Joined: 29 Nov 2002 Posts: 6934 Location: Rattlesnake Valley 9230 eGriz Bucks
Monday, Feb. 20, 2006 8:55 a.m. EST
Media Ignore Saddam's Uranium Bombshell
Print Friendly Version
Forward this Page
E-mail NewsMax
RSS Feed
Reprint Information
From the weekend Summit
___________________________
Tape recordings released over the weekend show that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program at least as recently as 2000.
Speaking at the Intelligence Group Summit in Arlington, Va., Saddam tapes translator Bill Tierney revealed that in one recorded conversation, the Iraqi dictator can be heard discussing a plan to enrich uranium using a technique known as plasma separation.
Though U.S. weapons inspectors found that 1.8 tons of Saddam's 500 ton uranium stockpile had been partially enriched, they failed to turn up any evidence of an ongoing enrichment program.
Instead, Iraq Survey Group Chief Charles Duelfer concluded that Baghdad terminated its nuclear weapons program no later than 1995
News that Saddam had an ongoing enrichment program comports with the account of Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, the nuclear physicist who ran Iraq's nuclear centrifuge program.
After turning himself in to U.S. forces in July 2003, Dr. Obeidi revealed that he had successfully hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints from U.N. weapons inspectors on Saddam's orders.
Despite the staggering implications of the audiotaped uranium revelation, only one mainstream media outlet had covered the news as of Monday morning.
Noting that Saddam's enrichment program was "totally unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors," the Washington Times editorialized on Monday: "It is apparent that the American public has much more to learn about . . . . precisely when Saddam's nuclear weapons programs actually stopped."
Payton may I suggest you turn Rush Limbaugh off for a few days. The media freaked about a hunting accident while they ignored Cheney's authorization to leak top secret info, and Bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping. You should be happy. If the media was really liberal the whole country would not like Bush.
Payton may I suggest you turn Rush Limbaugh off for a few days. The media freaked about a hunting accident while they ignored Cheney's authorization to leak top secret info, and Bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping. You should be happy. If the media was really liberal the whole country would not like Bush.
YOU ARE STONED!!!
They only tried to roast Cheeney to get to Pres. Bush. Dont you remember the Jackels In the Washington Press core that asked if "VP had handed in a letter of resignation"?
Second- Its NOT ILLEGAL- The same thing has been done for YEARS
PS I DONT LISTEN TO RL, Hes a arogate blowhardr
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
Yes it's illegal, the 1978 FISA law only authorizes warrantless wiretaps on international calls and not domestic calls. If a police department did this they'd be torn apart, for breaking the law.
Yes it's illegal, the 1978 FISA law only authorizes warrantless wiretaps on international calls and not domestic calls. If a police department did this they'd be torn apart, for breaking the law.
EXACTLY
Why do you asume that they are domestic? What they have said is that they are tracking calls from KNOW suspects or suspected phone numbers from outside the USA.
THIS HAS TO BE DONE>
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
yes it does have to be done, this is exactly how you conservatives spin the issue. No one is denying that wiretapping suspects is madatory to keep our country safe. But get a warrant. No one is above the law, and no one should be allowed to bypass the law. Get a warrant, if there is a suspicion, it's easy to do, it can be done after the fact even.
yes it does have to be done, this is exactly how you conservatives spin the issue. No one is denying that wiretapping suspects is madatory to keep our country safe. But get a warrant. No one is above the law, and no one should be allowed to bypass the law. Get a warrant, if there is a suspicion, it's easy to do, it can be done after the fact even.
The problem is there isnt enough time and Pres Bush, just as Clinton thought dosent see the law that way. If the dems really wanted to challenge it- THEN DO it...
If not then
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
Last edited by Paytonlives on Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
You've got 72 hours after you start the wiretap to get a warrant. I'm sorry dude, but I'll throw the up as well if people actually think there "isn't enough time."
You've got 72 hours after you start the wiretap to get a warrant. I'm sorry dude, but I'll throw the up as well if people actually think there "isn't enough time."
Why then havent the dems taken this to court? Answer- They wont win...
Its better for them to just bitch and not take it to court
Fat, Drunk and Bobcat is no way to go through life son!
Dean Wormer- Animal House
yes it does have to be done, this is exactly how you conservatives spin the issue. No one is denying that wiretapping suspects is madatory to keep our country safe. But get a warrant. No one is above the law, and no one should be allowed to bypass the law. Get a warrant, if there is a suspicion, it's easy to do, it can be done after the fact even.
Just curious, but where were you when Clinton was illegally wire tapping AMERICAN citizens? It's fine to have an opinion and go after Bush, but is it the same when your guy was doing it?
Also will it change your mind if the 3 people arrested today were caught because of the (illegal) wire tapping?
yes it does have to be done, this is exactly how you conservatives spin the issue. No one is denying that wiretapping suspects is madatory to keep our country safe. But get a warrant. No one is above the law, and no one should be allowed to bypass the law. Get a warrant, if there is a suspicion, it's easy to do, it can be done after the fact even.
Just curious, but where were you when Clinton was illegally wire tapping AMERICAN citizens? It's fine to have an opinion and go after Bush, but is it the same when your guy was doing it?
Also will it change your mind if the 3 people arrested today were caught because of the (illegal) wire tapping?
wouldnt it be funny if he wanted the three people who were caught released if they were caught by the wiretapping?
i just want a liberal/bac to be honest about it
1) it wont threaten american citizens unless they are planning terrorist activities with overseas partners
2) im sorry...the fbi does not have the manpower to be able to wiretap and listen in on everybodys conversation
3) what do you have to hide?
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
yes it does have to be done, this is exactly how you conservatives spin the issue. No one is denying that wiretapping suspects is madatory to keep our country safe. But get a warrant. No one is above the law, and no one should be allowed to bypass the law. Get a warrant, if there is a suspicion, it's easy to do, it can be done after the fact even.
Just curious, but where were you when Clinton was illegally wire tapping AMERICAN citizens? It's fine to have an opinion and go after Bush, but is it the same when your guy was doing it?
Also will it change your mind if the 3 people arrested today were caught because of the (illegal) wire tapping?
I was in high school, not the most politically informed at that time Alpha.
Anyways if Clinton did it he broke the law too, I've said that before, I will not excuse him because he's a Democrat. It shouldn't be done without a warrant. Period.
And if these guys were caught due to illegal wiretaps I would be upset with that as well. Because its illegal. No one in America is above the law. If there is enought suspicion that these guys were operating as a terrorist cell then get a friggin warrant, its so easy to do even with the slightest evidence. I mean to wire tap these guys there must have been some sore of suspicion about a terrorist activity, I doubt they were a randomly "lucky" hit. With that amount of proof a warrant from the FISA court would be ordered, it's quick, easy, and the right thing.
wouldnt it be funny if he wanted the three people who were caught released if they were caught by the wiretapping?
i just want a liberal/bac to be honest about it
1) it wont threaten american citizens unless they are planning terrorist activities with overseas partners
2) im sorry...the fbi does not have the manpower to be able to wiretap and listen in on everybodys conversation
3) what do you have to hide?
1. Then why not get a warrant? Clearly you are saying they are only listening in on people who are guilty, so getting a warrant should be very, very, very easy.
2. Then they should only listen to the ones that have enough substance to justify a warrant ... after they get a warrant.
3. You may love Mother Russia enough to not mind a KGB standard for our civil liberties, but I choose to respect our Constitution and the laws of our country.
It might come as a shock to people who have long since forgotten that the term "conservative" doesn't mean "blindly doing what George says is good using really short words," but being skeptical about unchecked government power (such as warrantless searches with zero judicial oversight) is a core conservative virtue. You might choose to ignore that, but don't mock those who stand by their virtues in the face of fear-based hysteria and political propoganda.
You've got 72 hours after you start the wiretap to get a warrant. I'm sorry dude, but I'll throw the up as well if people actually think there "isn't enough time."
Why then havent the dems taken this to court? Answer- They wont win...
Its better for them to just bitch and not take it to court
You're not making any sense. Reps and Dems both ARE taking the necessary action ... and lawsuits ARE pending.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
class 1996
