I'm not sure about "the finest" - that would be very expensive, and to have very much of it is likely beyond the reach of any organization other than a superpower. But yes, it's probably pretty good stuff.
If it's just natural Uranium, that would include some isotopes that aren't as stable as U-238, and would be somewhat more radioactive. U-238 is by far its biggest component though, the other isotopes are in the low single-digit percent range in natural Uranium. Making "pure" U-238 is as hard as making "pure" U-235 (bomb-quality Uranium) since it takes major technology to separate them. However pure U-238 is essentially useless for either nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs; our military uses it for "depleted Uranium" (DU) shells since it's denser than lead. So it wouldn't be that hard for them to get it - just pick up a few spent DU shells that we fired in the first Iraq war.
Still even "pure" U-235 isn't all that radioactive, just a lot more so than U-238. But the article said U-238 which just doesn't make sense.
My guess is that what they had was more like some raw ore that they were using to separate out the most radioactive elements like Radium. That can be done using relatively simple chemical means, it doesn't require super expensive technology like separating the isotopes of a single element. It would also be much more useful for a dirty bomb.
This distinction is likely to sail past the typical newspaper or TV reporter.
There's a bit of a controversy about whether it's responsible for us to use the Depleted Uranium (DU) shells - not so much because of radioactivity (there isn't an appreciable amount of it) but because of the possibility of the element entering the environment and causing heavy metal poisoning over long periods of time. But there just isn't going to be all that much of the stuff used, it's mostly only used in anti-tank shells because it has better armor-piercing properties than does Lead. However spent Lead shells will also enter the environment over time, and chronic Lead poisoning is no joke either.
My guess is that it's more like the people using the argument are trying to think of reasons why we shouldn't be fighting at all, and have grabbed onto a somewhat phony environmental issue. There are better reasons why starting the Iraq war was somewhat problematic, and it would be better for them to concentrate on those reasons rather than on the phony environmental one.
This distinction is likely to sail past the typical newspaper or TV
reporter.<<<
While I am laughing, I will add "and past most grannies".
I read that the money from the narcotics is paying for the war, plus the fact that many muslims donate to them, proven by all the frozen accounts in America alone.
It isn't only the narcotics from Afghanistan, but also they
are into most of South America and Mexico.
They are also deeply into diamonds and even the spices on your food.