Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Jul 5, 2008.
This one almost slipped under the radar.
Would you care to provide your source for this information?
It's too bad the US didn't care about it after the invasion. It's impossible to know how much of this stuff already found its way into the hands of insurgents...
i refuse to believe that our troops have been in Iraq five years and just now we are coming across something. it's got to be a plant.
edit: and might i add i hate the way George Bush is allowed to enrich uranium while invading other countries for doing the same thing. especially since that other country wasn't actually doing it.
You forgot the link, and quoted more than 80 words. Naughty boy, AP News may come after you for copyright infringement.
AP News --- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080705/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_yellowcake_mission_1
From the article:
No plant. This is stuff apparently has been known about for 30 some odd years but it wasn't until recently that officials figured out what to do with it.
550 metric tons! Yeepers.
So you're blaming the American nuclear program on George Bush? That's a new one.
Maybe it's because the US already has civilian power generating reactors built and running, and isn't manufacturing nuclear weapons anymore.
Edit: Also, it should be noted that yellowcake is slightly less radioactive than Jaffa cake.
If WMD were so critical before the war, why did it take a month of indecision before anyone took a look at the place?
This thread title is highly misleading. Iranium ore would be acceptable, however, yellowcake iranium ore is really what this is all about. The spindoctors are sure busy trumpeting this "success".
If the United States government has known for 30 years that Iraq was sitting on 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium, then it stands to reason that the government had good reason to strongly suspect that the 2002 claim Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger was fraudulent on the basis they didn't need to purchase it from a foreign source.
At the very least, even if the claim were true we would have known that Iraq was only obtaining something it was already known to have in large quantity. Thus even if the claim was believed to be accurate, presenting it as a casus belli would have been knowingly fraudulent.
If documentation can be produced that the U.S. has, in fact, known about this uranium for 30 years as LethalWolfe claims (source?), then this seems like a rather damning revelation.
I wish Bush would come forward about the "moon landing" as well. I mean, something just doesn't add up...
/crazy conspiracy theories
The Wikipedia article that I linked to quotes the IAEA. Since the IAEA were monitoring it from 1991 onward it's hard to believe that the US was ignorant of it.
It was and still is all about fear. Feeding that fear is what bushco was all about and still is for that matter.
Granted I'm making an assumption based on the news report, but if U.N. inspectors "... documented and safeguarded the yellowcake..." prior to the '91 Gulf War I assume that is info that the US would be privy too.
With this turn I become less interested in moral criticism of their motives and more interested in the legal ramifications of their actions. The administration has for years brushed off culpability for the Nigerien yellowcake fraud by claiming they genuinely believed it themselves, and that is a very difficult claim to dispute.
If there is strong documentation showing that the administration knew, or should have known, that obtaining yellowcake from Niger would not substantially modify Iraq's threat classification, then using the claim as a justification for war was fraudulent whether they believed the claim or not, and should be legally investigated on that basis.
Worth tens of millions of dollars? Let's sell some of that off so we can pay for next week in Iraq... oh wait, that might be a bad idea.
Indeed, the entire yellowcake-from-Nigeria thing reeks like month-old fish.
Good thing we were so sure that those aluminum tubes were going to be used for centrifuges. Oh yeah, they weren't.
Oops. Our bad. Here's your country back. We'll just keep your natural resources to cover the cost of the invasion.
More like a few hours, considering we spend over 300 million dollars per day in Iraq at this point.
Could you show some evidence that the US isn't manufacturing nuclear weapons please.
You'd think this was a big deal reading the conservative blogs, but the actual details of this aren't anywhere near what they were portrayed as:
A Case Study in Conservative Mendacity
Nice try, but not so much.
Not even Little Green Footballs is making that claim. Your spin of non-existent spin has failed. You're still my e-buddy, solvs.
Um, that post at Redstate is. So is Instapundit. And Protein Wisdom, though sarcastically. Ann Coulter said something about the other day too, though I can't find the link now. Drudge had something on it too that was conspicuously truncated, though I guess that could only be considered guilt by omission, so I suppose it doesn't count.
Point is, it was made out to be something it wasn't.
I checked Redstate, a blog I've never been to and never heard of, and I didn't find it. All through and around July 6. Maybe I missed it.
Here it is
I did find it in Instapundit.com, another blog I've never heard of.
link to article But it sited the article within the first couple lines that the Uranium was yellowcake - non-weapons grade.
I think the fellas at "Openleft" are paying attention a little too hard to label a couple weird blogs as "A Case Study in Conservative Mendacity." LOL
You'd think this was a big deal reading all the liberal blogs. Try not to let them think for you.
If Fox News would have been making these claims, then you'd have something. Until then just partisan spin.
Edit: Sorry I'm such a jerk about it.
See, there's where you lost me. I, nor the link I provided, ever said anything about all, or even many, conservative blogs going nuts over this. I actually didn't even see much from the liberal blogs, and barely saw anything from the MSM. From your post, you seemed to think this was a bigger deal than it was. As did a few others, as I and the link I found, pointed out. That was the only point. That some of them were trying to say Bush was right about it, or at the very least neglecting to mention how little a deal this was. I admit I should have clarified it as some, and so should the article I linked to. Though it did point to the Redstate post, which is where I got that from. The rest was from a quick Google search.
Fox did have a few stories on it, but to their credit, they correctly downplayed the significance.
you guys are missing the real important part of the story:
it's a first strike on canada!