Reuters has the story, as does the New York Times and the Associated Press (see below fold) but this is not exactly burning up the cable news networks today:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's government has removed 550 tonnes of natural uranium left over from Saddam Hussein's era and sold it to a Canadian company, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
The uranium, called yellowcake, had been stored in a compound at Tuwaitha, south of Baghdad, which was once the centre of Saddam's nuclear weapons programme.
A U.S. embassy spokeswoman confirmed the U.S. military helped safely ship the uranium out of the country.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓"The Iraqi government decided to get rid of the uranium, which amounted to 550 tonnes, because of its potentially harmful affects on Iraq and the region and because it causes pollution," Dabbagh said on Iraqiya state television late on Sunday.
The Tuwaitha nuclear complex was dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War. But tonnes of nuclear material remained there under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), until the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when it was left unguarded and looted by Iraqi civilians.
That's a lot of nuclear material that could have been developed by the Hussein regime into destructive weapons. Indeed, the Associated Press notes that the United States secretly shipped the uranium to Canada to prevent the uranium from falling into Iranian hands:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
Given the media consternation over the pre-war charge of Iraq seeking yellow cake from Africa, and the media's penchant for making front page headlines of top secret missions in the war on terrorism, it's quite telling that this story appears to be one the mainstream media are conveniently ignoring.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Comments Policy
I saw this yesterday on
July 7, 2008 - 13:28 ET by SpockI saw this yesterday on Drudge and was shocked it wasn't all over the news. 550 Metric tons is no trvial amount. And how big does a ship have to be to carry that much weight???
still no WMD
July 8, 2008 - 09:44 ET by TruthMongerstill no WMD dammit:(!!!!!!!!!!
no no no no no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let them eat cake!
July 7, 2008 - 13:38 ET by TruthMattersLet them eat cake!
That's a lot of yellowcake
July 7, 2008 - 13:40 ET by 10ksnookerTo have just laying around. If I recall, Iraq had about 350 tons after the 1993 war, looks like there was some fraternizing in the yellow cake going on to get up to 550 tons. I wonder where the rest came from?
Remember the timeline in Iran, when they got ready to build their centrifuges they just told the UN IAEA to take a hike. Iraq was further ahead in the quest for the bomb than was Iran in 2002.
Now I wonder where the 1800 pounds of enriched Uranium that the Soviets delivered before Israel blew up the reactor went?
We know Iraq had the conventional explosives to fabricate a nuke, so all the technology needed was in place when you read the book, "The bomb in my Garden" -- Which provided the centrifuge designs. All Saddam had to do was build centrifuges and start enriching.
All right in plain sight.
cheney outted plame ya
July 8, 2008 - 09:47 ET by TruthMongercheney outted plame ya know
But if you read further in
July 7, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Cureboy675But if you read further in the AP story it does still say:
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Like I was trying to point out in a previous thread, this yellowcake was known about and had been under guard for the past 15 years. This really isn't a shocking discovery that proves the president was right all along...Unless he didn't have any idea the UN was keeping an eye on this stuff for the past 15 years. But even I have to give him more credit than that.
How can the UN keep an eye
July 7, 2008 - 13:47 ET by athoughtor2How can the UN keep an eye on it when the inspectors were expelled for 4 years?
I dunno. They don't
July 7, 2008 - 13:54 ET by Cureboy675I dunno. They don't explain the methods of which the stuff was safeguarded.
Nevertheless, it seems nobody was worried about it enough in 1991 to have the Americans ship it out of there while we were there the first time.
When were we in Iraq before
July 7, 2008 - 14:00 ET by athoughtor2When were we in Iraq before March '03? Saddam was still in control of Iraq. Seems to me that a certain fellow named Bill Clinton was in office from Jan '93 to Jan '01. The inspectors were booted out as he watched and played with Monica and the others. If Saddam wasn't such a threat then why did the Clinton/Gore team have a policy of regime change for Iraq?
I would be surprised if
July 7, 2008 - 14:23 ET by Cureboy675I would be surprised if they didn't have a policy of regime change for Iraq. I would think it would be wise to always keep all your options open and be ready for anything. Preparing a policy and acting on it are two totally different things.
But back on this particular slice of yellowcake. The IAEA inspected this Tuwaitha site on 2/11/03 and the United Nations had inspected it in December 2002 and verified that that nothing improper had happened since the Inspectors were kicked out in 1998.
Actually, back in April of 2003, it seems Marines discovered this stockpile (not being aware that it was already known about) and started talking about this stockpile being "the smoking gun" everybody was looking for. But that was quickly shot down when everybody realized that this had long been known about and accounted for.
But it's news when the Bush
July 7, 2008 - 14:31 ET by athoughtor2But it's news when the Bush administration says all options are on the table. Or that plans are being drawn up for a attack in some country. But when Clinton and the boys do it, they are being prudent. How were they going to go about their plan of regime change? oh please mr. saddam will you step down?
Why did Saddam keep the yellow cake then?
I don't believe the Marines ever talked about this find and called it the smoking gun.
And how did we get the inspectors back into the country? I don't believe Saddam "found religion" and said come on in guys and take a look around. A little show of backbone by W. perhaps?
"The Search for the Smoking
July 7, 2008 - 14:37 ET by Cureboy675"The Search for the Smoking gun"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004675,00.html
Specifically:
"Several false leads have emerged. After a group of Marines secured the Tuwaitha nuclear-research complex outside Baghdad, they detected high levels of radiation at the site and speculated that the complex may have contained enough uranium to build nuclear weapons. But weapons experts say that U.N. weapons inspectors sealed the complex more than a decade ago and that it contains "low enriched" uranium good mainly for civilian energy use"
And you're right. Bush got tougher and Saddam let the weapons inspectors back in. All the good it did him, we invaded anyway and removed him from power. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, he was evil. But Bush just had his mind up to invade Iraq and nothing was going to dissuade him.
They detected radiation
July 7, 2008 - 14:54 ET by athoughtor2They detected radiation from the yellowcake and speculated. I guess you can't specualte anymore? I'm sure those Marines that found it, had the UN inspectors report tucked right into their flak jackets next to there ammo clips. No one in the administration touted it as a smoking gun.
After how many UN resolutions he violated?
After 9/11 he was supposed to just turn his back on all the intel that was put fourth by the Germans, French, Russians, Brits and the UN to name just a few who believed Saddam had WMD? After all Sen Rockefeller claimed Saddam was an imminent threat. Oh that's right Bush, who is and was labled as stupid by the Libs and Dems, fooled all those highly educated Senators into giving him authorization to use force. Interesting.
True. A whole ton of
July 7, 2008 - 15:04 ET by Cureboy675True. A whole ton of really smart people thought Saddam had WMDs and we needed to go charging there ASAP.
But, in my opinion, this blog author's premise seems to be that this yellowcake is some shocking discovery that might lead one to suggest all this hidden WMD talk was not a smoke-screen.
But in reality, all this story is about is the fact that the Canadians took some yellowcake off the Iraqis hands. The same yellowcake that the really smart people knew about before Bush had us invade.
Wasn't just WMD's that were
July 7, 2008 - 15:18 ET by athoughtor2Wasn't just WMD's that were the reason for us and the coalition to go in. he had and used chemical and biological weapons. he was a supporter or terrorists and terrorism. i think the final tally was 17 un resolutions violated, might be mistaken on the acutal number. here's a question or 2 that no one wants to answer. what if the intel was correct and saddam used those weapons against us or our allies? what if he gave the wmd to the terroists to use against us?
I think the premiss might be that saddam had yellow cake and if left unchecked and alone he would try to develope it into WMD's
hey everybody - we TORTURE
July 8, 2008 - 09:48 ET by TruthMongerhey everybody - we TORTURE PEOPLE
terrorists are people too
July 8, 2008 - 09:58 ET by athoughtor2terrorists are people too awackado a wackado. wasn't that a line from a song on wonderrama
damn yer as old as
July 8, 2008 - 10:39 ET by TruthMongerdamn yer as old as me
they're really really people too
Cure
July 7, 2008 - 22:56 ET by Free StinkerA whole ton of really smart people thought Saddam had WMDs
A whole ton of really smart people were correct! Especially since we've found Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, VX gas, and (tons of) Uranium
See. Now that is an
July 7, 2008 - 23:08 ET by Cureboy675See. Now that is an excellent point. Do we know if these were substances that the United States and the United Nations was previously unaware of and that Saddam had kept everybody in the dark about?
If so, then this is the kind of thing that definitely should have been splashed all over the front page. And this is the kind of thing President Bush should be pointing to at every turn and saying, "We DID find WMDs...And a whole lot of them!" Why hasn't the President done that? Why hasn't he driven this to the point where everybody is sick of hearing about it? If the media wants to ignore it, the President still has the pull to make these finds abundantly clear.
Cure
July 7, 2008 - 23:18 ET by Free StinkerWhy hasn't the President done that? Why hasn't he driven this to the point where everybody is sick of hearing about it?
Bush has been too busy trying to be "a nice guy" and a "uniter". See what good it's done him?
I know. But still...Even
July 7, 2008 - 23:28 ET by Cureboy675I know. But still...Even to this day people are criticizing him because they think he was in the wrong. I would think he would want to set the record straight...If for no other reason, it would help his political party.
Or even John McCain (or Hillary Clinton for that matter), both were trying to run for President and all the while Obama criticizes them for their vote to authorize war. Surely one of them should have said, "Oh, but you are mistaken, Senator Obama. There were WMDs in Iraq". In fact, to the contrary, they finally got Clinton to admit that her vote was a mistake.
I would think those two wouldn't be so concentrated on being uniters if it meant costing them an election because they were accused of making a poor decision.
I wish I could remember the
July 7, 2008 - 23:34 ET by Free StinkerI wish I could remember the name of the author, or the book, but a few months back this guy was interviewed by Mark Levin regarding his book on George Bush.
The author's take was that Bush was very modest, and this translated into (among other things) the fact that he had surrounded himself with people who weren't very ambitious. After all, we don't have Dick Cheney seeking the presidency, or Condaleeza Rice, or Colin Powell seeking the Presidency or Vice Presidency . . . hence we're stuck with McCain . . .
Well that's true. Bush
July 8, 2008 - 00:54 ET by Cureboy675Well that's true. Bush would have been wise to select a VP who might have had aspirations to be president himself. I wouldn't know the exact statistics, but I imagine there is an inherent advantage (in terms of number of votes) in having a candidate who has already been a heartbeat away from the presidency. Granted, it doesn't always work. Nixon and Gore didn't win the presidency while running as the sitting VP. But I have to think it helps.
But back to the original topic. What you are saying is that there were WMDs in Iraq and Bush was right all along...But Bush was too modest to make sure everybody knew he was right, and that nobody running for office is interested in setting the record straight, and everybody in the press (including Fox News) chose not to make a big hurrah over the fact that Bush was validated in his claims.
If that is, indeed, the case. Then I fully admit I was wrong in criticizing the president, I realize he wasn't lying or mistaken, and I wish to apologize.
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIDE
July 8, 2008 - 09:50 ET by TruthMongerBUSH LIED PEOPLE DIDE
Impossible to please
July 7, 2008 - 14:59 ET by UnsaneBottom line: you always were opposed to the war in Iraq, and no matter what is found there, no matter what good comes of it, you will WHINE, BITCH AND SCREAM.
You will never ever be happy as far as Iraq goes.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Sorry you feel that way.
July 7, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Cureboy675Sorry you feel that way. If you want to call it a session where I WHINE, BITCH AND SCREAM, I really can't do anything about it. Can I GRUMBLE? What about RANT? Is that allowed?
For the record, I personally approved of going to war in 2003, because I believed all the mushroom cloud claims. I only became against the war after none of these weapons were found and I was forced to choose between two choices: 1) The president lied. 2) The president didn't know what he was doing.
Neither comfort me.
or how about the intel
July 7, 2008 - 15:20 ET by athoughtor2or how about the intel community got it wrong? isn't it great to be able to play monday morning quaterback? once again it has been proven that Bush did not lie and he certainly knows what he was doing. after all you said he had his mind already made up.
the potus is human - can't
July 7, 2008 - 16:04 ET by TruthMongerthe potus is human - can't be right about everything...
we wouldn't know what we know now if we hadn't gone in there - like a drug bust - sometimes the cops come up empty...
does that mean drugs were never there?
or did someone get wind of the bust and move them...
maybe Saddam had a clue over the 14 month pre-invasion liberal foot dragging that the US was on the way over?
BDS monday morning quarterbacks, very apt
Why did you personally
July 7, 2008 - 15:36 ET by Dan The Man 2Why did you personally approvve and who the heck cares if you did? It wqs your congress taht approved teh resumption of teh war according to 16 reasons set out by the Bush admin. Your congress who believed enough to authorize a state of agression war with Iraq. Unless they approved President Bush could not do squat. So President Bush did not lie and was not hoodwinked. He made a caculated descision based on the evidence, the same evidence you obviously approved, and resumed hostilities.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
You're absolutely right.
July 7, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Cureboy675You're absolutely right. Nobody should give a damn whether or not I personally approved of the war or not. Although, "Unsane" does seem to care.
I was taken in by the evidence that was presented and I personally thought we needed to go in there and get those WMDs before they are used against us. But then again, I am not in Congress, I am not in military intelligence, I am not a member of the United Nations, and I am not the president. I didn't have full access to all the intelligence reports and estimates. That's why I have to be able to trust in our leaders to do what is best.
And I certainly won't sit here and now applaud the members of Congress who voted to approve the war. Some might have believed the claims, some might have just been covering their ass in case the claims proved to be true.
I'm just saying that if you are willing to risk thousands of lives in a war, maybe you need to be pretty damn sure. "Better safe than sorry" doesn't really feel all that comforting five years later.
Once again, they all
July 7, 2008 - 15:52 ET by athoughtor2Once again, they all believed they had WMD's on top of the other reasons for the war. There were not 2 books of intel! Heck Hillary went and talked to Bill's people in order to check the validity of intel and the claims the Bush admin was making.
What would you have said if we didn't act on the intel and Saddam had the WMD's and did pass them along or use them himself?
We could play what if games
July 7, 2008 - 16:05 ET by Cureboy675We could play what if games until the end of time. But I can't speculate on that particular scenario because it no longer seems like it was realistic. I have now come to believe that the president was "kinda sure" these WMDs existed. That he was counting on a quick and easy victory in Iraq, that we'd be out of there in less than a year and he hoped people would forget about the WMD claims (if they turned out not to be true) and focus on the removal of Saddam and democracy in Iraq.
He certainly didn't consider the possibility that we'd face resistance and still have 130,000 troops there five years later and suffer the loss of 4,000 American soldiers. He absolutely was not prepared for this war.
But I wasn't trying to start a debate as to whether or not we should have gone to war in Iraq. I was just trying to argue that this yellowcake news story isn't really all that explosive and worthy of breaking news status.
Cureboy675
July 7, 2008 - 18:05 ET by SpockI am pleased to see that you are able to present your argument in a civil and responsible way, but you are completely off base.
You say with your own words that you too agreed at the time that we needed to go into Iraq, but that now you feel we were wrong to do so.
You also say that your only choices were, 1) The President Lied, or 2) He didn't know what he was doing. Wrong on both accounts.
1) The President was working off the same intelligence everyone else was. He was telling the truth as he knew it to be. Even if you think that information is now wrong does not mean that he lied.
2) The President knew what he was doing and took a "best guess" and a "calculated risk" AFTER confirming through MANY sources, both foriegn and domestic that the information we had was sound. President Bush knew the risks we faced if that intel was right and the risks we faced if it was wrong and he did what he had to do. And I believe that any sound man acting on the same information would have done the same thing. In fact, if he hadn't acted based on the information he had at that time, he really would have been guilty of treason.
But reguardless, as you now point out, the intellegence was flawed. How great it is for you to now sit back and condem the very man who had your best interest in mind all these years. How cowardly of you to turn your back on him in a time of need when you once stood in support of him.
Its easy for you to sit back and say he lied, or he was foolish, but have you ever thought about how he must feel? Can President Bush shrug his shoulders, call "Oopsie, my bad" and pull out of Iraq as if nothing ever happened?
Its easy for you to change direction, not so easy for him. At least he's trying to make good on the "mistake". Otherwise, he could just point at Congress and say, "You made me do it! Its all your fault"
As childish as that sounds, its basically what you are saying.
I really didn't intend this
July 7, 2008 - 18:45 ET by Cureboy675I really didn't intend this to morph into a discussion as to whether or not the war was right. Bottom line: I don't really give a damn how the president must feel. If our duty as voters is to simply support the president and make him feel good about himself, then Clinton should never have been elected over Bush. Reagan should never have been elected over Carter. Carter should never have been elected over Ford. Roosevelt over Hoover, Jefferson over Adams, and so forth.
You may find it cowardly to change your mind about support for a sitting president, but its only been happening for about 200 years.
Our duty as voters is to
July 8, 2008 - 08:19 ET by athoughtor2Our duty as voters is to vote. You vote for the person that you think will do the best job and tends to have the same ideas and vision that you subscribe to.
I'm sure Pres. Bush feels good about himself. He is upset that men and women have been killed in this war but knows that it was the right decision to get rid of Saddam.
The comment was about your previous support of the Iraq war. It sounds like you only supported it b/c others did, ie. Rockefeller and Clinton to name a few. Then when it went bad you jumped ship. If the only reason for your support of the war was WMD than you were missing a lot of the debate.
You have proved the terrorists point. That the Americans will grow tired of this conflict. The terrorists will not tire and have not tired. We therefore can not tire. We need to stay vigilant as W. has for his tenure in office.
Cureboy
July 7, 2008 - 19:08 ET by the struggler"He certainly didn't consider the possibility that we'd face resistance..."
What makes you certain of that?
Five words: "We'll be
July 7, 2008 - 20:04 ET by Cureboy675Five words: "We'll be greeted as liberators".
9 April 2003
July 8, 2008 - 02:31 ET by UnsaneAnd where were you on 9 April 2003?
From personal experience, Iraq, while not a bowl of cherries, is making progress, in spite of the whiners and complainers.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Once again...
July 8, 2008 - 02:28 ET by UnsaneHe certainly didn't consider the possibility that we'd face resistance and still have 130,000 troops there five years later and suffer the loss of 4,000 American soldiers. He absolutely was not prepared for this war. Welcome to the world of military planning. Once the bullets start flying, all the prep and planning goes right out the window. Anyone who believes otherwise is either willfully ignorant, or just plain naive.
Name a war, a single war, the United States was 100% totally prepared to fight.
Considering the length of time that has passed and the fact that we still have troops there, the loss of 4000 troops thus far, while regrettable, has been amazing. We lost more preparing for Overlord, much less executing Overlord.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
OK. Then why didn't the
July 8, 2008 - 07:00 ET by Cureboy675OK. Then why didn't the president just come out and say that five years ago: "Look, our mission isn't simply to get our hands on this yellowcake. We need to remove Saddam from power, bring democracy to Iraq and we might have to stay there for several years to make this happen. We might lose thousands of troops along the way, but I don't want to hear any whining or complaining about that"
If that possibility entered his mind, he sure did keep it to himself. I still think there is a difference between being "100% prepared" and completely underestimating the potential for problems.
So I apologize for whining and complaining over the regrettable, but amazing number of 4000 dead troops. Just tell me what number we have to hit before it no longer becomes whining and complaining. And then I promise to keep my mouth shut until we reach that magic number.
He did say it! You just
July 8, 2008 - 08:25 ET by athoughtor2He did say it! You just weren't listening. Did you listen to his speaches? Did you listen to teh debate on the floor? Things change in wars! Are you in your life ready for all the potential problems life can throw at you? If I'm a betting man, I'd say you have some plans for problems but not all problems.
Also, the 4000 lives very tragic, are a far cry from the 10's of 100'0's that Kennedy and the libs were predicting in the 1st weeks of this battle. Guess they were wrong to speculate?
Such poor critical thinking skills
July 16, 2008 - 05:15 ET by UnsaneIf that possibility entered his mind, he sure did keep it to himself. It is simply not President Bush's fault, nor anyone else's, that you are a laughably poor student of history. (For example: do you think things went swimmingly after the destruction of the Third Reich? A book, titled After The Reich, will quickly disabuse you of those notions.) I still think there is a difference between being "100% prepared" and completely underestimating the potential for problems. Again, welcome to my world. Many of the problems that arise are from issues you can't even imagine facing when planning for hostilities. Please name a single conflict where all went well, all according to plan, and where there were NO issues.
It really is too bad you elect to concentrate your energies on sarcasm rather than critical thinking. Reversing the two priorities might improve your debating skills and make you a more credible poster.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Excuses, excuses. This
July 8, 2008 - 09:28 ET by mattmExcuses, excuses. This story (among hundreds of others like it, which are accessable to anyone who actually gives a crap about the truth) PROVES the DEMOCRATS WERE LYING! And your post proves that BDS suffering Lefties wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass.
Go somewhere else and spread your lies - like to the MSM or the public school system, where you were obviously brainwashed.
Lies?? Its right there in
July 8, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Cureboy675Lies?? Its right there in the story that the author of this blog pointed to! Seriously, I don't know what else you need.
but as we all know
July 7, 2008 - 13:53 ET by I.am.DILLIGAFthere werent any WMD's now were there
Guns and Violence are not the answer but they are one solution to the problem== SARG
OIL WAR HALIBURTON WE
July 8, 2008 - 09:51 ET by TruthMongerOIL WAR
HALIBURTON
WE WERE ENRONED
But.."Bush lied", right?
July 7, 2008 - 14:01 ET by UndercoverConservativeremember the Media crowing there "was no deal" for yellowcake, there was no nuclear material, and all that crap we heard about no weapons (moved to Syria) no chemical weapons (just precursors) no missiles (just every part needed to assemble one) and no WMD fissiles (only 500 plus tons worth awaiting processing)
If Bush "lied" it was about the amount-there's what, twice the amount of dangerous material than the intelligence suggested. More weapons, more dangerous stuff, all barely a step ahead of the Clouseau-ian "weapons inspectors".
What's truly scary, is we're only finding the stuff that was *left behind*...what else got out? Or we haven't found yet?
How much evidence is needed until the KOSsacks figure out they were duped?
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
Can't be true.. Joe Wilson was having tea..
July 7, 2008 - 14:02 ET by Gary HallJust can't be true.. Joseph Wilson just spent the last "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place..."
(;~/ gary
Ummm...I think that
July 7, 2008 - 14:06 ET by LilyPearlUmmm...I think that would qualify as weapons of mass destruction. No wonder the MSM is ignoring it
Good point. It would take a
July 7, 2008 - 15:57 ET by Roger the ShrubberGood point. It would take a box wooden crate with Acme Do-it-Yourself WMD Kit stamped on it to get the notice of the media.
Yes, pay close attention to
July 7, 2008 - 14:09 ET by dscottYes, pay close attention to pages 145 and 146 of this document by the government of Australia: http://www.aph.gov.au/House/committee/pjcaad/WMD/report/fullreport.pdf
It was documented that Iraq in 2002 had 2.5 tons of HEU (next step in the bomb making process) and 550 tons of yellow cake.
Pages 110 to 118 document the unaccounted for WMD of biological and chemical nature. There was a considerable amount and also missing special munitions.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Didn't someone go to somewhere
July 7, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Delsato check out if Sadam H was attempting to purchase Yellowcake??
I have a mental block but she has blond hair and... WILSON! Thats it
Joe wilson and his blonde bomb of a wife.
Why is this so hush hush and why was it sold to Canada?
"the Associated Press notes
July 7, 2008 - 14:36 ET by athoughtor2"the Associated Press notes that the United States secretly shipped the uranium to Canada to prevent the uranium from falling into Iranian hands." That might be one reason for the "hush hush." not sure why Canada.
Also the Brits still stand behind their intel with regards to the possible purchase of yellowcake by Iraq/Saddam.
Thank you
July 7, 2008 - 14:39 ET by DelsaI should have read the entire piece.
I can see why we'd get it the heck out of the middle ease.
Besides, if we brought it here, the supreme court would order us to give it back.
No worries and you are
July 7, 2008 - 15:06 ET by athoughtor2No worries and you are welcome. It would have been 5-4 in favor of Iraq. the reason that it was seized without the consent of saddam. he was the ruler of that country and you need to get permission to take it.
Why Canada?
July 7, 2008 - 15:02 ET by UnsaneCanada is neutral and they have a history of doing things like this. They took care of some plutonium from the former Soviet Union and used it in their reactors.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Surprise surprise they
July 7, 2008 - 16:18 ET by wiwfSurprise surprise they aren't picking this up.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Why Canada?
July 7, 2008 - 18:09 ET by Par for the CourseFrom a recent CBC News article:
A post in the comment section of the article states:
Age showng itself
July 8, 2008 - 02:33 ET by UnsaneThanks for the reminder of the CANDU reactors.
I'm getting too freakin old...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I mentioned this to an
July 7, 2008 - 19:24 ET by GregEI mentioned this to an anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, liberal (calls himself a libertarian) today. I didn't take sides, I didn't tell him about it in any way to suggest anything, I merely said that it had been in the process of removal awhile and today reports are saying that it's now complete and was 550 metric tons of yellow cake.
His blowing-it-off response......"Yea that stuff's all over the desert" to which I simply replied, "not sure why the Joe Wilson trip regarding yellow-cake was such a big deal, if Saddam had 550 metric tons already, unless at the time we just didn't know about that stash." His reply......."Saddam had us fooled just like he had his commanders fooled about it I guess."
Wait a minute, I thought Bush lied? Liberal goofs.
let's play a game called "switch one word"
July 7, 2008 - 20:08 ET by lunaticcringeradioif instead of yellowcake or uranium the substance was say CO2 then would this be a story of enough gravitas to report on.
of course i'm only speculating at the importance that the msm bothers to give certain stories and miraculously how they seem to miss the significance of other stories, so i'm sure @boy will have something to criticize me on for merely pondering the underlying reasons they would do that.
come on @boy what has democraticunderground or the dailykos told you to say today.
lunaticcringeradio
Not sure what "@boy" means.
July 7, 2008 - 22:16 ET by Cureboy675Not sure what "@boy" means. But if you were referring to me...Hugo Chavez, Jack Murtha and the rest of Democratic Underground disowned me after I claimed they were too far to the right. Even the Black Panthers stopped returning my calls after I said, "Is this the best you guys can do?" We even had a fight in the middle of their Black Panther Party. So I'm out on my own.
I never said this wasn't newsworthy. I didn't chastise the New York Times saying, "You call this news? Find me some *real* news. Isn't there an old lady somewhere getting ripped off that you could report on?".
Its great they finally got rid of the stuff. But the fact that we didn't get around to unloading it for five years, and the fact that this was known about before the invasion in 2003 and was therefore not part of Saddam's deadly hidden cache of weapons of mass destruction, tells me this wasn't really a pressing matter and maybe didn't warrant maximum attention from the media.
Read the 1991 ceasefire 100 times
July 8, 2008 - 02:38 ET by Unsaneand the fact that this was known about before the invasion in 2003 and was therefore not part of Saddam's deadly hidden cache of weapons of mass destruction, He was NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT. Yeah, yeah, I know, it was under UN guard, and as we ALL know, the UN does a great job of looking after U.S. national security! In fact, we should just outsource that entire operation to the UN? Why do we need a military when the UN can do it all?
Wait a minute...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Hey. Not a problem. The
July 8, 2008 - 06:36 ET by Cureboy675Hey. Not a problem. The United Nations can't be trusted. Of course, that makes me wonder why was it so bloody important to the President that the UN be allowed to return to Iraq...Especially considering that they are such blundering idiots and couldn't be trusted to secure this yellowcake.
Pure sophistry Cure, you
July 8, 2008 - 07:12 ET by dscottPure sophistry Cure, you know very well that W had to involve the UN due to the sanctions. W took the reasonable route of attempting to involve as many nations in the solution as possible in order to put the maximum pressure on Saddam without resorting to war. Saddam being a self centered malevolent tyrant didn't yield to peer pressure and just did what he could get away with. The US exhausted all reasonable efforts to peacefully resolve the situation, that's why the UN was involved up until the very last minute. There are two kinds of people in the world, those who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do to live in peace, and then are those who must be watched and forced to do the right thing and that usually brings about war.
If you want to point the finger of blame as to the failure of the UN regime not working as it should you need to take that up with the former Premier of France, Chirac and Putin of Russia, they undermined those efforts at every turn. As long as Saddam saw there was a chance due to a non-unified effort at the UN, he knew he could subvert the process: E.g. Oil for Food scandal. The exact same foolishness is going on with Iran and Sudan. Certain countries have a financial interest in selling arms and obtaining oil from these two despotic states. Those countries are China, Russia and France. You want to avoid another war in the ME? Take up your dissatisfaction with them.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
AMEN! And if Bush didn't
July 8, 2008 - 08:32 ET by athoughtor2AMEN! And if Bush didn't involve the UN and other nations then he would be labled a unilateralists war mongering cowboy by the MSM and Libs. Oh that's right he was even though he tried to get more of the international community on board.
You're so full of it! It
July 8, 2008 - 09:34 ET by mattmYou're so full of it!
It was because the cease-fire agreement which ended the first Gulf War...which either you knew, and are just here to fling crap, or you're an ignorant pile of it.
Like I said about 10 times
July 8, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Cureboy675Like I said about 10 times already. I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate about the war. We can go on for a hundred years about how you think the war was this brilliant tactical decision that will be long remembered as the turning point in obtaining the human utopia. And I can keep firing back about how I think it turned out to be about as smart as french kissing an electric outlet.
Bottom line (and the very point of this particular blog entry):
If you can honestly say that shipping out this yellowcake, (that the UN secured 15 years ago and that both the UN and the IAEA verified was still secure just weeks before the invasion) is worthy of breaking news status (despite the fact that it took us five years to unload the stuff), then I will gladly shut up and agree.
I'm not debating the
July 8, 2008 - 13:52 ET by mattmI'm not debating the war.
The significance of this story is that it proves that the people who claimed Bush lied are the liars. This is why the media downplay the story - it refutes their lies (or the lies they helped spread).
I guess its a matter of
July 8, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Cureboy675I guess its a matter of interpretation, then. Because Bush knew about these weapons and knew exactly where they were before the war ever started. If the whole point of bypassing the UN and invading Iraq sooner rather than later was to get our hands on this particular yellowcake. Then, hell yeah, the war was a success.
Bush knew about these
July 9, 2008 - 13:35 ET by athoughtor2Bush knew about these weapons b/c of the intel.
He did not know exactly where they were.No one did. Not even the inspectors. That's why they went to multiple locations. those locations were dictated by Saddams regime.
He did not bypass the UN. He tried to get how many different UN resolutions passed. France, Germany and Russia were being bought off by the Oil for Food scandel to name 1 reason. If Bush was by-passing the UN then why did he said Colin Powell tot he UN. Why did he give speeches?
This Yellowcake was not the only WMD we were looknig for.
Easy
July 16, 2008 - 05:19 ET by UnsaneOf course, that makes me wonder why was it so bloody important to the President that the UN be allowed to return to Iraq...That's easy. Because the President knew that he needed to mollify the whining crybabies of this world like YOU who DO have faith in the UN. This IS still a democracy after all and he was actually listening to you whiners, and the whiners across the world.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.