Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups






















« Strategic Caribou Reserve: House RINOs Scuttle ANWR Drilling | Main | Long Quote Of The Day »
November 10, 2005

1.7 Tons of Highly Enriched Uranium Removed From Iraq

Lies. More lies from Bushitler!

I'm not clear on the details of all this, but I think the reason the press never mentions this (apart from bias) is that all of this nuclear stock was already known about, and kept under UN seal from being used.

So it's nothing to worry about, really, because as Iran proves, when the IAEA or UN gives orders to a despot determined to have nuclear bomb, those nuke-obsessed tyrants snap smartly into line.

And oh yeah-- rockets capable of delivering liquid payloads were also discovered in Iraq. Nothing to do with chemical weapons, though. Saddam just wanted to fill them with water and use them to explosively irrigate the deserts.


posted by Ace at 03:11 PM
Comments



I was having a glass of sweet mint tea with Joe Wilson the other day, and he said that simply wasn't true.

Posted by: Rocketeer on November 10, 2005 03:24 PM

Those water-filled missiles make great practical jokes.

"Hello, Ariel Sharon? We are about to gas Tel Aviv....
- PSYCH!!"

Posted by: lauraw on November 10, 2005 03:26 PM
Posted by: Hal on November 10, 2005 03:28 PM

I saw this reported on Atlas Shrugs a couple days ago. Along with the nerve agent cyclosarin and 1,500 gallons of chemicals from a lab supposedly built after the war began.

Pisses me off that this never gets wide play in the media but I also blame Bush for not having a press conference every time they find this stuff. FIGHT BACK DAMN IT!

Posted by: JackStraw on November 10, 2005 03:37 PM

Shit, Bush has been giving pressers for the past month talking about the war. For all we know, he's mentioned it. Most of these speeches have been ignored. The MSM just doing their jobs. At least we have powerlineblog, and Ace.

Posted by: joeindc44 on November 10, 2005 03:44 PM

Maybe... Saddam's capabilities were CONTAINED, as Bush adminstration claimed in early 2001?

Or were they lying then?

Once again, having capability to make weapons does not equal having weapons.

Having weapons does not equal being able to deploy them.

Having weapons does not equal posing a transatlantic threat to the US.

Posted by: tubino on November 10, 2005 03:45 PM

This was part of 200 TONS of yellowcake uranium found at Al-Tuwaitha. NY Times reported on it in May of 2003.

I don't recall the 1.8 tons being highly enriched, "just" low enriched - IOW, it needed another whirl or two through the nonexistant uranium centrifuge.

Posted by: John on November 10, 2005 03:59 PM

You mean the centrifuge that was buried in the physicist's garden?

Posted by: on November 10, 2005 04:10 PM

Putting your fingers in your ears and humming does not equal a viable strategy.

Posted by: Knemon on November 10, 2005 04:11 PM

You mean the centrifuge that was buried in the physicist's garden?

Oh, c'mon. We all know that thing was to be used expressly for making Shirley Temples and Jello Rainbow desserts, NOT uranium enrichment.

Posted by: Rocketeer on November 10, 2005 04:13 PM

Having weapons does not equal posing a transatlantic threat to the US.

If this were true, then your party should have considered nominating someone other than John F. Kerry. He concluded that Iraq was a threat to the US about a hundred times.

But Bush lied. Right.

Posted by: Phinn on November 10, 2005 04:14 PM

"There is no centrifuge behind the garden!"

Here's a link to the NYT article about the Nigerian yellowcake uranium they found but that Iraq did not ever, ever try to buy again:
Shoot, comments wouldn't let my paste the link because it's questionable content?! Anyway around this?


Unfortunately you have to pay to read the entire article. If anyone has a link to a free version, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: John on November 10, 2005 04:21 PM

Ah. Having weapons does not equal posing a threat.

What a surpising and...odd position for a Democrat to espouse. Good to know, though.

I look forward to the Brady Law being repealed any day now.

Posted by: Rocketeer on November 10, 2005 04:22 PM

Phinn,

I'm not talking to the liar upthread, but a nuke from Iraq wouldn't have had to cross an ocean to kill Americans. We had troops in Saudi, Kuwait, southeastern Europe...

Posted by: Dave in Texas on November 10, 2005 04:26 PM

Putting your fingers in your ears and humming does not equal a viable strategy.

WHA???

Maybe somebody should let the Democratic Party know this, since it seems to be the foundation upon which their whole foreign policy edifice is built.

Posted by: Rocketeer on November 10, 2005 04:28 PM

We had troops in Saudi, Kuwait, southeastern Europe...

Now Dave, they don't really count, since they're babykillers.

Don't get me wrong, though - I support the troops.

Posted by: A Prototypical Democrat on November 10, 2005 04:30 PM

tubino, do you ever feel weird about defending a mass murderer?

Posted by: SJKevin on November 10, 2005 04:39 PM

The missile would probably have been used on non-Americans, expendables like the Israelis. They would nuke around the Palestinians though. And, yeah, it would be nice to have a missile to reach out into Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to wipe out the 3rd Armored Div./Baby Killer Detachment.

But, why build a missile when you have a nuke. Use one of the tankers from your crony in the oil for palaces program to just ship it anywhere in the world, if you wanted to get a NY or San Diego.

Posted by: joeindc44 on November 10, 2005 05:04 PM

Having weapons does not equal posing a threat.

Hrrrumph.

Then it follows that the US nuclear arsenal poses no threat to anyone. This is excellent news - now we can expand and enhance its capabilities without anyone complaining.

Posted by: Purple Avenger on November 10, 2005 05:16 PM

SJK,

Shit the only people he and his really respect are mass murderers, I mean what's not to love about dictators who practiced death camp socialism. You know, you dudes in flyover country would end up looking a lot like the Ukraine if he ever got his way. Farmers never really fit into the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Posted by: joeindc44 on November 10, 2005 05:17 PM

The uranium story is ancient - mention of the transfer occured originally in the local Oak Ridger newspaper as I recall.

Mention of it will also be found in some UN and Greenpeace press releases.

Posted by: Purple Avenger on November 10, 2005 05:19 PM

It really doesn't matter where they unleashed a nuke or a dirty bomb. If terrorists exploded a dirty bomb in Jordan and not a single American life was lost does anyone really doubt that we would have been forced to involve ourselves in the matter? The only difference is we would be facing a world in which the use of nuclear devices was now a fact not some abstract concept. The only difference we would be hearing from the left is that Bush was incompetent and how could he have not known this was going to happen with all the evidence.

There is no way the left will ever be pleased with this administration. They preferred the Clinton approach where we basically ignored the threat and when a bomb didn't go off they assumed that his "policy" was working. The same policy they employed in N. Korea with stunningly effective results.

Posted by: JackStraw on November 10, 2005 05:20 PM

The Clintonian approach to genocide was unique though, "its sorta like genocide in Rawanda, but not close enough."

Posted by: joeindc44 on November 10, 2005 05:25 PM

See how cute I am?
I set impossible parameters for you dummies to justify military action.

Just because a dictator who hates you has a nuclear missile pointed at your country, it doesn't mean he will actually deploy that missile.

Some of you dunces may ask , "Gee, Toob, do we need to wait for the nukular missile to be launched before taking any military action?"

Of course, you stupid rethuglican. Just because a missile has been launched, it doesn't mean it was intended to hit your land, or hit anything at all. The proper response is to get on the phone to the nice dictator man and politely ask him of the intentions of said missile.

Bottom line: The US, no matter what the intel shows, has no right for military action, (especially by a Republican administration, I may change my spin, however, if it were a President Dean, for example).

I don't deal in facts, nor in truth. History of events start and stop where I decide. I am here to spin for my side. I ignore basic ethics while arguing; pretending other facts don't exist. I have no use for intellectual honesty.

Keep replying, and I'll keep lying.

Posted by: Toobeano on November 10, 2005 05:30 PM

Oh, I know, Dave. I was just pointing out the fact that the Democratic complaint about Bush just seems to change all the time.

Bush lied. Or did he just not investigate enough?

Saddam was not a threat. Or was he not a transatlantic threat?

maybe Saddam was a real, bona fide threat, but the Democrats would have "handled it better."

It's hard to keep up with the propaganda du jour. (Spin that, bitches.)

Was Germany a transatlantic threat when we went into WWI? No. The Democrat Wilson's decision to get us involved in that particular "unnecssary, elective" war was a fuck-up of the first order. It only ushered in a century of totalitarianism, after all.

Posted by: Phinn on November 10, 2005 05:33 PM

WOWW!!!
But....


"In April 2003, just days after the statue of Hussein in Baghdad was pulled down, a U.S. Marine engineering company took a close look at Tuwaitha, which is 30 miles south of Baghdad. There they found guards had abandoned their posts and looters were roaming the giant facility. At one storage building, which later was found to hold radioactive samples used in research, the radiation levels were too high to enter safely, although the entrance door stood wide open...
Yeah, saddam sure had his finger on the trigger..
A month later, the Pentagon rejected suggestions that U.N. inspectors be allowed to reenter Iraq but agreed the IAEA experts could return to secure the uranium that had been under its seal for years.


Link

Posted by: X. on November 10, 2005 05:38 PM

I know Phinn. I'm just tired of the liar repeating "transatlantic threat" as if that's the only kind there is.

and has been pointed out, a nuke on a tanker pulling up to Baytown doesn't require a missile

Posted by: Dave in Texas on November 10, 2005 05:42 PM

So what, X?
All that excerpt proves is that the UN weapons inspectors were indeed useless.

Posted by: Bart on November 10, 2005 05:46 PM

joeindc44:
Shit the only people he and his really respect are mass murderers,

There's hope for tubino. I think his dislike of the republicans just clouds his vision.

I mean what's not to love about dictators who practiced death camp socialism. You know, you dudes in flyover country would end up looking a lot like the Ukraine if he ever got his way. Farmers never really fit into the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well put. But since I live in California, I'd probably just get purged early on.

Posted by: SJKevin on November 10, 2005 05:53 PM

SJKevin, I also live in California.
They'll have a hard time with the purge, considering all of us who own weapons and know how to use them. But hey, they can purge San Francisco, where handguns are now illegal...
Oh wait, those are the ones who intend to be the purgers, not the purgees!!

Posted by: Uncle Jefe on November 10, 2005 07:00 PM

Having weapons does not equal being able to deploy them.

No, it's not.

But him having those weapons did constitute a violation of the UN resolutions you liberals seemed so fond of when it wasn't Bush trying to help the UN enforce them.

What are you, the new Baghdad Bob? And doesn't parroting talking points on behalf of a former mass murdering dictator get to you just a little bit?

Probably not, just so long as you can use it agains the REAL enemy, right? That Bushitlerhalliburtonchimpymcstupid.

Fucking liberals.

Posted by: Edward R. Murrow on November 10, 2005 07:33 PM

"You know, you dudes in flyover country would end up looking a lot like the Ukraine if he ever got his way. Farmers never really fit into the dictatorship of the proletariat."

Funny you should say that ... the whole "Retro V. Metro" thing from election time last year pretty much called for that. Pol Pot in reverse, basically.

Posted by: Knemon on November 10, 2005 07:59 PM

Some loose shit Ace: The Uranium is not highly enriched, only enriched. In other words it won't go boom.

However, if you put enough of it together it will go critical and start throwing fast neutrons around, which will be absorbed by the U-238 (that's the common uranium) and become (after a couple of beta decays) Plutonium. Plutonium can be separated from the other "special" stuff in spent fuel relatively easily. Which means you have Plutonium for nuclear weapons as well as "special" stuff for a radiological bomb (or ten). All that in the hands of Saddam Hussein is what I call a Bad Fucking Day waiting to happen.

Posted by: MMDeuce on November 10, 2005 08:44 PM

The threat of Saddam possesing nukes or even material for a "dirty nuke" is not that he was going to deploy them via ICBM or bomber (transatlantic threat) because that would have been suicide, we would have known who had attacked us and we would have responded with mass retaliation. The threat of Saddam possesing nukes was that he could funnel these weapons to terrorists (that we knew he has long aided and abetted) . If terrorists were to use the weapons , it would be very difficult to prove that Saddam was involved and we could not justify retaliation against Iraq.

Terrorists organizations such as Al Queda could not function without nations that support them. The states that aid and support these terrorists are hostile to the U.S. and hide their involvement behind terrorist organizations to avoid direct accusation. These states should be considered fair game.

Posted by: john brown on November 11, 2005 10:29 AM

"So what, X?
All that excerpt proves is that the UN weapons inspectors were indeed useless."

Ok, Fart -

The IAEA already knew of and documented the site before the invasion:

"In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium – which could be used to make nuclear weapons – was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said.

After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said.

So were radioactive items used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes, which Iraq was allowed to keep under a 1991 U.N. Security Council resolution, Zlauvinen said.

IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before last year's U.S.-led war. After it ended, Washington barred U.N. weapons inspectors from returning, deploying U.S. teams instead in a so far unsuccessful search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "

Link


Pity that the tinfoil hat brigade beats this old drum. It just leaves themselves open for more scruitiny for what was really the motive for Operation Endless Clusterfuck;

"Until fighting began on March 19, those seals were believed to have remained intact and Tuwaitha's three major storage structures were secured by Iraq's Special Republican Guard. But when a U.S. Marine engineers reached the site on April 6, the Marines found it abandoned. "

Link

What was the coalition busy securing in the early stages of the invasion?

Oil facilities.

Think about it. Would'nt the Bush administration tell the nation that this discovery was vindication for the war?

Did they?

No.

Posted by: on November 11, 2005 11:44 AM

Even if Saddam had had a few nukes and a means of delivering them (ie icbm) he could not have used them because against us fear of mass retaliation.

Saddam had a history of aggression against neighboring states and an ambition for territorial expansion , a hostility for the U.S. and a history of aiding terrorist organizations. Saddam had had WMD at one time or another, was not abiding by U.N sanctions and demonstrated that he was intent on either obtaining WMD's or further WMD's and greater WMD technology as well as the means to deliver them (artillery shells capable of delivering chemical weapons were still in his inventory). Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to deliver WMD to the U.S by means of strategic nuclear warfare ; however he did have the means to provide terrorists organizations with WMD and he had asprations to become a nuclear threat.

Considering Saddam's record of violation of human rights against his own peole and in light of 9/11, there was ample justification to invade Iraq to depose his regime.

Posted by: john brown on November 11, 2005 12:22 PM
"Until fighting began on March 19, those seals were believed to have remained intact and Tuwaitha's three major storage structures were secured by Iraq's Special Republican Guard. But when a U.S. Marine engineers reached the site on April 6, the Marines found it abandoned. "
Somehow I doubt a seal would last as a reliable deterrent. Unless it's a Navy SEAL. And it was guarded by the Republican Guard. Wow, that's reassuring. So this seal was monitored by an impotent world body which had already refused to enforce 16 other resolutions and guarded by the people who weren't supposed to have what was inside it. Sounds safe to me...
What was the coalition busy securing in the early stages of the invasion?

Oil facilities.


Well, considering that oil is Iraq's largest source of income, I'd say those are pretty important in the rebuilding process.
Posted by: Jordan on November 11, 2005 06:49 PM

The fact that there were vast quantities of radioactive material within reach of someone as dangerous as Saddam is frightening.

Posted by: john brown on November 11, 2005 09:33 PM



washingtonpost.com
U.S. Removed Radioactive Materials From Iraq Facility

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 7, 2004; Page A16


Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced yesterday that almost two tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 radioactive samples used for research had been removed from Iraq's Tuwaitha Nuclear Center and brought to the United States for security reasons.

The airlift of the radioactive materials was completed June 23, Abraham said in a statement, "to keep potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists." Less sensitive radiological materials -- used for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes -- were left in Iraq, according to a Department of Energy statement.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which in the prewar period had kept the Tuwaitha uranium under seal, was told in advance of the U.S. removal, as were Iraqi officials.

Tuwaitha was once the center of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons effort, but its equipment was dismantled at the direction of U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s as part of the agreement following Iraq's surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The U.N. inspectors removed highly enriched uranium that could be used for weapons and shipped it for storage in Russia. The low-enriched uranium was placed under seal in storage at Tuwaitha but under the control of the IAEA.

Before the U.S.-led coalition's invasion of Iraq, as the Bush administration alleged that Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear program, Tuwaitha was a target for U.S. intelligence.

In April 2003, just days after the statue of Hussein in Baghdad was pulled down, a U.S. Marine engineering company took a close look at Tuwaitha, which is 30 miles south of Baghdad. There they found guards had abandoned their posts and looters were roaming the giant facility. At one storage building, which later was found to hold radioactive samples used in research, the radiation levels were too high to enter safely, although the entrance door stood wide open.

A month later, the Pentagon rejected suggestions that U.N. inspectors be allowed to reenter Iraq but agreed the IAEA experts could return to secure the uranium that had been under its seal for years.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Posted by: karennkc on November 14, 2005 01:10 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
If you haven't seen David Lynch's "Rabbits," and are up for some nightmarish nonsense, check it out
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast:CBD and Sefton discuss the Hegseth hearings, Bondi's problematic view of the 2nd Amendment, Israel's ceasefire with Hamas, and more! (LINK SHOULD Work NOW. JJS)
Gavin Newsom Prohibits Offering To Buy People's Property It probably makes more sense in the original Russian. [CBD]
Biden lifts Cuba terrorism designation, drawing bipartisan outrage: 'Pathetic coward' At this point he is just a senile old fool, pissing on the drapes and clogging up the toilet on the way out. [CBD]
$20 Billion Price Tag To Complete Development Of USAF's Next Generation Fighter
Maybe we can fund it by not sending any more money to Ukraine! [CBD}
The Internet Is Brutal. California Burnin' [dri]
Why does Microsoft, through its Bing browser think that this product should be advertised to me? [CBD]
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton discuss the Los Angeles fires and the culpability of the Democrat/Progressive complex, Deportation as a perfectly acceptable policy, and whether Carter was the worst president!
Thune: Hegseth has the votes to be confirmed SecDef
Also, Trump told two "no" votes on Johnson that they're "being ridiculous" and stepping all over the agenda that the country voted for. They changed their votes to "yes."
HISTORIC: Kamala Harris becomes the first woman of color to certify her own election loss before Congress

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Now Is the Winter of Our Discontent at January 06, 2025
Recent Comments
IRONGRAMPA: "So it appears that Russia is going to suffer uphea ..."

AltonJackson: " g'mornin', 'rons ..."

Village Idiot's Apprentice: "Looks like Wyze had their camera access portal go ..."

Alteria Pilgram - My President has convictions.: "Kevin O'Leary, one of the people from the Shark Ta ..."

Alteria Pilgram - My President has convictions.: "Microsoft 365 is going up 40% because of Copilot?! ..."

Aetius451AD: ""The law is due to go into effect tomorrow, but si ..."

Just Wondering : "Birdbath status? ..."

Village Idiot's Apprentice: "G'morning, all! 40.8 degrees, with rain startin ..."

Skip : "G'Day everyone I am not supposed to be up yet ..."

Puddleglum at work: "I'm going to wait for those 'Billionaires' to ban ..."

Rod Porkmore: "You have to buy it bunded with an SSD - it comes w ..."

Pixy Misa: "Congratulations! I take no responsibility for ads ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives