Liberal reader does his news homework
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Edwin E. Powell
Published: August 13, 2008
Mr. Ord O. Ely should be commended for conducting research before writing his opinion letter to the newspaper (“President Bush’s decision was justified,” Aug. 11).
Unfortunately, Mr. Ely should be more thorough in his research before he draws the conclusions that he did in his letter, which is parroting a right-wing blog on the Internet.
First, the 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” uranium that was shipped from Iraq to Canada dates back to 1981, when the Israeli Air Force bombed the Tuwaitha nuclear reactor site near Baghdad.
According to Associated Press reporting, the “yellowcake” has been stored in Iraq since that time and was subsequently securely sealed by United Nations Weapons Inspectors following the 1991
Persian Gulf War.
Since Iraq had no reactor after the Israeli bombing raid, they had no use for the “yellowcake,” which would not even be suitable, according to AP for use in a so-called “dirty bomb.”
Thus, the “yellowcake” which Canada recently purchased and shipped had been in Iraq for more than 27 years and under UN seal for 17 years since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Right wing blogs, like Mr. Ely, have tried to confuse the public by claiming this justifies Bush’s invasion, but http://www.Factcheck.com says it best, “Uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada was left over
from Saddam Hussein’s defunct nuclear weapons program and had been in sealed containers, under guard, since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Claims that this material is “vindication” for
President Bush’s WMD claims in 2003 are completely false.”
That, Mr. Ely, is thorough research by a “liberal” who has done his homework and cited his sources.
EDWIN E. POWELL
Woodbridge
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on August 14, 2008 at 7:11 pm
willow, congress acted on the information provided by the Bush Administration - the “agency” in charge of deciding what covert information can be released. Had Bush told congress most of it was a pack of lies designed to back his dream, I’m some would have changed their vote. You know, Democrats lack that 20/20 future vision Republicans have ...
And, do you really want a leader that acts out of “frustration”? Not me. I want a leader that is not an alcholic -however dry he may claim to be - that can exhibit sound judgement.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on August 14, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Godsaveus, Saddam was struggling to keep the lights on in Bagdad. He strutted about talking big like a poker player with a pair of twos. Sanctions were working to the degree of keeping him in check.
No one could see the attack of Sept 11th coming but now all you Republicans can see the future of what “would have been” with 20/20 vision? Give me a break. When Bush farts you all clap and rate the performance a “10”. This country needs a change in direction. We have Obama and McSame to choose from. I’m going with Obama - not as my first pick but as my best available pick.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on August 14, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Well by golly Ron, that explains it!
If your friend leaves a door ding in your car, go kick in someone elses fender. Makes perfect sense to me.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Sammy B ) on August 14, 2008 at 11:59 am
Let’s assume, G-dsaveus, for the sake of argument, that the sanctions against someone as internationally reviled as Saddam would not have been renewed and everything you say in your comment were to take place. All that yellowcake was unenriched, leaving Saddam years away from even a radiological “dirty bomb,“ let alone actual nuclear weapons. Had we not invaded in 2003, the scenario I see is one in which an unencumbered military completes the rout of the Taliban, pacifies Afghanistan completely, and possibly even catches Osama bin Laden. Furthermore, we retain the international post-9/11 goodwill that we squandered in Iraq and are able to use this diplomatic strength to better contain Iran and North Korea, both of which are far greater threats to international security than Iraq was in 2003. I grant that removing Saddam was a good thing but for better or worse (mostly worse), we have created regime changes without direct invasion before. An intelligent administration would have found a way to do so in Saddam’s case.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( phdee ) on August 14, 2008 at 11:43 am
You folks should be kind to Mr. Ely. As a frequent writer to the newspaper, he always displays ignorance - he may have mental deficiencies. Always far out and nonsensical.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 14, 2008 at 11:14 am
Ray,
We attacked Iraq as retaliation for Saudi Arabia’s 9/11 for the same reason, back in 1983, that President Reagan invaded Grenada as retaliation for our Marine Barracks full of Marines being blown up in Saudi Arabia.
Because we could; and because Saudi Arabia is our “Friend” and sells us lots of oil at full market price.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Godsaveus ) on August 14, 2008 at 8:51 am
Let us assume that, instead invade Iraq, President Bush let the UNSCOM inspectors continue, and after two years they found nothing—and the sanctions were lifted. We would have Saddam Hussein still ruling Iraq, all of this uranium already on hand, and now substantial monetary resources from being able to fully sell his oil. About now, the Democratic candidate would be yelling about how President Bush had neglected his responsibilities, and how Iraq was moving toward obtaining nuclear weapons. I also believe it is way too naive to think being under IAEA safeguard really means “safe”. First, Saddam continually defied the IAEA as it was; that was a reason for multiple UN resolutions to sanction him. Second, the IAEA got what little respect it did from Saddam because the U.S. was backing it up with about 150,000 troops on the ready nearby. Third, Saddam was using oil-for-food money to bribe away the sanctions and inspection regime (see the Duelfer Report). Fourth, why didn’t the IAEA make Saddam get rid of it? In short, the IAEA was no guarantee that Saddam would keep his hands off that stockpile in the near future, or that he was keeping away from it even then.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on August 14, 2008 at 7:32 am
Unfortunately, the members of Congress didn’t do their “homework” before giving President Bush the authority to do what he did.
I believe that President Bush acted out of frustration as much as a belief that Iraq was building nuclear weapons.
The world has no way to control the actions of nations like Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, Iran, China & the new Soviet Union.
Thus, leaders act out of frustration. The Georgeo-Soviet conflict is an example. The Soviets, unilaterally, put
“peace keepers” in South Ossetia to protect Russians; made citizens of the new Soviet Union by the issuance of passports.
The President of Georgia, frustrated by the UN’s failure to treat the Soviet Union as it treats Israel, sent troops to remove the illegal “peace keepers” & regain control of its’ sovereign territory. The Soviet Union sent in troops to protect its’ “citizens” in South Ossetia & , tangentally, its’ “citizens” in Abkhazia.
The Soviets sent in a force overwhelmingly superior to any a nation of 4.6 million people could muster. No one at the UN, or elsewhere, has said “boo!“ about the “disproportional use of force” by the Soviet Union; but, of course, they’re not Jews.
Liberals & conservatives, worldwide, need to do some home-work & come up with effective means of dealing with the new Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, etc.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on August 14, 2008 at 4:54 am
Mr. Bush was justified in invading Iraq after our nation was attacked by terrorists on September 11th by, by, by ..... oh, wait… we were NOT attacked by Iraqis but by Saudis. So why in the heck did we invade Iraq in our War on Terror and not Saudi Arabia? Oh yea, because Bush is good friends with our invaders.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 14, 2008 at 4:43 am
Mr. Powell,
Very nice work. Thank you.
Report Inappropriate Comment