The quiet death of 'YellowcakeGate' bodes ominously for us all...

[RichM]

Even at its maximum level 2 weeks ago, the potential scandal surrounding the SOTU lie was small change compared to the enormity of the crime. The furor (such as it was) was narrowly framed -- all other war-related lies were ignored, except for the famous "16 words."

Nonetheless, at least the media were paying attention to it. In a sense, it was as though some ancient reflex from happier healthier times had reasserted itself -- the quaint notion that it "ought" to matter, if the president of the United States tells a bald-faced lie, with the intent of scaring the public into supporting a military invasion of another country.

Now, however, the furor has evaporated. Everything about Bush's lie has gone to that nether-region where discussion of the stolen election, of the 9-11 investigation, of EnronGate, of the anthrax assassins' identity, & of everything else has gone. All that matters is once again diversions like Kobe Bryant, the Dow Jones Average, etc. The word "uranium" was uttered precisely ONCE in yesterday's shameful & fraudulent "press conference" -- and Bush simply blew off the question.

This is a very ominous development. It shows that even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence of blatant lying & abuse of power at the highest levels, today's American society lacks the institutional integrity to draw the inescapable conclusions from what's right in front of its collective nose. Rather, the society chooses simply to do what feels most convenient: look the other way.

If the Bushists can escape so serious a threat to their control as YellowcakeGate, with such minimal damage, there is virtually nothing that could happen that will bring them down. We live in a country where "reality" is what a small group of powerful people say it is -- no more, no less.

[Abe Linkman]

1. Smell the coffee

"We live in a country where "reality" is what a small group of powerful people say it is -- no more, no less."

And, that isn't going to change anytime soon. As with B. Clinton replacing Poppy, if the Democrats win in 2004, we'll get another bush-lite, just like Clinton.

[lifelong_Dem]

23. Wow, some people are totally clueless

Yeah, Dems who support universal health care, oppose the PNAC's agenda of global domination, oppose the religious right's backward social agenda, and oppose the wanton destruction of the environment by huge corporations are "Bush Lite", all right...

Sheesh. Some people...:eyes:

[tomp]

64. yeah, like you're really describing the dems. not. nt

[lifelong_Dem]

67. Wow, another one

Amazing how some people just can't see or acknowledge reality.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChompySnack]

2. Only 3 things can really make things happen

1) The media. They are completely owned by the Republicans.
2) The congress. They are currently controlled by Republicans.
3) The courts. So far they haven't been used much.

Protests do nothing without the media. Only these 3 things can force any change.

[deutsey]

12. We have to become the media

just like dissidents did in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc.

[cthrumatrix]

85. the 4th thing....corporations own both parties...and it's thier call

what will be covered and when.

Who they want for their next president...? Whoever will do their work.

[BeachBuckeye]

3. That about sums it up alright!

I can't say that I disagree with a word of what you say here.

[tom_paine]

4. Yes, as Orwell predicted

And, in what must surely be a tip of the hat to your old pal Trosky, and his notion of "Perpetual Revolution", the Busheviks have borrowed this tactic and utilized it most effectively.

What happened two weeks ago? I don't know I am focusing on today's atrocity.

And yes, they can do damned near ANYTHING.

And they will. Roundups, or whatever methods will be used this time around, could start immediately after the Stalinist Farce of 2004, when the Emperor is ReAppointed.

(not that I'm giving up -- I'm just a realist)

[ElementaryPenguin]

5. Watergate took 2 years to develop! Slaughtergate is NOT going away...not

As long as Americans continue to die in Iraq (which unfortunately its guaranteed they will!) BushCo has fucked themselves completely with this one!!

[Cha]

8. And they will continually use their arrogrance and hubris

to bring on their own downfall. they are built on nothing and they
will crumble.

[Kolesar]

13. The Brits would do us a big favor by eliminating Tony Blair

Watch the Bush media machine try to explain that one away--Blair busted for colluding with the tyrant to go to war.

[Wwagsthedog]

6. Publish This Everywhere

RichM,

This is a very well written and scary article. It certainly needs a wider audience. :thumbsup:

[hang a left]

22. what article?

[Roon]

7. What is this "yellowcake"?

What does it mean? Anyone? Thanks in advance.

[Stephanie]

18. He's talking about the LIE bush told in the

State of the Union, when he said that the UK had "learned" that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. Bush was referring to some completely discredited, forged documents that purported to show that SH tried to get uranium from Niger (the "Niger documents"). Bush knew the evidence was false, so instead of making the claim outright, he attributed it to the UK. Later when he was called on it the WH said "bush is not a fact-checker." Then they told us to move on.

[never cry wolf]

19. google rocks!!!

Yellowcake is milled uranium oxide, known to chemists as U3O8. When uranium ore comes out of the mine, it actually contains fairly little of the precious radioactive element. Though some mines in Canada, the world's leading uranium producer, are now yielding ore that contains 20 percent uranium, lower purity levels are more typical. Ore that contains less than 1 percent uranium is not unusual.

The milling process gets rid of the useless minerals that dominate the ore. First, raw ore is passed through a series of industrial-sized crushers and grinders. The resulting "pulped" ore is then bathed in sulphuric acid, a process which leaches out the uranium. After some drying and filtering, the end product is yellowcake: a coarse, oxidized powder that is often yellow in color but can also have a red or gray tint, depending on the number and type of impurities that may remain. Ideally, a drum of yellowcake should wind up looking something like this.

Yellowcake is a first step toward enriched uranium, but it's a long way from being weapons-grade. The powder must still be converted into uranium hexafluoride before it can be enriched, the process that makes the sort of uranium used by nuclear power plants and bomb-makers alike. Because UF6 can be easily turned into a gas, it is ideal for enrichment, which must be done in a gaseous state.

[gristy]

32. That sounds like a pretty "warm"mine

yielding ore that contains 20 percent uranium

At what concentration does uranium go critical?

[Salviati]

63. it's a function of both concentration and total amount...

Uranium will undergo a chain reaction only if the concentration of uranium is high enough, and there is enough around. What happens is that you get an atom of uranium that decays into an atom of barium, one of krypton, and three neutrons. The neutrons, if there is enough uranium around, can strike other uranium nuclei, causing them to decay, releasing more neutrons, etc...

If you've got pure uranium, the critical 'mass' is somewhere over 100 lbs, I can't quite remember exactly how much though...

If there isn't enough uranium around, then there is a good chance that the neutrons will escape the chunk of uranium before inducing any more decays, and you won't get any chain reaction.



Strangely enough, there have been examples in geologic history of naturally occuring nuclear reactors when enough uranium of high concentration was brought together. See the link for more details:

http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Lovelock_Oklo.html

[OldCurmudgeon]

35. yellowcake

is a uranium oxide. It's one of the early steps between raw ore and fuel rods for reactors or highly enriched uranium metal for bombs.

And it's generally unenriched, "natural" uranium oxide.

[diamond14]

68. Yellowcake, centrifuges, uranium, and atomic bombs...overview

Uranium

This "very tiny" summary of Uranium is for everybody who wants to know more about "yellow-cake", centrifuges, nuclear bombs, and all that. As our National debate continues on the bush* "yellowcake" lies, a CHEMIST has stepped up to present an overview. So here it is, with very fascinating links for all you "science buffs", who want to explore further.

_____________________

Uranium (Element #92, abbreviated "U", named after the Planet Uranus)
Plutonium (Element #94, abbreviated "Pu", named after the Planet Pluto)

When highly purified into suitable chemical forms, BOTH these elements (U and Pu) can be used to generate power in a Nuclear Power Plant. In a different chemical form, BOTH these elements can be used to make NUCLEAR BOMBS. Both elements are radioactive, meaning that they emit dangerous radiation for thousands of years (radiation is high energy particles that disrupt molecular structures, causing your body chemistry to malfunction in many ways, often forming cancers)

Uranium exists in the earth, and can be located and mined by geologists.

Plutonium is a "human-made" element, that only exists where scientists created it.

The first Plutonium was created by the USA for making nuclear bombs in WWII. (That let the genie out of the bottle, creating an element! We have "poisoned ourselves" with major environmental damage, from an insidious world-class toxicant. For over 50 years now, discussions continue over what to do with Pu, where to store it, and how to clean up this mess).

_______________________

There are essentially two BIG steps to making a nuclear bomb:

1. Extract Uranium from the ground, process and extract it to make "yellowcake"

2. Chemically separate the Uranium isotopes, and purify those chemicals. Once purified, U can then be used by itself for a nuclear bomb, as the Hiroshima bomb, or take it further, in a nuclear reaction to create Plutonium (as the Nagasaki bomb). Either U or Pu can also be used to generate power in nuclear power plants.

These are VERY COMPLEX, dangerous and expensive steps. The closer that you get to the final purified U or Pu, the more valuable the chemical compounds become, and the more dangerous. The more steps are completed, the easier to make a nuclear bomb from it. "Yellowcake" is light-years away from a final nuclear bomb, but the possession of yellowcake eliminates ONE difficult step.

Here'e a good flowchart showing the process (for power production "nuclear materials", but the process is essentially the same to create "nuclear materials" for ATOMIC BOMBS, which are now called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/Aboutusec_fuelcycle.asp





Uranium is removed from the earth in mining operations. After removing it from the earth, the ore must be processed using chemicals to extract the actual Uranium.

Here is info on mining Uranium, the production process: from blasting to shipping…
http://www.rossing.com/uranium_production.htm

A huge amount of rock must be processed to get a tiny bit of Uranium, which is then called "yellowcake", because it's a yellow compressed powder. The mining leaves a huge environmental mess, as shown here.



Geologists call these Uranium chemical compounds: Minerals, and have "geological names", while chemists have a very organized naming system that allows you to draw the chemical structure and predict the chemical reactions.

Here's a list (with some pictures) of different chemical forms of Uranium, with the geological names, and the chemical formulas…
http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-U.shtml

______________________

There are TWO kinds of reactions that Uranium undergoes

1. Chemical reactions with other compounds, such as sulfur, oxygen, fluorine, and nitrogen. If you hit element 92, you can explore all the chemical forms of Uranium, and many crystal structures, Uranium - sulfides, oxides, fluorides and more…(on the left side), and the colors of each chemical compound.
http://www.webelements.com/

2. Nuclear Reactions. Physicists change the number of protons in the center of the atom, and create NEW elements. For Uranium (Atomic Number 92), there is a series of nuclear reactions that create Plutonium (Atomic Number 94). These nuclear reactions are conducted in a NUCLEAR REACTOR.

Before the physicists can create Plutonium, or use Uranium for a nuclear bomb, it must be purified by a very complex, environmentally damaging series of chemical extractions. The manufacturing plants for this process are VERY large, and in the USA, include the Hanford Plant in Washington, the Rocky Flats plant in Denver, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, the Pantex Plant in the Pan Handle of Texas, and more….with a variety of other manufacturing plant making components like electrical and explosives. These plants are not "mobile" and cannot be "hidden". Two examples are shown: 1) WMD plant, and 2) Nuclear Power plant.

1. An example of just ONE plant is shown here (the actual "enrichment" was done at Hanford and Oakridge, other HUGE Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing Facilities. Rocky Flats only did the "clean-up" of the Nuclear Materials that were sent from Hanford)

WMD Plant: Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons plant
http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr96/rfts.html




Read more about the chemical separation of Uranium isotopes, and the creation of Plutonium:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip50.htm


2. In these links, you can see a second type of Uranium isotope use, that of creating power. Centrifuges similar to these are used to separate U for Atomic BOMBS. Multiple banks of high tech centrifuges are necessary, one centrifuge will NOT do it.

Here's some pictures showing how Uranium enrichment works. These are very challenging chemical reactions, involving HOT Hydrofluoric Acid ( HF - a chemical that "eats" through glass, plastics, steel and more…HF also "eats" through humans, damaging nerves, so that the person will not feel the burning and can not know of the damage as it progresses…HF is a very dangerous chemical to work with.)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.htm


The large Tricastin enrichment plant in France (beyond cooling towers)
The four nuclear reactors in the foreground provide over 3000 MWe power for it.


A bank of centrifuges at a Urenco plant


Here is a site that covers the complex history of Uranium and Plutonium in bombs..
http://www.atomicarchive.com/


After chemical purification in these HUGE manufacturing facilities, nuclear reactions are used to create Plutonium. Physicists change the number of protons in the center of the atom, and create NEW elements. For Uranium (Atomic Number 92), there is a series of nuclear reactions that create Plutonium (Atomic Number 94). These nuclear reactions are conducted in a NUCLEAR REACTOR.

The link below (U of Missouri -Rolla), explains the processes that go on in the nuclear reactor to create Plutonium

here's pics of the interior of the Nuclear Reactor at the U of Missouri - Rolla.
http://web.umr.edu/~reactor/


Plutonium manufacture and fabrication
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Library/Plutonium/


Pu and U are always emitting radiation continuously for thousands of years. These emissions are primarily dangerous alpha, beta, and gamma rays that damage cells, quickly, causing radiation burns/poisoning, and long-term, causing cancers.

here's another "Periodic Chart of the Elements" with links on bottom to explain everything (from the chemists at Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories)
http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm

if you like pretty green-yellow glass, here is a link to the "Uranium Glass Gallery" where you can learn more about exotic collector glass made with radioactive Uranium. Although some people won't mind drinking their wine out of a radioactive glass, others do object to being radioactively poisoned as they drink. Beautiful glasses, though.
http://www.parkcity.ne.jp/~ken-toma/

In recent news stories, Uranium and Plutonium have been called radionuclides, nuclear materials and radioactive isotopes and more. All of these names are correct, but emphasize different properties of the U and Pu. Because these atoms are so BIG and heavy (atoms are smallest at the top of the Periodic Chart and biggest at the bottom), they are also called "heavy" metals.

______________________________

Here is little background on "The Atom", so you can better understand the terminology and the reactions:

1. The nucleus (the center) of an atom is composed of positively-charged particles called "protons" and neutral particles called "neutrons".

2. The atomic number is the number of protons found in the nucleus. For example: Uranium is Atomic Number 92, which means that there are 92 protons in the nucleus (92 - positively charged particles in the center of the atom).
Plutonium is Atomic Number 94, which means that there are 94 protons in the nucleus.

3. Electrons are negatively charged particles that circulate continuously around the center of the atom, like the planets circulating around the sun. Chemical reactions often use the outermost electrons to join elements to each other.

4. Isotopes are atoms that have the same number of protons (positive-charged particles), and that gives the isotopes the SAME Atomic Number. But, the isotopes have different numbers of neutrons (neutral particles). Uranium has 14 isotopes, all are radioactive. The isotopes are commonly written as U-235 (meaning that there are 235 neutrons in that isotope) or U-238 (meaning that there are 238 neutrons in that isotope).

Both U and Pu are very chemically reactive. As a metal, these elements chemically react on contact with air, which is called "pyrophoric". This property has caused many fires and explosions when handling the purified metal. Even in other chemical forms, the continuous emission of radioactivity eats through almost all materials: glass, steel, plastics. U and Pu are dangerous, both for their chemical and nuclear properties. Pu is so chemically reactive, it reacts with virtually every non-metal in the Periodic Table of the Elements, except the Nobel Gases.

To conduct any of the nuclear reactions, one must first clean-up (purify) the chemical compounds. The purification processes are very complex, dangerous, and toxic.

nuclear fission from the chemists…
http://www.chemsoc.org/timeline/pages/1945.html

_________________________

There are TWO nuclear problems going on in the bush* Iraq debacle.

1. The bush* claim that "yellowcake" was being purchased from Niger to make nuclear bombs in Iraq. Recently, bush* minions admitted that this claim is a lie.

2. A defunct nuclear plant in Iraq, inspected and regulated by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Commission). During the war, the scientists all left. The plant was NOT protected by American soldiers (as they were busy protecting the OIL ministry), and the plant was vandalized. This resulted in many unsuspecting people being poisoned by the "yellowcake" left in drums, as they took the drums to store their drinking water. These people will DIE horrible deaths. In addition, there is now a "missing" yellowcake and other radioactive materials, such as purified Uranium (that may be used to make nuclear bombs).

This bush* mess is extremely dangerous for the whole world, since these nuclear materials could be in the hands of terrorists, with the looting of the plant.

about the IAEC (International Atomic Energy Agency
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/About/Profile/

the IAEA and Tuwaitha and Rashdiya facilities in Iraq
(It appears that Iraq bought yellowcake before, but Iraq never has been able to develop the necessary technology to turn yellowcake into purified Uranium or Plutonium, which is necessary to make atomic bombs. There was yellowcake at the looted defunct facilities in Iraq. Much more dangerous is: there are reports of completely purified nuclear materials, and WHERE DID THOSE NUCLEAR MATERIAL GO TO?)

The IAEA reports, as of December 1998:
" There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html




massive storeroom full of Plutonium in containers at Rocky Flats
(America has plenty of Plutonium, and we have NO IDEA where to store all this and the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Bush* decided recently to start producing MORE Plutonium).


The end product of this entire process: Plutonium buttons to make bombs


photo of the refined Plutonium "buttons" used in the Fat Man Bomb to destroy Nagasaki, made by the USA. Notice the "pitting" of the button on the right, showing the effect of the continuing dangerous chemical reactions.

Now, with Plutonium production done, there are still several more steps including creating the actual atomic bomb (A high tech effort to create the nuclear explosion from the Pu. If this is not done right, no nuclear explosion will occurs.). Then, you need to deliver the bomb….all that are subjects not covered in this review….

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

73. Wow, fantastic tutorial, thank you!

I feel like Neo must have getting his blast of Kung Fu ;-)

[diamond14]

75. you're welcome....explore the links, some interesting stuff

there...

I first created that earlier in July, when the BIG yellowcake lie was admitted to by bush* minions...several DUers added some technical comments and clarifications....I thought it might help some reporters or people who needed to understand things like: why a WMD plant (like Rocky Flats) cannot be hidden under a rose bush....what uranium centrifuges really look like, and how many and how BIG they are....

I'm glad that you like it...it's really a simplistic overview, but it covers the essence of it...I worked hard on it....so, always pleased with a compliment....DUer's need to know, so we don't get snookered into more shrub lies...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

10. but, but, but, Rich

The president said he was taking responsibility!


LOL

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Between "bring 'em on" and "collecting the trash"

While the debacle of Iraq continues to worsen, I'd say people will just continue to ask more questions.

Give it time.

[CWebster]

15. Also

the situation with Tony Blair may have some future bearing.

[KoKo]

61. New Yorker are you talking about disgusting Powell comment/Trash?

That was a real winner wasn't it. Yuck!

[Catherine Vincent]

14. I agree.

But the only think that is certain is that * is proven to be a liar and a corrupt man.

I betcha his campaign slogan for 2004 won't be that "honor and integrity" crap.

[BeHereNow]

16. Furthermore...

The fact that GW can give a press conference like the one
he gave yesterday, an incoherent torrent of babbling, diconnected
ramblings in response to clear and concise questions asked by the
reporters, with no consequence or alarm is truly astounding and
does not "bode well" for us at all. I agree completely.
When he blurted, "We are all sinners..." I just about fell out of the chair.
Someone should have escorted him to the nearest mental health
facility IMMMEDIATELY, as he is CLEARLY suffering from some sort of
"Christ" complex. I AM a Christian, and there is NOTHING remotely
Christian about the man. Clearly, those in power have simply
propped up a mentally ill man as "President" and control his actions
through his delusions. I can see the back room antics of the neocons
in policy planning meetings with him going like this:
"George, we all had the same dream last night and Gawd told us
to show this verse in the Bible, and we think it means you should..."

As Mandela so APTLY stated, "He can not think properly..."
Therefore, I am brought to the conclusion that those who
do think clearly are taking advantage of a very weak mind.
He did not answer ONE question yesterday, and it appeared that
he could not even remember what the questions were!
And yet, Americans watch and say nothing.

Unbelievable.

BHN

[solarize]

56. about your incoherent speaking comments

Every person I work with goes absolutely crazy with adoration when this guy talks. They don't even notice that he's a non-thinking burnout and speaking incoherently. All they hear is the religious talk. I was talking to most of them at an office lunch (we have a small office of about 8 people) about the SOTU address and every one of them was fawning over his "eloquently delivered" speech. When we started discussing what they loved, it turned out all they were able to talk about were his religious statements. At least here in the conservative hell of Richmond, VA, his religious statements make him eloquent regardless of how he is truly doing.

[never cry wolf]

17. it may have already served it's purpose

repug senator called wolfowitz on the carpet the other day for misleading statements and lies, even mentioned that trying to connect iraq and al quaida was a crap excuse for invasion because he signed the PNAC paper calling for just that. many in congress are scrutinizing the whole bushevic push for war. it opened the door and i don't think it will go away.

people are starting to connect the dots between this and the 9/11 report but it will take time. lots of backroom power struggles going on i am guessing.

i AM disappointed that there hasn't been more push into their burning of wilson's wife, the cia agent tho.

[Imajika]

20. The problem as I see it is..

"If the Bushists can escape so serious a threat to their control as YellowcakeGate"

...that "YellowcakeGate" was never that serious in the first place.

Everytime Bush gets some bad press many on DU starts spinning down the road into fantasyland resulting in the predictable "Bush is going down", "The tide is turning" and "the worm has turned" threads which result in overwhelming dissappointment when none of these things ever come true. When these self created high expectations are dashed again and again people begin to attribute super human skills to Rove and conspiratorial motives to the media, which then even furthers the sense of doom, gloom and helplessness.

Niger-Uranium was never going to bring Bush down. It was just a few days and perhaps weeks of bad press. An exaggeration or lie in the State of the Union address simply never had the weight to end, or even significantly damage, Bush's Presidency.

In order for Bush to really be impeached or driven from office you'd need provable evidence of criminal offenses that most American's can clearly see for themselves. Americans do not believe that the Yellowcake arguement was Bush's sole reason for going to war - they just don't, so the most it can do is make a few further people question Bush's honesty (which is the good lasting effect of this "scandal").

The expectations that Bush will not serve out his term are just not realistic. He will. The only question is will the Democrats nominate a good candidate that will appeal to the majority of Americans (not just we here on DU) and run an effective, forward looking, positive campaign that gives a majority of US citizens a reason to vote FOR us. Picking the right moments to coordinate attacks on Bush is effective, but we need to make absolutely certain that Americans see our Democratic nominee as someone who can both protect them and provide for a better and exciting new direction. It won't be easy at all. But it can be done.

Imajika

[RichM]

26. Here are a few of the many things wrong with your viewpoint -

- YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place. That's why the Busheviks resorted to emergency damage control mode - forcing Tenet out to take a staged fall, within hours of loud noises being made in the media, while Bush was still in Africa.

- You claim "In order for Bush to really be impeached ...you'd need provable evidence of criminal offenses ..." Nope. Clinton was very nearly run out of office, when there was no state crime committed at all. What is needed to run someone out of office is just power & control of the media; it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the evidence, its provability; the crime, the justice, etc.

- You claim what's needed for a Democrat to win is "a good candidate that will appeal to the majority of Americans ... and run an effective, forward looking, positive campaign..." Nope. Bush "won" in 2000 without being a good candidate, & without having any forward looking positive campaign. He's strengthened his grip in office not by being "positive" but by deliberately scaring the hell out of the population, & by having his cronies trash & humiliate his opposition at every opportunity. It isn't being "positive (or) forward-looking" that matters. On the contrary, it's appealing to the most hateful & cowardly instincts of the population in the most cynical & manipulative way. Bashing the hell out of your opponents in a dirty way also helps (see Max Cleland, Nov. '02).

- For the record, I personally NEVER took the position that YellowcakeGate would drive Bush from office. I felt that the media was very likely to let it drop after a few days, & I predicted that the Democrats would fail to press the issue aggressively.

[Imajika]

33. RichM

"YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place."

I just don't agree with you on this. "YellowcakeGate" was only serious in that it called Bush's credibility and judgement into question. It was not lying to Congress as he still maintains that British Intelligence believed exactly what he said in the speech.

"That's why the Busheviks resorted to emergency damage control mode - forcing Tenet out to take a staged fall"

All administrations do this kind of thing. Somebody always takes the fall for a President at some point in virtually all administrations. This is just not that unexpected or a particularly big deal.

"Nope. Clinton was very nearly run out of office, when there was no state crime committed at all."

Well, I am certain that we all agree Clinton's impeachment was utterly bogus - but, they were able "justify" impeaching him on the grounds that he commited perjury and obstructed justice trying to cover it up. There were legal charges of crimes leveled at Clinton. Accusing Bush of exaggerating a speech just doesn't have any criminal aspect to it.

"On the contrary, it's appealing to the most hateful & cowardly instincts of the population in the most cynical & manipulative way."

Again, I just disagree with you here. Your right that Bush didn't run the kind of positive campaigns that Reagan and Clinton ran (Bush also did not win the popular vote), but he still talked endlessly of compassionate conservatism, family, God and just about any other warm fuzzy thing he could think to utter. Bush avoided all talk of tough choices and difficult decisions.

"For the record, I personally NEVER took the position that YellowcakeGate would drive Bush from office."

Good, then you won't be terribly dissappointed when it doesn't.

The big picture is really what is important, not the day to day chatter of what Chris Matthews happens to say one night or how much attention Wolf Blitzer gives to some of Bush's critics. All the issues we have discussed on this forum, including "YellowcakeGate", will add to an atmosphere near election 04' that should make Bush vulnerable - but the media is not going to spend every newscast talking about what we wish to see discussed.

Imajika

[CWebster]

50. yellowcake was just the tip of the iceberg

Amazing how we are all required to put on our selective memory hats to accept that the "16 words" were the extent of the crime.

[leesa]

74. It was lying to Congress because he had been told by the CIA that

it was not credible. He ALSO lied about the aluminum tubes in the speech and the mobile WMD wagons as they had also been discredited prior to the speech and he had been informed of it.
The media is complicit and none of these lies will be pursued, but they are most certainly lies.

[CWebster]

86. And the widely promoted

911- Saddam connection.

[RichM]

27. Here are a few of the many things wrong with your viewpoint -

- YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place. That's why the Busheviks resorted to emergency damage control mode - forcing Tenet out to take a staged fall, within hours of loud noises being made in the media, while Bush was still in Africa.

- You claim "In order for Bush to really be impeached ...you'd need provable evidence of criminal offenses ..." Nope. Clinton was very nearly run out of office, when there was no state crime committed at all. What is needed to run someone out of office is just power & control of the media; it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the evidence, its provability; the crime, the justice, etc.

- You claim what's needed for a Democrat to win is "a good candidate that will appeal to the majority of Americans ... and run an effective, forward looking, positive campaign..." Nope. Bush "won" in 2000 without being a good candidate, & without having any forward looking positive campaign. He's strengthened his grip in office not by being "positive" but by deliberately scaring the hell out of the population, & by having his cronies trash & humiliate his opposition at every opportunity. It isn't being "positive (or) forward-looking" that matters. On the contrary, it's appealing to the most hateful & cowardly instincts of the population in the most cynical & manipulative way. Bashing the hell out of your opponents in a dirty way also helps (see Max Cleland, Nov. '02).

- For the record, I personally NEVER took the position that YellowcakeGate would drive Bush from office. I felt that the media was very likely to let it drop after a few days, & I predicted that the Democrats would fail to press the issue aggressively.

[RichM]

28. Here are a few of the many things wrong with your viewpoint -

- YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place. That's why the Busheviks resorted to emergency damage control mode - forcing Tenet out to take a staged fall, within hours of loud noises being made in the media, while Bush was still in Africa.

- You claim "In order for Bush to really be impeached ...you'd need provable evidence of criminal offenses ..." Nope. Clinton was very nearly run out of office, when there was no state crime committed at all. What is needed to run someone out of office is just power & control of the media; it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the evidence, its provability; the crime, the justice, etc.

- You claim what's needed for a Democrat to win is "a good candidate that will appeal to the majority of Americans ... and run an effective, forward looking, positive campaign..." Nope. Bush "won" in 2000 without being a good candidate, & without having any forward looking positive campaign. He's strengthened his grip in office not by being "positive" but by deliberately scaring the hell out of the population, & by having his cronies trash & humiliate his opposition at every opportunity. It isn't being "positive (or) forward-looking" that matters. On the contrary, it's appealing to the most hateful & cowardly instincts of the population in the most cynical & manipulative way. Bashing the hell out of your opponents in a dirty way also helps (see Max Cleland, Nov. '02).

- For the record, I personally NEVER took the position that YellowcakeGate would drive Bush from office. I felt that the media was very likely to let it drop after a few days, & I predicted that the Democrats would fail to press the issue aggressively.

[RichM]

29. Here are a few of the many things wrong with your viewpoint -

- YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place. That's why the Busheviks resorted to emergency damage control mode - forcing Tenet out to take a staged fall, within hours of loud noises being made in the media, while Bush was still in Africa.

- You claim "In order for Bush to really be impeached ...you'd need provable evidence of criminal offenses ..." Nope. Clinton was very nearly run out of office, when there was no state crime committed at all. What is needed to run someone out of office is just power & control of the media; it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the evidence, its provability; the crime, the justice, etc.

- You claim what's needed for a Democrat to win is "a good candidate that will appeal to the majority of Americans ... and run an effective, forward looking, positive campaign..." Nope. Bush "won" in 2000 without being a good candidate, & without having any forward looking positive campaign. He's strengthened his grip in office not by being "positive" but by deliberately scaring the hell out of the population, & by having his cronies trash & humiliate his opposition at every opportunity. It isn't being "positive (or) forward-looking" that matters. On the contrary, it's appealing to the most hateful & cowardly instincts of the population in the most cynical & manipulative way. Bashing the hell out of your opponents in a dirty way also helps (see Max Cleland, Nov. '02).

- For the record, I personally NEVER took the position that YellowcakeGate would drive Bush from office. I felt that the media was very likely to let it drop after a few days, & I predicted that the Democrats would fail to press the issue aggressively.

[Nederland]

30. Why

YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place.

I fail to see why people say this. The whole Yellowcake story was about how the White House chose to ignore the opinion of the CIA and instead chose to listen to British intelligence. Yeah, its more than a little suspicious that the opinion of the CIA just happened to conflict with their little war plans, but ultimately nobody can say the President broke any laws. The President is perfectly entitled to ignore the opinion of any agency he wants to. Indeed, I think this has got to be the first time in history I've ever heard leftists complaining about the fact that the CIA was ignored.

[RichM]

34. Here are a few of the many things wrong with your viewpoint -

- YellowcakeGate WAS that serious in the first place. That's why the Busheviks resorted to emergency damage control mode - forcing Tenet out to take a staged fall, within hours of loud noises being made in the media, while Bush was still in Africa.

- You claim "In order for Bush to really be impeached ...you'd need provable evidence of criminal offenses ..." Nope. Clinton was very nearly run out of office, when there was no state crime committed at all. What is needed to run someone out of office is just power & control of the media; it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the evidence, its provability; the crime, the justice, etc. (And there certainly IS "provable evidence," BTW, that Bush lied to take the country to war.)

- You claim what's needed for a Democrat to win is "a good candidate that will appeal to the majority of Americans ... and run an effective, forward looking, positive campaign..." Nope. Bush "won" in 2000 without being a good candidate, & without having any forward looking positive campaign. He's strengthened his grip in office not by being "positive" but by deliberately scaring the hell out of the population, & by having his cronies trash & humiliate his opposition at every opportunity. It isn't being "positive (or) forward-looking" that matters. On the contrary, it's appealing to the most hateful & fearful instincts of the population in the most cynical & manipulative way. Bashing the hell out of your opponents in a dirty dishonest way also helps (see Max Cleland, Nov. '02).

- For the record, I personally NEVER took the position that YellowcakeGate would drive Bush from office. I felt that the media was very likely to let it drop after a few days, & I predicted that the Democrats would fail to press the issue aggressively.

[CWebster]

49. Garbage

you brush aside trumped up causes for war that caused death and destruction on a massive scale and it's still not over.

What on earth could be more serious?

[sangha]

21. Thanks for waking up!!!

From those of us who realized this when Poppy pardoned terrorists and other criminals without a peep being raised. This was more than 20 years ago

[carolinayellowdog]

24. That nether region you speak of...

where all the scandals go, is the ARSENAL of the Democrats in the next election. Don't think all those issues have vanished forever! They're lying in wait until they all coalesce in a perfect storm for Dubya, along about fall 2004.

[Nederland]

25. I never thought

that the yellowcake story had legs.

You say that the President told the American people a bold face lie. Problem is, he didn't tell a lie, what he said in the SOTU was completely true. British Intelligence does in fact believe that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. When you say that the President "lied", what you acually mean is that he chose to ignore the opinion of America's own intelligence agency and defer to a foreign one simply because it fit his overall agenda better. Stated that way, it becomes clear why the story was going nowhere. No matter how hard anyone pushed this story, the White House could always fall back on the line that they "technically" never lied. That means that Shrub could never be convicted of lying to Congress or any other serious crime. More importantly, without a lie, the story looses its simplicity and its ability to be comprehended by the average American. It was doomed to a short news cycle from the very beginning.

[theboss]

31. Story was not handled correctly by Bush's opponents

A golden opportunity was plopped into our laps to expose the real issue with this White House - that it politicizes everything.

The issue with the uranium is not that Bush lied to get into war. As you said, technically it wasn't a lie. And I don't think Americans really get upset when politicians lie.

The scandal is that this White House has a view of the world and tries to steer all information into that politicized world - even intelligence which should never be politicized. This is how you ignore the CIA and trust British intelligence. Because the British intelligence fits your worldview better.

[Nederland]

36. Agreed

The scandal is that this White House has a view of the world and tries to steer all information into that politicized world - even intelligence which should never be politicized. This is how you ignore the CIA and trust British intelligence. Because the British intelligence fits your worldview better.

This is precisely how I would categorize the scandal as well, and indeed, it is disturbing. The problem is, it lacks the simplicity that a major media story needs to capture the attention of the American people. From the publics point of view, things need to have a simple summation: Watergate was a robbery, Monicagate was a blowjob, etc. If you can't condense it into five words or less these days, its not going anywhere.

[Junkdrawer]

39. Pretty good pro-Bush spin...

The CIA told whoever put the Niger claim in the SOTU (let's call her Rice) that they thought it was probably false and that the British claim was probably false. Rice then said "can't we say the British said" and the CIA reluctantlty said "if you insist".

If that doesn't qualify as a lie, it's a lie's closest kin.

[Nederland]

40. Talk About Spin

You ask two people for an opinion. One person says something you want to hear, the other something you don't. You decide to ignore the person who said something you didn't like and go with the one who did. Childish and imprudent? Yes. But in no universe is this a "lie" or "a lie's closest kin".

[Junkdrawer]

42. Who are the two people? The CIA says no so Rice calls MI5?...

Then the CIA says MI5 is wrong so they go with it anyway? And you try to spin it as asking for "second opinion"?

[Nederland]

43. Amazing

Since when is "always believe the CIA" a mantra of the left?

[Junkdrawer]

44. About the same time the Right says "ignore the CIA and go with MI5"

:evilgrin:

[Nederland]

55. :)

About the same time the Right says "ignore the CIA and go with MI5"

In other words: "when ever it becomes politically convenient?" Please, we need to be a little more principled.

[Junkdrawer]

58. The more this story is told in detail, the worse it is for BushCo...

the more it is characterized (e.g. spun) as "technically, they didn't lie", or "they simply went with a second opinion", or "much to do about 16 words", the more they wriggle free.

[Dhalgren]

41. That's not what he said.

He said "British intelligence as learned". Now, it is a statement of the factual verification of a statement to say it has been "learned". Bush knew it to be false, ergo, he lied. But that isn't the point, the point is that damage is done by weilding power and power in this country is in the hands of a single party. This party is ruthless and violent and will not give up power. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Bush will "lose" the '04 "election". Sorry, we need to prepare for the worst.

[Nederland]

53. Wrong

The British still say to this day that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. How then can you say "Bush knew it was false"? Bush doesn't "know" anything except that the CIA is telling him one thing and MI5 is telling him another. He doesn't "know" which one to believe, so he chooses to believe the one that fits nicely with his war plans. Stupid, yes. A lie, no.

[Junkdrawer]

57. And Brits that don't have a way of slashing their wrists...

Which is to say this whole story is far from settled.

[ArkDem]

37. Bill Clinton's phone call on Larry King

bailed Bush out.

[theboss]

38. I don't think so

For two reasons . .1) most people accept that past presidents don't criticize current presidents and 2) what Clinton said was correct. His intelligence was the same as Bush's intelligence. There were unaccounted for weapons, etc. Bush never lied on that front, and Clinton backs him.

The issue is how the intelligence was spun and how the White House responded. Clinton gave Bush no cover in these areas. Unfortunately, nobody is pursuing the White House from that angle. It's just a simplistic "Bush Lied!" chant. And that has no traction.

[tomp]

65. how the hell do you know what clinton's intelligence was?

how do you know when a president is lying to you about such things, when the cia is lying, etc.?

you know what, you don't. and you shouldn't pretend you do. (if it so happens that you were sitting in on those briefings i apologize and demand you tell us what the intelligence was).

clinton's info could have been completely different from what clinton himself says it was. and you wouldn't know.

[CWebster]

51. BINGO!

Always knew he had it in him.

[nolabels]

45. I don't see it that way

The mere fact the owners of these media megaphones put this guy in their, and now are having to use all their integrity to protect * and his reputation makes it better in the long run (if we make it through this with a democracy intact).

Watching them back peddle so many times during the last few months is making so much more room for us skeptics, that I feel that as if the whole outdoors has opened up. Watergate is a good reference point

[bpilgrim]

46. thats because the teeVee and our 'leaders' tell us we were RIGHT to go in

:crazy:

but more and more folks are waking up, every day.
we have to spread the word ourselves, but thats how it's always been.

just think of the tools we have to day to help spread the word :bounce:

we will win in the end, bet!

peace

[Nashyra]

48. I don't think the issue is dead

if anything it makes me want Gore to run, if they try tagging him with "liar" there are so many "soundbites" proving the * is a rteal liar. The Repugs are going to have to be very careful about pointing the fingers at the Dem nominee without a serious backlash, and we all know that they are to arrogant to be careful. The ? W attack can be a very, very, very good slogan for the Dems

[tomp]

66. just read waxman's letter to rice on another thread.

he's grilling her pretty intensely. this may not be over. but it should go without saying that gaining even a small victory against the reactionary forces in america takes a lot of doing.

[Southsideirish]

47. He's scared - you can see it in his weird, jerky demeaner.

I first noticed in while listening to the radio to some sound clip - his voice was a little higher and he sounded jittery. Definitely not the macho man we have been seeing.

[robbedvoter]

52. They are beating a retreat - Pointexter, air marshalls, Estrada

you may chose to not see the small victories but they are significant. The House FCC vote against W's threat to veto (400 to 21) was a clear message that the goose stepping is out of sync. So, the media was once again rained in - I expected that to happen, having seen it many times before in the past 3 years.
But I see something interesting: the transformation into a Kompassionate Konservative ain't happening. They are arrogant enough to go with the anti-gay crusade cuz some polls said that one has the majority on it. I say, arrogance will be their undoing and just because something is not in the headlines, it doesn't mean it's forgotten.

[ElementaryPenguin]

54. Good Points! I'm naive enough to believe that, evil as Cheap Labor Party

IS - not all of them are willing to march in lockstep with the Rumsfeld/Cheney Doomsday Killing Machine!!!!!!

[blm]

59. Don't let them use "gay marriage" to cover it up.

Don't fall for it. Don't think for a second that the GOP isn't responsible for pushing this with their plants in the Catholic Hierarchy. This is how they keep the Catholic vote divided. They cannot win when the Catholic vote turns on them.

[KoKo]

60. RichM......I hope it's the "Quiet Before the Storm" but yes....I see it,

too, and am disappointed. With this group it seems it's always one step forward and five steps back.

Getting our hopes up always causes the crash......so maybe it's best to look at it all as drip, drip, drip.......but ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh it get's so tiring.......:-(

[diamond14]

76. it's been less than 48 hours, since shrub was FORCED to come

out onto the WH lawn and ADMIT that he takes FULL responsibility for the yellowcake lies....that was HUGE and made the front page of many major papers in the country on Wednesday...and since then, it has been a "whirlwind turning into a hurricane" against shrub here in DC....

it's not over yet...as the Wall Street journal said last week...there is a "merging" of TWO bush* major inteligence failures...the 9/11 and the rush-to-war-on-Iraq.....neither issue is going away, as long as our soldiers are KILLED and MAIMED every day...there was some very hard-hitting congressional hearings this week...even shrub's own "cheap-labor conservatives" are turning against him and distancing themselves...this is quite a change from even a month ago...

[FubarFly]

62. What makes you think it's over?

Are you one of those people who thinks a campfire is out just because you can't see flames? All it will take is one more piece of incendiary,
and this story will be raging again.

In the meantime, keep the pressure up. The bushistas are on the defensive. Damage has been done. With rethugs in control of the government, courts, and media, I'm not sure how much more you can expect. Yellowcake gate has been a disaster for them so far, and it still has the potential to get worse. The Dems in congress are out for blood now. Can you remember a time in this misadministration where they've collectively showed this much spine?

[TheDonkey]

69. Yellocakegate helped plenty!

Bush's credibility has been hit hard and his approval rating has been plummeting.

No, it hasn't been as big as I would of liked as Bush we be gone. BUT it's done enough, and it'll keep on coming.

Bush is going down.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

70. I couldn't agree more with your conclusion.

Simply stated and positively on target. Good post TheDonkey.

[Rose Siding]

71. It's just a part of the case

and it isn't gone. Today, Dem heavy hitters Rockefeller and Kennedy were blasting the wits about the larger case in hearings. They wouldn't have had such solid footing without yellowcake:


"Signs of a weapons program are very different than the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that were a certainty before the war," Rockefeller said. "We did not go to war to disrupt Saddam's weapons program, we went to disarm him."

"It's looking more and more like a case of mass deception," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said after Kay briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. "There was no imminent danger, and we should never have gone to war."

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA8C7AETID.html

[Snellius]

72. Yes, an attack that came off too partisan could backfire

Of course, without any control of any branch of government, there is little hope of a special counsel, and even if we got one, the Cheney stonewall is almost impregnable. But by not having a thorough investigation, the issue loses the chance of being resolved and it leaves a nagging doubt that may in the long run prove more corrosive than an outright conviction. At least, it has prompted a lot of Americans who seemed to be gullibly taking the President at his god-given word that perhaps he may be as full of it as his phoney bravado suggests.

[TheDonkey]

79. I agree

This was only a, mini-scandal. I'm sure Yellowcakegate will never be allowed to flourish, for the reasons you noted. But the idea that the media can talk trash about Bush and not be called anti-patriotic, and Bush's tanking "trust" rating means that the next scandal, the next bomb will only make a bigger splash.

Sadly knowing this admin we know there are plenty of scandals, lies, and tricks to come in the next year. Bush won't get the slack as he did this time.

[Must_B_Free]

77. Bush made fools of his supporters

Everything they said to us was BS.


We told them the truth, we tried to stop them, but they did it anyway and the bought the BS.

These people aren't going to come back to Bush.

[DS1]

78. no shit, I scoff whenever I see "the tide is turning" written here

It's not turning, not at all. Nothing to see here, move along.

[iangb]

80. You got it in one Rich...

....I predicted this on here weeks ago.

Passively waiting for Bush to self-destruct is gonna get you nowhere.

These guys don't know much.....they're not even particularly clever.......but they do know what does and does not upset the people's sofas.......and lying politicians ain't ever been a lever.

Bush's only meaningful statement in recent days isn't going to make headlines.....and it was "Thanks Rove. You were right on the money".

[Q]

81. And so it goes...

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812. ME 13:136

"I sincerely wish... we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." --Thomas Jefferson

[knight_of_the_star]

82. Just one more shot in the cannon

If the pressure caused by this is used to build on previous lies and scandals surrounding the Bush administration then it is very easily possible that if we keep this buildup going the effects of a political artillery barrage will be felt in the RNC HQ come November of '04. We just have to keep this going, this is the spark, we have enough to make this a bonfire, let's do it.

[iangb]

84. Sorry, but......

...this is getting repetitive..."This is the lie that will etc.!" and it hasn't happened.

Know what? It won't.

Look around you. Who's marching in the streets demanding Bush's scalp?

Without ACTION this will die just like all of the others.