Yellowcake journalism

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | July 19, 2008 | Editorial

[Graybeard58]

Remember Joe Wilson? He's the diplomat who went to Niger to investigate Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium, a raw material used in building nuclear bombs, from Africa. He wrote in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed that he had spent the previous February in Niger, "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of 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."

A story that has to be the most underplayed news item of the decade exposes Mr. Wilson's utter cluelessness, dishonesty or both. According to The Associated Press and other news services, the U.S. military transferred 550 tons of yellowcake, enough to produce 142 nuclear bombs, from Iraq to Canada at the Iraqi government's request. The yellowcake is believed to have been purchased by the Hussein regime before 1991; some may have been intended for the Osirak nuclear installation destroyed in an Israeli raid 10 years earlier.

Hussein got the yellowcake from somewhere. He almost certainly got it from Niger, Gabon, South Africa or Namibia, the four African countries with yellowcake mines. And Mr. Wilson, who served with the State Department in Baghdad and Gabon, didn't know (or didn't report in his Times op-ed) that Hussein possessed 550 tons of yellowcake at the time of Mr. Wilson's African junket.

The question this new development poses for the anti-war left: What do you suppose Hussein would be doing with his nuclear materials and WMD expertise today, more than five years after the Coalition of the Willing took him down, had he been allowed to remain in power?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

We have the same problem here.

My previous response was a bit flippant. My point was that any country should be entitled to have nuclear power plants, for “peaceful” purposes.

The real issue is nuclear proliferation. If the spread of weapons-grade nuclear material can be controlled; then we don’t need to worry about nuclear power plants.

[driftless2]

The left looks at this latest expose of their lies and says “so what”? Revealing info like this does not stop them in the least. They just go on to their next lie. “But we found no piles of wmds” they screech. As if Hussein bought this stuff (yellowcake) for fun.

[DCPatriot]

Well...wouldn’t you expect Saddam Hussein to acquire/possess nukes if the mortal enemy Iran did so?

[Tzimisce]

Nothing to see here, move along.

-the MSM

[seanrobins]

>>>My point was that any country should be entitled to have nuclear power plants, for “peaceful” purposes

Why? Who says so?

[Wil H]

Saddam was a big environmentalist. Really.

Yeah we saw that when he set fire to all of Kuwait's oil wells, didn't we?

[ANGGAPO]

Beating a dead horse but.
The Democrats and the MSM have never admitted that Saddam had tons of Yellow Cake before Wilson went on his visit to Africa. All that Saddam needed was for us to get off of his back to give him time to process it. Guess where it came from?

[KosmicKitty]

I wish this paper would increase it’s circulatin and put the hartford coissant out of business

And the New Haven Register with it.

Though the Register seems to be doing pretty good at running itself into the ground with no outside help! (I get it for one reason - the obits)

[RatSlayer]

“The real issue is nuclear proliferation. If the spread of weapons-grade nuclear material can be controlled; then we don’t need to worry about nuclear power plants.”

IMHO, you are terribly deluded on that point. IMO, a dirty bomb (which could use exactly the same material that is used in powerplants) would be just as economically devastating, because all the hand-wringers and bed-wetters in this country would completely cordon off a several mile radius around a dirty bomb explosion.

So although the actually bomb would only leave a tiny litte car size crater, the effect would be the complet abandonment of all of Manhattan or all of Long Beach Harbor.

[ought-six]

“Liberals have an intricately constructed view of the World, and they can’t allow in any facts that would shatter their construction.”

That alone is a fact.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

OK, that's a good point about dirty bombs. Perhaps it is nieve to think that the nuclear material can be controlled. If there's no way to do that; then there is a rationale for preventing other nations from having nuclear power stations.

Regardless — nuclear power, and nuclear weapons are two separate things. It's easy to make a strong case for preventing weapons proliferation — the onus (IMHO) is on opponents to make the case against nuclear power plants.

[IncPen]

yellow cake ping

[Milligan]

People on the left say that 550 tons of yellowcake was already tagged and declared by UN Inspectors when Saddam was in power years ago.

This information is correct on the left. We were not going after declared items but things Saddam couldn’t account for.

Did they have another 550 tons of yellowcake not declared? Because we had to move 1.8 tons to the US in 2004?

Nuclear Watchdogs Verify Uranium in Iraq

Sat Aug 7, 2004
By GEORGE JAHN,
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Experts from the U.N. atomic watchdog agency have verified that none of the tons of natural uranium listed as still being in warehouses south of Baghdad is missing, the agency said Saturday.

Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the IAEA experts returned to Vienna Saturday after taking inventory of “several tons” of natural uranium in storage near Iraq’s Tuwaitha nuclear complex.

The check confirmed that none of the natural uranium at the site had been taken after the United States removed from Tuwaitha 1.8 tons of uranium, enriched to a level of 2.6 percent, another 6.6 pounds of low-enriched uranium, and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive sources.

Natural uranium has extremely low radioactivity and cannot be used for weapons programs without enrichment.

The U.S. airlift of the materials out of Tuwaitha took place six weeks ago, and Washington said at that time that the material was taken out of Iraq due to “security concerns” it did not elaborate on.

Diplomats familiar with the transfer said Saturday the substances airlifted out were deemed either to pose a proliferation risk or to be open to possible theft.

The IAEA experts - whose mandate does not include looking for any signs of a secret nuclear weapons program - were last in Iraq over a year ago, following accounts of widespread looting of the storage rooms at Tuwaitha. The agency subsequently reported that most of the missing material had been recovered and none of it could be used to make weapons.

U.N chemical, biological and nuclear inspectors left Iraq just ahead of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. After Saddam Hussein’s fall, the United States barred all U.N. inspectors from returning and instead deployed its own inspection teams to look for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - a search that also failed to find evidence of such arms.

The U.N. Security Council has put off a decision on the return of U.N. weapons inspectors under pressure from the United States.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei described the mission completed Saturday as “a good first step,” adding in a statement that he hoped his weapons inspectors could also soon return to Iraq and complete their mission.

The U.N. Security Council authorized U.N. inspectors to dismantle Iraq’s weapons programs after the first Gulf War in 1991. Under its resolution, the council must state that Iraq has no banned weapons before U.N. sanctions can be lifted.

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0408nn/040807nn.htm#030

[seanrobins]

>>>It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

Now, that’s a real lefty point of view. My gosh!

Would you give your three-year-old an AK-47? It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”

Would you give Osama bin Laden a few kilos of boMB-grade Plutonium? It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”

The “Why not” is - in case you can’t figure it out - because we are better off if they don’t; we are safer if they don’t; and if we can prevent it we should. There is no such thing as an international “right” to anything. The U.S. makes - or should make (that’s why Dems should not be in national power) decisions based on ITS own self-interest, national interest. My country should do what is best for the nation and its people, NOT out of some non-existant “right” for other nations to do something that is contrary to our interests. Period.

So, “Why Not”?

Because we say so.

(Have a happy, and a pro-American day...)

[seanrobins]

>>>the onus (IMHO) is on opponents to make the case against nuclear power plants

See my response in post #31.

[seanrobins]

...that’s post #35

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Show me where I said OBL should have weapons grade nuclear material.

Just as you (rightly) assert the sovereign right of the U.S. to act in it's own best interest -- other countries also have the sovereign right to act in their own best interests.

It doesn't harm the interests of the U.S. for another country to possess nuclear power plants -- that's a separate issue from possessing weapons-grade material (or the ability to make such material).

There's no denying that the international "watchdogs", which are supposed to control weapons proliferation, are toothless. That problem should be fixed.

Going after every country that wants nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes would not be acting in the interests of the U.S. That is, unless you think alienating Canada, and over 20 other countries that have nuclear reactors (but no nuclear weapons) somehow serves your interests.

BTW,even your own government disagrees with you -- the Bush administration wants to sell lots of nuclear reactors. http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13459-disposable-nuclear-reactors-raise-security-fears.html

[seanrobins]

The point of disagreement is your contention that nations of the world have some “right” to possess nuclear anything.

They do not.

And the fact that the Bush administr.ation chooses to sell nuclear power equipment or technology to certain nations only proves my point. That it is up to the U.S. to decide which nations can receive what of our technology (if any), based upon OUR interests, and not some non-existent “right” of any other nation to possess or access or use any particular technology.

Also, I never said you said OBL should have anything. I was mocking your assertion that:

It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

That assertion lacks any logic to it, and my (admittedly absurd) examples were to point out the absurdity of your assertion:

It’s not a matter of “Why”; it’s a matter of “Why not?”.

sr

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Who said anything about U.S. technology?

Canada has its own nuclear reactor tech -- as do several other nations. China is miles ahead of anyone in the field of pebble-bed nuclear reactors. The U.S. does not have a lock on nuclear technology -- you don't get to say who has a nuclear power plant, and who does not.

You are sounding like the embodiment of the worst stereotypes of American arrogance. I've spent a great deal of time and effort taking the side of the U.S. on recent geo-political issues. If I thought you were the slightest bit representative; I never would have bothered. There's no way on earth I could even consider trying to defend your viewpoints.

If the U.S. builds a "coalition of the willing" to take out Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities; then I'm solidly in your corner. If the U.S. tries to bully Canada, or any other country that wants to have nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes -- then we part company.