Why hasn't this gotten any real coverage?

darth tang

Active Member
I remember when the New York Times mentioned this back in 2003 or 2004.
* * * Link Violation * * *
This story explains Sadaam had the capabilities to still produce WMDS and hadn't turned everything over like the majority of the news organizations have been reporting.
Please do not post links to other sites
 

darth tang

Active Member
Just do it this way, then.
By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.
That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.
The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.
"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.
"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."
Well, almost none.
(Continued)
 

darth tang

Active Member
The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."
The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."
Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.
"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.
Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.
Or did it?
(continued)
 

darth tang

Active Member
The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.
In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."
"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.
And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.
Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.
"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.
"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."
Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.
If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.
One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.
Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:
"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."
Discuss....why isn't this getting more coverage?
 

bigb

Member
Why did you nevermind your other posts. I was following for an explanation, on why it's allowed sometimes.
 

darth tang

Active Member
It wasn't a big deal. If you run a search on forum rules, it states No links to other sites are allowed. I would have been just directed there and then got an explanation that not all threads can be policed. Or something to that effect. It wasn't worth it, and technically I had violated the rules...so I was in the wrong regardless if the rules are enforced at all times, even if moderators post in the other threads with links...I was still wrong.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by snailheave
i like talking about women better
Yeah, but you are single................and possibly lonely, but we know that is up for debate. lol
 

farmboy

Active Member
That story doesn't advance the agenda--therfore little coverage.
A child could see the "bias" in the T.V. - big media.
 

bigb

Member
Originally Posted by Darth Tang
It wasn't a big deal. If you run a search on forum rules, it states No links to other sites are allowed. I would have been just directed there and then got an explanation that not all threads can be policed. Or something to that effect. It wasn't worth it, and technically I had violated the rules...so I was in the wrong regardless if the rules are enforced at all times, even if moderators post in the other threads with links...I was still wrong.

All right. I see links all the time, geuss I never read the rules cause I thought it was only competitors that aren't allowed. Thanks.
 

darth tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by Farmboy
That story doesn't advance the agenda--therfore little coverage.
A child could see the "bias" in the T.V. - big media.

But isn't FOX News the "republican.Bush" News channel and they haven't said boo about this.
 

farmboy

Active Member
That is a good question. I get most of my news from the radio or the WWW. TV is a waste of electricity. THink of the tank lighting we could have if we just turned off the tube. :thinking:
I GET it. I get what your driving at. Long story short: 4 different commissions/panels have determined NO tampering of or shopping for PRE war intelligence was evidenced by the Bush administration.
 

farmboy

Active Member
Correction 3 different panels/commissions to determine NO manipulation of pre war intelligence.
 
T

tizzo

Guest
Originally Posted by BigB
All right. I see links all the time, geuss I never read the rules cause I thought it was only competitors that aren't allowed. Thanks.
ooh ooh lemme lemme!! I saved it, may as well use it!
I had to crop. At the time, I did not have the resizing capability. But you get the drift. This was part of the "agreement".
Part of the old agreement. I don't know if the new one has it yet. :notsure:
 

hagfish

Active Member
That story doesn't advance the agenda--therfore little coverage. A child could see the "bias" in the T.V. - big media.
Farmboy is exactly right. Unfortunately many adults have the brain of a child and do not seem to recognize that the media is biased. News is not so much about reporting truth. CNN isn't filled with a bunch of do-gooders who just want to inform the people of what's going on in the world. They are here to make money. The anti-Bush agenda brings out much more controversy than a pro-Bush agenda would. And controversy will keep people's interest longer because there is always someone disagreeing. If the media went along with Bush on important matters like this, then the people that they somehow manage to influence wouldn't have anything to argue about. So then there would be no story and the reporters would actually have to go find another story. Therefore, they are anti-Bush. Plus, Bush is a conservative and most media is liberal (largely because there's more money in it, and less conviction IMO).
 
Top