Iraq removes uranium left over from Saddam era (Fear Not People! Saddam Had No WMD! /s)

Reuters ^ | 7/7/2008 | reuters

[tobyhill]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's government has removed 550 tonnes of natural uranium left over from Saddam Hussein's era and sold it to a Canadian company, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The uranium, called yellowcake, had been stored in a compound at Tuwaitha, south of Baghdad, which was once the centre of Saddam's nuclear weapons programme.

A U.S. embassy spokeswoman confirmed the U.S. military helped safely ship the uranium out of the country.

"The Iraqi government decided to get rid of the uranium, which amounted to 550 tonnes, because of its potentially harmful affects on Iraq and the region and because it causes pollution," Dabbagh said on Iraqiya state television late on Sunday.

[tobyhill]

troll bait thread!

[djsherin]

Too bad they won’t talk about this in the MSM.

[Thommas]

Wait just a sec! Valerie Plame's hubby said there was no yellow cake. I think he wrote a book an the subject decrying the evil Bush administration's revenge on him for telling the "truth."

550 tonnes? woot...

[Sloth]

Well, 550 tons doesn’t really count, because it’s such a small amount.
< /sarc >

[tobyhill]

It wasn’t in a big pile so it’s not officially a stockpile.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Remember he didn’t want to use this yellow cake because the UN kept tabs on it. That is why Saddam sent his people to Niger to buy more.

[tobyhill]

It was in his country so he had it. The UN security mandate fell apart the moment Saddam kicked the UN out in 1998 and it left this stuff available for Saddam at will to use. The trip to Niger was because the UN at least had the knowledge of what he had but if he got 500 tons more the UN would have known nothing about that bunch.

[newfreep]

Rush mentioned in his opening segment this was found during the first Gulf War. Anyone else hear this or have info when the yellowcake was found? Does Martha Stewart have information?

[gogov]

Too bad they won’t talk about this in the MSM.

They did talk about it. They put it front page in our local paper. And isn't this a story by Reuters?

[Maverick68]

oooops.....

[djsherin]

They won’t talk about it like they did Anna Nicole Smith. That’s what I mean. I could be wrong, but I think they’ll mention it and continue as if it isn’t anything important. I remember a few years ago they found some old weapons that were classified as WMD’s but they were old and missing a firing mechanism or something like that (but probably usable when Sadam had been in power) and it was in the news for about a day. I just don’t have much faith in the media.

[gogov]

Yes, I knew what you meant. Sorry, I was not clear. I have the same reaction as you. When I saw the story I said, Hey, what's this? You mean Saddam actually had the stuff.

By the way, someone in the room said, "Bush planted it there to cover his butt." He was serious.

[djsherin]

No problem. I’m not totally convinced we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, but to deny that there were WMD’s and that we are making progress now with the surge would be blind idiocy. I’m not surprised someone would accuse Bush of planting though. It’s kind of funny.

[Steve Van Doorn]

thank you for pointing that out.

[tobyhill]

***I’m not totally convinced we should have gone to Iraq in the first place,***

13 to 16 violated UN resolutions, previous use of WMD, shooting at our jets patrolling the NFZ, failure to give us the whereabouts of our shot-down pilot from 10+ years earlier, etc, didn't quite convince you we should have gone there?

[djsherin]

I don’t care about anything the UN says. As far as I’m concerned, we have no constitutional authority to be in it or send it money and it by and large, it hasn’t done much in Iraq especially considering America’s burden. The use of WMD’s was of course abhorrent and I have always believed Sadam had them. But we can’t be expected to stop it all over the world. I didn’t know about our jets being shot at but for that I would have preferred something like a cruise missile on all of their air fields with a message from the president the next day asking Sadam to stop shooting at out jets. At the very least Congess should have delcared war as they are supposed to in the Constitution.

I’m not arguing in favor of withdrawal. We’re there so I don’t think it’s wise to pull out and leave a power vaccuum. All I’m saying is I have doubts about initially going in. It’s an irrelevant point though since we’re already there. I’m also not necessarily saying that we shouldn’t have gone in, just that I have some reservations. Especially about Congress not declaring war.

[tobyhill]

US jets return fire after Iraq missile attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/12/29/wirq29.html

Iraq says it will fire on ‘no-fly zone’ patrol jets
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/12/28/wirq28.html

Pilot believed alive, held in Iraq
http://home.att.net/~LIGWVets/shotdwn.htm

1991: Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm

Saddam threatens Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/956084.stm

BTW, Clinton tried to stop Saddam but he kept firing at our jets. Saddam was stupid and couldn't take a hint. In 1998 congress approved a resolution for regime change because Saddam couldn't take a hint but it was Clinton who used this resolution for show instead of implementation of it.

Please read the title,
http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS122/Iraq_War_Authorization.html

Congress did declare war whether they like it now or not but it sounds like you fell for the Libertarian Talking Points. The Constitution is clear about the branch that declares war and it's clear that congress did. Even if Congress claims it was only a Authorization for Force, the USSC has previously upheld that is the same thing as Declaration Of War. Congresses only option after a DOW is to not authorize funding if they wish to stop it.

[djsherin]

Okay, I see Iraq did indeed intend harm to US military personnel.

I guess my question would be what is an “Authorization of Force” or I suppose not WHAT it is but WHERE it is? (This isn’t me trying to be annoying, just thorough. Sorry if I come off that way). I can’t find the phrase in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has been known to err at times. I believe it made up the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade and it did at one point uphold segregation. Do you know when “Authorization of Force” started being used? I could just be ignorant of it, but I’m drawing blanks right now. As for Congress pulling funds from a war, I think that would be political suicide and I don’t believe it would ever happen. But those are just my thoughts.

Again this isn’t me trying ot be annoying. I’m just curious and you’ve provided good info so far. Thanks.

[tobyhill]

It's all basically semantics because there was case after case during Vietnam that claimed the President had no “Constitutional” right to go to war based on the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution but the USSC refused to hear it because it's an empty argument over the differences in Authorization To Use Force and War Declaration. In refusing to hear it they also upheld numerous lower court decisions that there is no difference just different language. The name is just the authorization, “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq” or if you like the actual title “Iraq War Resolution”.
Of all the conflicts there have only been 5 actual “Declaration of War” and the last one being WW2.

[tobyhill]

***Moreover, the term “Declaration of War” is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ...” without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are “Declarations of War.”***

Not much of a Wikihead but this is a pretty good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_Congress