Limbaugh: Democrats who set up George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq now organizing 'silent coup' against Trump

The Hill ^ | Feb 22 2020 | Marty Johnson

[rintintin]

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Friday wagged his finger at Democrats and U.S. intelligence agencies, arguing they tricked former President George W. Bush into the Iraq War and are now trying to do the same to President Trump.

"Now Bush, as a Republican, probably not popular with the deep state, particularly after how he was elected," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "A lot of Democrats, a lot of deep staters think that [Al] Gore should have been president."

"I think there was as much resentment in the deep state - we just didn't call it that then - for George W. Bush as there is today for Donald Trump, and if not the same, it's close," he added.

The deep state, Limbaugh asserted, planted fake evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to push Bush into the Iraq War and is now "making up evidence" of Russian ties to Trump.

[Svartalfiar]

99% of it is U-238 and that’s not even radioactive enough to make a decent dirty bomb, much less an actual nuclear fission bomb.
...
That’s a long way from even the low enriched uranium of 20% U-235 that is used as reactor fuel.

Yea, it's well known that he didn't have functioning nuclear bombs. But he was known to have used chemical warfare (see my other post), and if he'd had the time and privacy, do you really think he wouldn't have put together a couple dirty bombs at a minimum?

[Pining_4_TX]

You made excellent points in your replies. Our fellow Freeper, Svartalfiar, responded to me but did not include you in his reply.

[Pining_4_TX]

Well, I believe the US sold that stuff to him many years ago. Also, the nut in N. Korea is doing horrible things to people, as are several African tyrants. We going to take them all out?

[Pelham]

“and if he’d had the time and privacy, do you really think he wouldn’t have put together a couple dirty bombs at a minimum”

First Iraq would have needed have something radioactive to scatter. Yellowcake wouldn’t do the job, its percentage of U-235 is no different than natural ore.

And dirty bombs aren’t WMDs anyway. They are “area denial” devices, mostly aimed at civilians, designed to make an area unsafe to live or work in.

You scatter radioactive material around the area you want to keep people out of, playing on people’s fear of radiation. It won’t work to deter a military force.

[Svartalfiar]

First Iraq would have needed have something radioactive to scatter. Yellowcake wouldn’t do the job, its percentage of U-235 is no different than natural ore.

And dirty bombs aren’t WMDs anyway. They are “area denial” devices, mostly aimed at civilians, designed to make an area unsafe to live or work in.

You scatter radioactive material around the area you want to keep people out of, playing on people’s fear of radiation. It won’t work to deter a military force.

And where do you think higher percentage material comes from? If these US hadn't gone into Iraq, what would have stopped Saddam from enriching everything he had, as much as he could?

A dirty bomb most certainly is a WMD. As is any kind of chemical or biological area denial device. Obviously yellowcake won't do the trick, but as I just said, Saddam was definitely smart enough to know he'd have to enrich it a bit before building such a bomb. Why try to scare people about low/fake radiation, when he could have easily made something that killed poeple AND kept them out? And it certainly will deter a military force, ESPECIALLY if he's going against not-these US. Hell, even we don't operate in NBC areas unless we have to. Decon is a pain in the ass, and can still hurt/kill someone if not done properly. Gulf War, we didn't even have closed-air NBC systems in hardly any military vehicles. Many Humvees weren't even uparmored.
50 U.S. Code § 2302. Definitions
(1) The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of—
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.

Oh, and if you start looking at civilian definitions, WMDs get alot smaller, such as pipe bombs; even some fireworks or your kid's model rocket could be classed as a WMD if the charge is big enough.

[Pelham]

And where do you think higher percentage material comes from?

It comes from Zippe design gas centrifuges. Something not easy to come by, or build, and which Saddam didn't have.

If these US hadn't gone into Iraq, what would have stopped Saddam from enriching everything he had, as much as he could?

The fact that he didn't have centrifuges would be his first problem. He couldn't just buy them. Even the sale of tubes suitable for building them is controlled by nuclear agencies.

A dirty bomb most certainly is a WMD.

According to who? You? The Iraq Survey Group doesn't share your opinion. The Duelfer Report is all about Iraq's various WMD programs and never mentions dirty bombs.

The NRC doesn't agree with you either:

'A "dirty bomb" is a type of "radiological dispersal device" that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. The terms dirty bomb and RDD are often used interchangeably. Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness – the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to people than the radioactive material. However, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property and require potentially costly cleanup.'

'A dirty bomb is not a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is millions of times more powerful than a dirty bomb. The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread thousands of square miles, whereas a dirty bomb's radiation could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion. A dirty bomb is not a "weapon of mass destruction" but a "weapon of mass disruption," where contamination and anxiety are the major objectives.'

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html

[Svartalfiar]

The fact that he didn't have centrifuges would be his first problem. He couldn't just buy them. Even the sale of tubes suitable for building them is controlled by nuclear agencies.

And yet somehow Pakistan of all places has nukes. Iran has centrifuges aplenty. NKorea has nukes, and some of the most restrictive sanctions on any country besides Cuba! Saddam could have managed if he'd had time and actually put the effort in.


According to who? You? The Iraq Survey Group doesn't share your opinion. The Duelfer Report is all about Iraq's various WMD programs and never mentions dirty bombs.

Um, according to US Code, which I put in my post. Did you not read the whole thing before responding? And dirty bombs aren't going to be a program - it's a simple act of putting the most radioactive stuff you have, and pack it into a regular bomb. Explode it. Terrorists in a cave could do it if they had the materials. Sure, it's likely not going to be as effective as an actual nuclear reaction, but if you got radioactive enough stuff, a dirty bomb could easily kill people. Not to mention radiation over time affecting people and animals.

[Pelham]

“Um, according to US Code, which I put in my post. Did you not read the whole thing before responding?”

I read it. And maybe it would impress someone who knows as little about dirty bombs as you do, since you think yellowcake qualifies as a suitable material to cause “death or serious bodily injury”.

I get it that you’re desperate to save the “Iraq had WMDs” story. Bush himself gave up on that story after the Survey Group found nothing. You’re more Bush than Bush. Congratulations.

[Svartalfiar]

since you think yellowcake qualifies as a suitable material to cause “death or serious bodily injury”.

I never said that, I simply said that he had a bunch, and it's what you use to make more refined nuclear material.


I get it that you’re desperate to save the “Iraq had WMDs” story. Bush himself gave up on that story after the Survey Group found nothing. You’re more Bush than Bush. Congratulations.

Huh? this has nothing to do with trying to save Bush. The facts of the matter are that Saddam had WMDs, Saddam has used WMDs in both war and internal conflict, the only question is whether he had any active research/manufacturing programs. Which is really a moot question, since those capabilities can easily be built up when needed.

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons