Digg

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

U.S. Removes Uranium From Iraq

abcnews.go.com — The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

Bury

MookiBlaylock 55 days ago

116 diggs
digg it

jockser, on 07/05/2008, -10/+16Here is your ***** WMD proof.
- cquinnd, on 07/06/2008, -14/+6Not. Read the article please.
  - captric, on 07/06/2008, -5/+13This stuff is incredibley dangerous even if it is not refined into weapons grade. Would you want a barrel full of this stuff to be blown into the air in your neighborhood?????
NotedFuturist, on 07/05/2008, -11/+18The arrogant, cynical, big mouthed BushHaters acted as if they had all clairvoyant intelligence information from CNN, ABC, and HUFFPOST.

Sometimes, secrecy is necessary. There are more secrets that they don't know.

This will NEVER reach Digg front page.
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3I hope it DOES reach the front page, just to show how much of a knee-jerk partisan shill you are.
  
  These are materials which were under UN lock and key (or at least seals, cameras, and inspections) since 1991. They have no relevance whatsoever to the claims made the the Bush administration in 2002-2003.
  - NotedFuturist, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3Saddam threw the inspectors out, several times.
    Your belief in a "lock and key" under UN is a joke, and was demonstrated as such by Saddam.
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1"Saddam threw the inspectors out, several times."
    
    Okay, you know what, I could call ***** on that in so many ways, but let's keep this on-topic, shall we?
    
    I want yout to tell me exactly when Saddam "threw out" inspectors or otherwise denied them from being able to inspect the stockpile we are talking about, which would be the Tuwaitha facility.
    
    Go on, prove what said.
captric, on 07/06/2008, -5/+18Another score for the good guys. Yellow cake is dangerous even if it need to be more refined to be turned into a true nuclear weapon. It can easily be turned into a pretty nasty dirty bomb. This is another example of what the US Intelligence community is all about! The big bad CIA and NSA - savings the lives of absolute dip-***** while appearing to be incompetent because of the secrecy involved in operations like this. All you dope smoking diggers should get down on your knees and thank the US government for saving your sorry illiterate asses from a dirt bomb or worse!
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Read the article please. You have deluded yourself once again.
NuclearDruid, on 07/06/2008, -0/+13Well, if it's going to hit front page, it should be very soon, but I won't keep my hopes up on it.
As far as the article goes, yeah, people here on digg are pretty unaware of the actual bad that happens in the middle east, other than the war. They close their eyes to what happens in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, or any other country for that matter if it would mean a longer war. It's why we generally only see one wave-length of articles getting dugg up. To each their own mindset, I suppose. As long as people don't use digg as their only news source.
cppwizard, on 07/06/2008, -2/+12550 tons of Yellow Cake? Hey Joe and Valerie... What do you have to say about that?
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1You might want to RTFA next time, or at least look at more than the very first page.
  
  >>> "Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
  
  This stuff was KNOWN about before the 2003 invasion and and is a stockpile that was long-ago effectively confiscated from Saddam, a full decade before Bush's plans to invade.
Troika37, on 07/06/2008, -4/+11We know that this can’t be possible. Bush lied, of course, and the Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. Saddam had no intention of building nuclear weapons. It was all a bluff to deter the American war machine and placate his unruly generals who wished to usurp his peaceful and benevolent rule.
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1RTFA. This is a stockpile that was sealed by the UN in 1991.
xGORDOx, on 07/06/2008, -2/+13Yellow cake with some whip cream and strawberries, mmmmm.
Can I continue to be oblivious to reality or do I have to actually face the fact that Bush and Cheney didn't lie about Saddam having a nuke program?
Yea, where is Joe Wilson now?
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1RTFA. This is a stockpile that was sealed by the UN in 1991, and has no bearing whatsoever on Bush's pre-war claims.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Wrong Terr, I suggest you research more background knowledge on Saddam on the UN
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Druid, do you think you could give more of a real rebuttal than "Nuh UH! You don't know stuff!"?
    
    The core points you have not refuted:
    
    A) This stockpile is from 1991, and as such has no bearing on pre-war claims.
    B) It has no bearing on the Wilson/Niger controversy.
    C) While it was geographically in Iraq, UN (and through that, the threat of NATO intervention) was denying Saddam unfettered access to it.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Sorry Terr,
    The stockpile is indeed from 1991, around the time it was surveyed by the UN. The stockpile is no WMD, it's certainly access to one, and the world would have known had Saddam tried to touch it. It has bearing on bushes claims, but very minute, as it would have risked war with NATO for Iraq. This was all I was trying to refute
    
    As for Wilson, I wasn't specific enough, I wasn't refuting that. I'm well aware.
    
    The third point, I know.
    
    I didn't mean to come off as some rightard. I'm sorry
- NotedFuturist, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1"...the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill."
  
  http://www.slate.com/id/2103795
  http://digg.com/politics/Whoops_Iraq_was_trying_to ...
AAK15, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3Given to Canada?!
- Judasmac, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5FTA: "The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors."
AaronS2000, on 07/06/2008, -6/+7FTA : "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

I will not be surprised if this is used as the WMD evidence in a few months.

Wow, I can't believe these people above me are getting dugg up. Did anyone read the article?
- Judasmac, on 07/06/2008, -5/+5Diggers don't read articles. They digg them. Good catch.
  
  But have pity on them. These guys have been bombarded for five years with accusations that Iraqi WMD programs were a fiction created by GWB. This is 550 metric tons of reminder that even the far more dangerous nuclear program was very real. And I think you're wrong that "this will be used as the WMD evidence in a few months." I myself wouldn't be surprised if this was the last we heard of this. This news is almost a day old. Has any other major US cite reported on it? (Not sure exactly what "AP exclusive" means here. No other reporters pursued the story?)
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1Well, considering similar news about the same cache was "used as WMD evidence" in the past.
    
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm
    
    I see no reason for the same types of people to repeat their intentional lies or unintentional deception in the future.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2That's a hell of a lot of accusation coming from you Terr, considering you have no evidence of this what-so-ever.
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1You mean, evidence that certain morons used it as "OMG TEH WMD" back then? Now you're just being knee-jerk contrarian. That's easy enough to find, and I don't know what kind of cheap points you thought you could score by asking.
    
    Remember this?
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/artic ...
    
    Or maybe this?
    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2005/11/09/is-it-ti ...
    
    Seriously, Druid... While I didn't provide links, I expected you would have remembered that particular hullabaloo.
    
    Hell, even the National Review did it:
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2FkMWJhOTQ0N ...
    See where that last bullet point mentioning "1.77 metric tons" of low-grade stuff? THAT'S THE SAME 1991-era STOCKPILE!
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1The point I wanted to pull out: "I see no reason for the same types of people to repeat their intentional lies or unintentional deception in the future." Sorry for not specifying again, I've not been home in a while, though I know that's no excuse.
    
    I would rather not be associated with the heavy right-wing crowd of people as they are completely out of their heads. I never recall any of that happening back then (as far as people screaming WMD goes). I knew there were amounts that had dissapeared, but never went on to ***** blogs such as those to even know there was such a 'hullabaloo'.
    
    I believe you now if more amounts are found, the whole cycle will begin again of WMD claiming. I was wrong for thinking there was no ***** being sung about this in the past, I really should have known better about it... or maybe it's better that I never knew about it at all. I can't stand reading heavy-right-wing (and equally heavy-left-wing) blogs. They're the most biased things you can find.
- NotedFuturist, on 07/06/2008, -5/+8He had 550 metric tons of yellowcake. It was there in Saddam's control the whole time. It's not like it was gone after 1991... What is your point?
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3>>> "It was there in Saddam's control the whole time."
    
    Wrong. Where are you getting your news?
    
    This stuff was under UN seal since 1991. The only disruption of those monitorings and inspections came when we invaded.
  - NotedFuturist, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5You're completely wrong. Saddam threw out the UN several times after 1991. Their seals are worthless when they aren't even in the same country.
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Again, show me the proof instead of just repeating the talking point. While Saddam may have denied them from certain palaces, he did not disrupt the monitoring of the stockpile in question.
- AaronS2000, on 07/06/2008, -5/+2My point is that it seems that everyone here wants to make the false assumption that the yellowcake that we knew Sadaam had from before 1991 is the same yellowcake that Mr. Wilson was investigating. It's just not true. Of course it's not a good thing that this was left in the ground, but it's not the WMD that George W. Bush was telling everyone about. If anything, it will bring up the fact that our troops are over there sitting in piles of "yellowcake" and getting who knows what cancers from them. It's a sad story and there have been no benefits. No oil (which was promised) for the countless lives and dollars wasted, a terrible world reputation, and all the administration wants to do is try as hard as possible to repair their reputation and legacy. They will spin this misleading headline for their benefit just like the countless posters before my original post.
  - NotedFuturist, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Looks like Iraq and others were trying to buy yellowcake in Niger, and Wilson missed it.
    
    http://digg.com/politics/Whoops_Iraq_was_trying_to ...
    
    http://www.slate.com/id/2103795
- NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3They're getting dugg up because yellow cake is dangerous, whether or not it was going to be used for some other reason. That cannot be proven nor disproven, but it is a dangerous substance none-the-less. This is not the only thing that Iraq was capable of having/already had. We gave Iraq chemical weapons back when we established it with a figurehead, and while it came back to bite us in the ass, at least we did something about it now, instead of letting other people deal with the mess we already created.
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3I wouldn't be surprised. News about this confiscated stockpile was already being used as *cough* "evidence" *cough* of WMDs.
  
  There was news about this same UN-sealed stockpile back in 2004 and a lot of morons were screaming "OMG WE FOUND TEH WMD" back then.
  
  Now we've just got an update on the same stuff and they're back to incoherently spouting blatantly false talking points and totally ignoring all the details which destroy their claims.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Your post is full of evidence and proof.
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1I've responded to your substance-less knee-jerk contrarianism in other threads, Druid.
JimmySpaza, on 07/06/2008, -8/+8Iraq had WMDs. Eat it, you lying liberals!!! Now, how many leftwing wackos on Digg will spew forth lying garbage and liberal propoganda in a feeble attempt to say that they are wrong?

Joe and Valerie Plame, you suck and are lying liars. Keith Olbermann, you are a proven liar. Huffington Post and MoveOn.org are lying liars.

This simply confirms what DEMOCRATS said:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -5/+4Hey, it's Incoherent Talking Points Man!
  
  >>> "Iraq had WMDs. Eat it, you lying liberals!!! Now, how many leftwing wackos on Digg will spew forth lying garbage and liberal propoganda in a feeble attempt to say that they are wrong?"
  
  Wall-Of-Misleading-Quotes aside... If this gets to the front page it'll just show how much of a doofus you are.
  
  This yellowcake (not WMDs) in Iraq was under UN seal since 1991. RTFA. It was known, it was kept OUT of Saddam's hands, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Bush's claims in 2003 about Iraq seeking *more* yellowcake etc.
  - NotedFuturist, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3UN WAS NOT IN CONTROL IN IRAQ.
    
    Saddam threw them out repeatedly, each time he did so, he proved the worthlessness of the UN "seal".
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2You're totally missing the point.
    
    This has NOTHING to do with whether or not the UN *controlled Iraq*.
    
    This is about them having monitoring and seals on those facilities. Whatever else Saddam did or did not do, he could not disturb those seals or have any access to the yellowcake without either international knowledge or approval!
    
    As for implying Saddam "threw out inspectors" from his country... Please be more specific. Inspectors left Iraq at various times, but in each case only because the US was about to bomb something.
    
    The facilities and seals in question were not disturbed nor were inspectors denied access to them.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3The UN isn't nearly as influential or powerful as people would like to think. . . again Terr, I'm not sure where you're reading up on how Saddam had this kind of relation with the UN, but with all the books I've read on the middle east, all the news articles, this is simply not that case... at all... whatsoever.
  - Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1"again Terr, I'm not sure where you're reading up on how Saddam had this kind of relation with the UN"
    
    Uhm...Did you RTFA? You claim you did, but somehow missed the following paragraph?
    >>> "Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. "?
    
    Really, this is history-book stuff.
    http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html
    Hint: The IAEA is a subset of the UN.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Forgive me Terr, I misinterpreted your message that the UN had an actual hold on the yellow cake rather than just inspecting/surveying. I know about the IAEA and their role in Iraq prior to the 2nd invasion.
czeman, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7I call *****. If CNN says Bush lied, then Bush lied. CNN is our friend. /sarcasm
DanThePainter, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Even if the DemocRats succeed in pulling us out of Iraq before the Iraqi government can fully stand up to the insurgents, this is 550 metric tons of dangerous stuff that won't get into the wrong hands and wind up scattered over innocents. This stuff is in good hands making clean energy.
yellowcakewalk, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3Who actually read the article?

-->
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
- NuclearDruid, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2I did, every single word. That quote you pulled out doesn't change the fact that they had it for this long (And the fact that they still had this much). The UN can make mistakes, too. And they do many times.
  
  What part of the article don't you understand to only believe that one paragraph of text, it would totally make the rest of the article irrelevant.
- Terr01, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Druid, that one paragraph *does* make the rest of the article irrelevant, at least for everyone who is trumpeting it as some sort of false Bush-claims vindication.
  - NuclearDruid, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I agree those claiming that this is full WMD proof are a little over their heads on this. It never changes the matter that at any point some kind of program could have started to further develop with the yellow cake, I don't think Saddam would have been dumb enough to do it, but the fact of the matter is, is that he could have.
  - Terr01, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1In political realities, he could not have. It's rather telling that of all the things the Bush administration accused or implied Saddam was doing, reopening Tuwaitha or pilfering from this sealed stockpile was NOT one of them.
- cppwizard, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Seriously Yellowcake... Who really cares what you think?
OohChit, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4It doesn’t have much value without a cascade of centrifuges to enrich it.. Which they didn't have.

The uranium was sealed by the IAEA after the FIRST invasion of Iraq.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

U.S. Removes Uranium From Iraq

Login or register to add a comment