Search This Blog

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Who Lied about Saddam's WMD's

Simple question.

Did President Bush make up a story about Saddam' wanting to acquire yellowcake uranium for his nuclear program?

Conventional wisdom assumes that he did in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq.

Did Saddam Hussein have any WMD's or materials for making WMD's?

Conventional wisdom says no! Saddam was simply tired of all those pesky weapons inspectors and there really wasn't anything dangerous in Iraq any more.

The truth, it turns our is somewhat different. In a July 5, 2008 story in the Associated Press and printed in the archives of none other than MSNBC and CBS ( ) is this delightful story that got zero coverage in the media. Had it been a story about how Bill Clinton had saved the free world by bombing a Sudanese aspirin factory, it would have been top news for a week. Instead they buried it.

So what's the story? The United States in June 2008 removed 3500 barrels (that's 550 metric tons for those of you who are counting) of yellowcake uranium from a secret storage facility in Iraq.

Why did the President keep it a secret when telling about it would have helped him politically?

Well, they couldn't get it our of Iraq because no one wanted it transported through their country. So we kept it's existence secret till we moved it out so that terrorists in Iraq wouldn't know it was there and attempt to take it.

There are a couple of conclusions you sorta have to come to.

1. Saddam did have materials for weapons of mass destruction. Stick yellowcake in a SCUD and blow it up and voila' you have what's known in the terrorist world as a "dirty bomb" - the holy grail of Al Quaeda. Boy howdy would they have loved having this one.

2. George W. Bush was right about the danger posed by Saddam. He had at the very least the capacity to produce dirty bombs. Anyone believe he wouldn't have developed (or at least tried to develop) actual nukes if we'd simply left him alone for the past 5 years? Anyone believe he wouldn't have shared that sort of stuff with the same terrorists that his own former ministers claim he had dealings with? Remember he was paying cash rewards to the families of terrorists who blew themselves up in Israel.

Now, the same guys that have repeatedly said, "Bush lied" and there were no "WMD's" even after 550 TONS of proof showed up in Canada last summer want to be elected to run the country. They say, "Iran is only a little bitty country and not a threat." They say, "If we just reduce our military so that we're no longer a threat, then the world will love us again." Want to bet whether or not they are right?

The same guys that for the past 8 years have been saying that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in splendid shape and told Presiden Bush that we didn't need to do anything about the subprime mortgage problems when he warned them about it want you to give them a whole bunch of money and supreme power to "fix" the economy.

The same guys that have been in control of the Congress for almost 2 years, during which time, the U.S. economy has taken a nose dive into the dumpster, want you to give them a super majority and the White House so they can really fix things up!

ARE YOU PEOPLE NUTS! These people are not your friends. I'm not sure they're even real people. I'm not sure but I think wherever they came from, there were pods involved....

I'm just sayin'

Tom King


Anonymous said...

Don't be ignorant. Do a tiny bit of research before you blog. This yellow cake is from Saddam's 1980's nuclear program that mostly ended when the Israeli's blew up their reactor and was completely shut down after the first Gulf War.

The UN then had control of this yellow cake until just before the start of the second war with Iraq when they had to scoot out rather quickly. Why it was never transfered out in that long time period would be a good thing to investigate.

In any case, Bush was claiming that Saddam had started a NEW nuclear program, or at least was developing WMDs. This has nothing to do with that claim.

Tom King said...

Ordinarily I don't okay anonymous posts, especially when there is name-calling involved. I understand the 550 tons of it was left from before. However, knowing he had all that, knowing he tried to get the centrifuges he needed to refine it to weapons grade, knowing the man was a genocidal maniac, when he threw out the weapons inspectors and violated the cease fire treaty and scared the crap out of everyone (including liberal Democrats), it made sense to take him out once and for all. Throughout the aftermath of the war (once he was conveniently eliminated so that he couldn't trouble a new Democrat president) the accusation was that Saddam was harmless and wasn't interested in developing WMD's anymore. Just the fact that he had 3500 barrels of radioactive material, to my way of thinking was sufficient reason to take him out.

It just seems incredible to me that Democrats and their anti-war supporters talk about Saddam like he wasn't a threat. He was. He was a threat to his own people (he was busily murdering them in batches), to his neighbors (he'd already tried to run over Kuwait), to the world's oil supply (yes it was a war partially over oil and I don't have a problem with that because the world needs oil. Without it economies collapse, people starve, other people go to war against you when they think you are weak).

Should we go to war over the security of the oil supply in the middle east? Hell no!!!

Unfortunately, the US Congress is busily meddling in the economy and not only set us up to be dependent on oil in the first place, but also is keeping us dependent on foreign oil by refusing to let us drill for domestic supplies so we can let the Middle East blow itself jolly well to hell!

Yet, I'm ignorant simply because I don't agree with the liberal fairy story about how the world works (the magical power of diplomacy and the philosophy of making people good simply by passing laws that tell them how to be good and by getting rid of all those pesky freedoms in that outdated constitution and bill of rights of ours.

Anonymous said...


Great analysis, but liberals do not like to be confused with facts. It's much easier to print bumper stickers that say "Bush lied, people died." Facts such as those you cite get in the way of that. They also don't like to be reminded of the fact that the Democrats in Congress had access to the same intelligence and reached the same conclusions as the Bush Administration did a few years ago. They like to delude themselves into thinking that the embarrassing chest beating that the libs in Congress were engaged in occurred only because the evil genius, Bush, was able to trick them into thinking that Saddam had WMD's. (Ironic isn't it, that the man the libs like to portray as a bumbling idiot is the same man they claim concocted a far reaching conspiracy to deceive them?)

And yes, the liberals are quite nuts. I read a few comments yesterday from libs who were espousing as how Obama's associations with people like Ayres, Wright, Rezko, Khalid, et. al. were of absolutely no concern to them. They just want "change". It matters not to them that the last time a major industrialized western nation elected a largely unknown charismatic "leader" with a frighteningly thin resume was Germany in the 1930's. The Germans got their "change". I join you in your hope that the American left doesn't get theirs on Tuesday.

Miami Dan