The story is that the forger was Nigerrien official in Italy As a government official, he had access to old documents and changed the dates on them to make them look more recent. His motive was money--he sold them to the Italian secret service.

Evidently the Italians got ripped off. But not as badly as we did.

--

FF

[arcanepsyche]

it would be better if the video wasn't so blurry. But, interesting nonetheless.

[BI30]

Sorry for the poor quality. I used to hose these videos on my own website back in 2004 in a smaller format to save space, and the original source video is long gone.