Some Questions Obama and the Democrats need to answer


News today  is that the last of Uranium from Hussein’s (Saddam that is) stockpile has now made it to North America. Of course, you would be hard-pressed to understand the significance if you were only watching and reading the Main Stream Media.

A great summary of why the Iraq War has turned more positive than negative (if you are objective) can be found by Don Surber at the Daily Mail.

It got me to thinking about some questions I would like to ask the Democrats:

  1. For the last 5 years, we have heard a constant drumbeat about how we have lost the war and we need to get out, yet almost every indicator signals a victory.  How do you define “losing the war”? 
  2. If the war was fought for oil, then why are we pulling uranium out of Iraq instead of oil, especially at time when it could be aruged that more oil is greatly needed?
  3. Similarly, if the war was not fought because of Hussein’s WMD, then why are we pulling the last of his uranium stockpiles from Iraq this week?
  4. If the war had not been fought, do you think that uranium could very well be in the hands of terrorists today?
  5. Ok–if you don’t think we should have went to war—then if we had withdrawn troops before winning (as recommended by every Democrat leader I can think of including Obama, Pelosi, Reid…) can you explain to me how the uranium secured by our troops would not be in the hands of terrorists today?
  6. If the war is lost, then why is Al-Maliki declaring that Al-Qaeda, our enemy, has lost in Iraq?
  7. If George Bush is so stupid, then why do I feel safer knowing Al Qaeda is purged from Iraq, the uranium stockpiles are in safe hands, and Democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq?

More interesting reading on the positive news in Iraq:

Judgment on Iraq: Sorting right from wrong 

It Must Suck Being Joe Wilson Today

Yellowcake Uranium moved out of Iraq

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. News today is that the last of Uranium from Hussein’s (Saddam that is) stockpile has now made it to North America. Of course, you would be hard-pressed to understand the significance if you were only watching and reading the Main Stream Media.

    Well seeing that the yellowcake stuff was still sitting there in the same spot the UN left it, in the same leaky tupperware and everything, untouched, I’d say the significance was to further prove that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary.

  2. ChenZen,
    So your logic is you would still like to see the significant amount of yellowcake in tupperware still sitting in Iraq in the hands of a murderous dictator?

    Or since we did go to war and oust the murderous dictator, you would rather the yellowcake uranium stay there and drop into the hands of terrorists and/or Iran?

    I love it when I get to witness BDS, liberal logic first hand.

  3. Wait…I thought there were NO WMDs…this was all a fraud and a lie. I’m confused.

  4. 8. How do Democrats call themselves Americans while keeping a straight face? Oh wait … never mind. They’re Democrats.

  5. And yet–Dems are still saying, as Obama did yesterday, that the war was a “blunder.” I wonder if that Yellow Cake had ended up later as part of a nuclear bomb that Saddam used on Israel-if George 41 would have been blamed for the “blunder” of not finishing the job in the early 1990’s?

    Of course, my question is rhetorical.

  6. By the way ChenZen–it was TONS of Yellow Cake–not a little in some tupperware container.

  7. GBS- Yellowcake is not a WMD, and the 550 metric tons of it wasn’t why we went to war.

    sharprightturn- When in the context of a president that has had an approval rating in the 20’s since as long as I can remember, the pejorative ‘BDS’ certainly doesn’t sting too much. But since you brought up logic…

    The logic is that the yelowcake was effectively inventoried and sealed by the IAEA, so the fact that it was sitting there untouched and dormant for all those years discredits the notion that the yellowcake was “in the hands” of Saddam. Or to use an analogy, the cookie dough was locked in the closet, and he didn’t have an oven to bake it in if he wanted to. It was simply a remnant of his nuclear program from the 80’s, and until recently they felt it was better to let it sit there than risk moving it all. Sure, if given the choice, we’d have preferred it moved off of Iraqi soil. But given the logistics of that, I’m sure that the determination was made that IAEA control over it was the next best thing. And what I’m saying here is that strategy was obviously working.

    BTW- The argument I’m making here isn’t much different than what Capt Ed. has to say, and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that you’re not gonna call him a BDS sufferer.

    mklasing- I say tupperware not as indicative as an amount, rather a play on the “cake” and that it was sealed in containers.

  8. ChenZhen,

    I guess you would be a ‘WMD denier’.

    550 tons of it is one very large batch of nuclear Bisquick. Just because the uranium wasn’t (yet) processed into fissionable material doesn’t eliminate it as a threat. Maybe I can jog your memory about Saddam kicking the inspectors out of the country, including the IAEA folks, several times during the 90s and in the months leading up to the invasion. Kind of hard to keeps tabs on the ‘Tupperware’ when the inspectors aren’t allowed access to the site. Finally, we only know what was recovered, not what was there to begin with…

    Similarly, large stockpiles of precursors for chemical weapons were found, just not the loaded munitions themselves. Additionally, components for intermediate range missiles that Iraq wasn’t supposed to have were also located several years ago.

  9. Chen Zen,
    I don’t see on your link where Capt Ed said anything close to representing Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    I have, however, read some parts of your blog….If you don’t want to label it BDS, you can call it whatever you like.

    Bottom line, you think George Bush is a liar for invading a country based on intelligence that many Democrats and leaders around the world believed as well AND you see no reward in ridding Iraq of uranium because “Saddam didn’t have his hands on it” and Saddam is certainly to be trusted over Bush….

    But you seem to embrace Obama and think his associations with a racist pastor, domestic terrorist, and shady business man are just nothing to worry about.

    LIberal logic.

  10. One more thing…if you’re going to cherry pick with ‘CAPT Ed’ has to say, then so can I…I quote…

    “Brian Murphy follows a long tradition of getting this story completely wrong at the AP. Niger has four exports: uranium ore, livestock products, cowpeas, and onions. Wilson reported that the Prime Minister had been approached by an Iraqi group interested in secret negotiations for an export deal, and the PM didn’t think that the Iraqis wanted to secretly buy onions. Wilson reported back that Niger believed that the Iraqis had attempted to make a uranium purchase, but had refused their advances. This came out years ago in an investigative report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a report that the AP’s myriad of reporters still has managed to miss for three years.”

  11. GBS- Minor detail, but I don’t think you’re correct about Saddam “kicking the inspectors out”. See Operation Desert Fox

    sharprightturn-

    I have, however, read some parts of your blog….If you don’t want to label it BDS, you can call it whatever you like.

    Bottom line, you think George Bush is a liar for invading a country based on intelligence that many Democrats and leaders around the world believed as well AND you see no reward in ridding Iraq of uranium because “Saddam didn’t have his hands on it” and Saddam is certainly to be trusted over Bush….

    Not exactly. Simply put, Bush’s lie was the “hopefully no military action”, when he clearly had no other intention.

    But you seem to embrace Obama and think his associations with a racist pastor, domestic terrorist, and shady business man are just nothing to worry about.

    What can I say, I guess I’m not a guilt by association kinda guy. And I’m not alone, obviously, since people like Hannity have been shouting at the rooftops about it for months and can’t get too many people to pay attention.

  12. ChenZhen,

    You are seeing only what you want to see. Whether they were all physically kicked out the door by Saddam or withdrawn because Saddam wouldn’t allow them to do their jobs is picking nits…

    “The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today’s evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.”

    –Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

    ——————-
    This was not the first time inspectors had been forced to leave…example:

    November 14, 1997
    Web posted at: 10:10 p.m. EST (0310 GMT)
    BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Six Americans from the United Nations weapons inspection team arrived in Jordan early Friday after an overnight drive from Baghdad. The inspectors, expelled by Iraq on Thursday, were to continue on to Amman, Jordan’s capital.

    In response to the expulsion, the U.N. ordered the remaining 68 international inspectors out of the country. They flew from Baghdad to Bahrain Friday morning, a U.N. official said.

    —————
    Some thoughts from a bygone and apparently forgotten era…

    “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 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

    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.

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” 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.

    “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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

  13. ChenZen,
    You must have super powers….
    I am not sure how you know for a fact what Bush’s intentions were with Iraq. Or did he tell you?

    And I know plenty of people paying attention to Obama….I just think your Zen hasn’t quite “enlightened” you to that fact yet…..probably a symptom of too much MSM for you.

    As far as guilt by association….that’s sort of taking the “I dont’ want to hear what I don’t want to hear” view….you seem to know all about Bush’s intentions, but you are quick to write off Obama’s intentions when he associateswith/takes money from/gives money to/gains favor from some less-than-desirable characters.

  14. Chenzen, I don’t care if the yellowcake was in weapons grade state or not in weapons grade state the fact is he had 550 METRIC TONS!!!!! Whether he (Saddam) was going to make a Nuclear Power Plant or a Nuclear Bomb either way, a person of his track record does not need that kind of material for any purpose.

    Let’s just suppose that nothing ever happened in Iraq, what would have stopped Saddam from providing terrorist organizations with supplies of this material? I don’t care if it is non-weapons grade the stuff is STILL radio active and 550 METRIC TONS!?!?!?!?!?! I don’t blame all Democrats for this crazed view that people with BDS have. Not all Democrats feel the same way the whacko Liberal Leftist radicals feel. Get over it… Bush DIDN’T LIE! A lie, by definition is (as defined by Websters) with n: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

    Seems to me if he was “Lying” then he was just proven correct….. Therefore he didn’t lie now did he?

  15. Thank you all for answering some of my questions. I wish the fact that there was 550 tons of yellowcake (a certainly potential WMD) in Iraq all this time would be made more of an issue.

    I am more interested in Bush’s being exonerated before the election than I am concerned over who will be our next president. Whoever it is had better be prepared to accept the fact that thanks to our maverick, the next guy will have a hard act to follow when Iraq is a sovereign, oil producing ally.

    The Washington circus needs to stay focused on our true enemies, some of which are Americans who would sell out democracy under the banner of their race, gender or even political party.

  16. Vote….

    The Washington circus needs to stay focused on our true enemies, some of which are Americans who would sell out democracy under the banner of their race, gender or even political party.

    Well Said!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: