Take two: What Happened to the looted iraqi nuke material?

I guess I gotta re-review the rules. Old habits die hard.
that thing was locked before I could fix it! Glad you guys are on the case.

WHAT HAPPENED TO LOOTED IRAQI NUKE MATERIAL?


Brett Wagner's excellent piece on the Bushco malfeasance in USA today. Good example of how BUSHCO is actually making things more dangerous for us.

Brett Wagner is running against neocon drone Elton Gallegly for congress in our So Cal district.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-05-wagner_x.htm

"A great irony, however, seems to have gotten lost in that debate: As a direct result of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq without sufficient forces to secure and protect its nuclear research and storage facilities from rampant looting, enough radioactive material to build scores of dirty bombs now is missing and may be on its way to the international black market....

before the wmd's fall into the hands of terrorist's.

Crap!

Seriously, I have been worried about this since very early in the war. The fact that the US didn't secure that material *before* they secured oil facilities speaks volumes about what this war's purpose really was.

It's such a GIMMEE. Bushco makes the world less safe from terrorists through direct action/inaction.

a number of great ironies seem to have been lost in the debate. One of them being the current going line of the more progressive DU'ers that the invasion of Iraq was formulated on a complete lie. Missing radioactive material seems to suggest that WMD isn't as hard to find in Iraq as those who completely opposed the war suggested. Can you see the irony and the fault in logic? If there is missing radioactive material then the WMD premise of the war is back on track. To indulge even in the argument of whether the war caused radioactive material to be looted seems rather to support the premise of the war, which is that material for WMD's exist in Iraq. One cannot have it both ways, arguing that the war was formed on a lie and then arguing that the war caused nuclear material to be dispersed. If as Democrats we are going to argue that nuclear material being looted was an undesirable side effect of the war, we are tacitly admitting that the war was not fought under false pretenses.
This is the same flawed logic that had some less thoughtful DU'ers opposing, simultaneously, the sanctions on Iraq as well as the war on Iraq. I opposed the sanctions, too. But as an opponent of the sanctions I understood that the only way sanctions could be lifted was if Saddam were removed.
One cannot have it both ways. The same holds true with the missing nuclear materials. Which is it going to be DU'ers?

The type of material that existed in Iraq was useless in weaponry. It hadn't been processed. You gave it a try, though. ;^)

then why is it of any value on the black market? good try though.

A true WMD, a fission bomb, is highly destructive. It requires enriched uranium, which is not what was stolen. This is what the WH claimed Iraq was working on. They were wrong.

Now, terrorists would have no problems with putting together a dirty bomb -- which would be useful for them. Probably most nations on earth could make a dirty bomb in a few months. However, such bombs are nearly useless in a military conflict. They make no more blast than whatever explosive is used. They merely spread the radioactive material over a relatively small area.

ANY radiological material is valuable on the black market. It's kinda hard if you're a terrorist to root about at the power stations looking for spent fuel.

This is from a reich-wing site:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

Bush's case for war was built on lies. Any DU in Iraq was unlikely to be ready to be used in weapons anytime soon. One would think the US would be more thorough in seizing it because now it could end up in the hands of terrorists who are likely more capable of makin good use of it than Saddam was.

Would be interested in your thoughts on the article. I enjoy your thoughtful posts.

Julie

Julie,

I read that article. thank you. I found something that seems to contradict the going line though

<snip>

"In the glaring absence of any hard proof of either those alleged weapons or al-Qaida links. . ."

<snip>

does missing radioactive material constitue an "alleged weapon"? i think it does. So is there a glaring absence of hard proof about the existence of WMD? Only if you're willing to stick to the line that WMD had nothing to do with the war at all, but even then you contradict yourself.
I am not defending Bush, what I'm doing is trying to prevent DU'ers from falling into the reich-wing trap of arguing that the war caused the dispersal of radioactive materials, because once they do that they agree with the premise of the war.

...between radioactive material and WMD. How cute!

An "alleged weapon"? No. The potential to become a weapon, yes.

Team Bush tried to build the case that Saddam had weapons that were ready to go, hence the sense of urgency they worked real hard to portray. They threw in mention of Uranium for colour, as it were.

And of course dear Condor's line about the "mushroom cloud", that was a real kicker.

They talked about chemical and biological weapons a lot. Of course we knew Saddam had had such things, for one reason Ameircan companies hold the bill of lading....here is fun link regarding what all we sold to the wretched dictator:

http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

Of course there is the evidence of the mass graves from teh uprising in the north, the one we incited at the end of Gulf War I. The irony of the Freepers' dismay and outrage at those mass graves when Jr's daddy had such a big hand it was overwhelming.

And while the yellow-cake from Niger story was a pack of lies even if it had been true there are no facilites in Iraq to actually achieve the potential weapon, not to mention, throughout the rush to war I never heard mention of delivery systems.

I see no contradiction in worrying about the location of material that can be refined into nuclear weapons (and sold on the black market to those better equipped to make it so) and the assertion that there were no WMDs.

Julie

<snip>

"I see no contradiction in worrying about the location of material that can be refined into nuclear weapons (and sold on the black market to those better equipped to make it so) and the assertion that there were no WMDs".

Julie

<snip>

I can see where you're coming from, but now you've done a 180. Bush's "reason" for going to Iraq was the same as yours. "Worrying about the location of material that can be refined into nuclear weapons". So now you have come into full agreement with Bush. Now you see the contradiction, dontcha?

AS I said, Saddam didn't have the ability to anytime soon turn that material into weapons grade stuff. You must have seen the CIA report in the first article I posted that said Saddam wouldn't even be a problem unless we attacked. Even then their concern wasn't nukes.

In other words, it was relatively safe with Saddam. I mean at least we knew its whereabouts right? Sans the ability to do anything with it anytime soon, that is a toothless dog. Now it's on the black market I would guess and easily accessed by who-knows-who.

I am not in agreement with Bush. I didn't think Iraq was a threat and now everyone else should know that too. Of course since we did such a sloppy job securing anything but the Ministry of Oil and the Interior that material is likely in much more capable and dangerous hands.

I see no contradiction still. Am I a special kind of stupid or are you seeing something that isn't there? :shrug:

Julie

you understand the issue thoroughly. I think we agree on 99% of the issue. You may call it seeing something that isn't there, but I was initially responding to the post that was concerned with radioactive materials falling into the wrong hands. I believed the post to be tinged with contradiction.

Am I saying that Bush is not a liar? Absolu-u-tely Not. I cannot stress this enough.

I suppose i just found this post interesting tucked away amongst tons of "There are no WMD in Iraq" posts. This one was kind of like "Well, Now There Aren't WMD in Iraq and its Cause of Bush!" Behavior which reminded me of the Newt Gingrich era, the dawn of american conservatism, which I found to be deliciously cynical.

All of the material was well known and accounted for by UN weapons inspectors. It was sealed and safeguarded up until the invasion. You can read more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=476777

was there in Iraq--yes. BUT it was known and monitored by the UN inspectors. They had it under control before the US invaded. After the invasion, the site was left open to looters who even dumped some of the yellowcake just to get the barrels. Serious danger to the villagers. And, yes, eventually, probably some found its way to the black market. But none of this was a danger before the US invaded. There is no "contradition."

The fallacious argument above indicates how easy it is to want to see something that isn't there.

The material in question was for use in power plants and radiological medical devices. It waslisted on every UN manifest.

This does NOT minimize the danger if approporated and used with TNT to form a dirty bomb.

The ease with which this could have been protected, and was NOT , shows the rank incompetence of the ideologues in the White House.

Unless they WANTED this to fall into the wrong hands to enhance their very successful scare America campaign. It almost seems so.

You said it better than me! No fair!!!

in the backyard..want to buy some? two for one sale...who knows where the stuff is ,looks like they don`t care,does it....

Iran and N. Korea, I guess we'll never know, will we?

Can you say Adnan Khashoggi?