jackofallgeeks: (Default)
[personal profile] jackofallgeeks
So, apparently, they've quietly removed
550 metric tons of uranium
from a site in Iraq -- so queitly, in fact, that the media burried the AP
article that was released over a week ago. Now, granted, the material they
removed isn't actual weapons-grade uranium, but it's a mediary step in the
process. I don't know, but I think something like this adds a little
credence to the original reasoning for the war, that Saddam was working to
manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Date: 2008-07-15 03:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] uhlrik.livejournal.com
Well, naturally the media wouldn't want word of that to get out as it damages one of their pet premises. Bush certainly would, but I think his cred is long spent at this point.

I do believe that Saddam really wanted to get WMDs, and that he had taken some steps toward obtaining them. I believe that his efforts had already been drastically undermined by funding issues and by foreign interference - but he did have some of what he needed. However, unfortunately I do believe the truth of what he was up to was only partially relevant to the drive for war itself. If nothing had existed at all, the CIA would still have had to invent it - and the New York Times and many other media outlets would love to continue believing that they did.

Date: 2008-07-15 07:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quix.livejournal.com
I know nothing factual about what might or might not have happened, but all things considered with the time between now and the invasion, that's plenty of time to have manufactured the evidence to point to the existence of WMDs back before the invasion.

Date: 2008-07-15 07:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com
That could certainly be the case, I won't argue otherwise without backing, but I'm more interested in why the media isn't saying anything about it, especially if there were hints that it wasn't on the up-and-up.

Date: 2008-07-15 07:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quix.livejournal.com
Hm. Perhaps because Iraq's WMDs are considered "yesterdays news"?

Date: 2008-07-15 10:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] circuit-four.livejournal.com
I think this passage is relevant:

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.

So I get the impression that this has totally been a known issue. I'm not sure how it really adds any credence to a 2003 invasion over WMDs, when it had been there since 1991... but you know I'm always willing to entertain evidence to the contrary. It's equally possible I missed something.

Date: 2008-07-15 10:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com
A, that does change things somewhat. I was reading this at work, and my mind hasn't been as sharp as usual lately (I haven't been sleeping well, it's too humid).

Date: 2008-07-15 11:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] circuit-four.livejournal.com
No worries, I think EVERYONE gets amnesty for skimming at work! ^_^

Profile

jackofallgeeks: (Default)
John Noble

August 2012

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 26th, 2025 11:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios