Reply #14: Cold water

[lapfog_1]

When I saw the first thread on this last night, I freaked too.

But today, I started thinking...

Iraq didn't have a weapons program according to both CIA and IAEA
inspectors. The most recent IAEA reports says that Iraq had no
material other than that used for medical and agriculture
(non proscribed) purposes. It doesn't mention any power plants or
research reactors. Might Iraq have some amount of "yellow cake"?
Yes, quite possibly, although as we now know that Niger was certainly
not the source nor were there attempts to purchase yellow cake from
there. So what facilities is the Guardian article referring to?

DU is a different issue altogether. While it may well poison
Iraq for a generation to come or longer, it is highly unlikely
that anyone can collect enough DU dust from exploded shells and
bullets to attempt to make an effective "dirty bomb". Possible,
and in a sad way, quite ironic, but not likely.

http://www.iaea.or.at/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=Browse&Directory=iaeans&QueryText=Iraq&BrowseCategory=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaea.org&ResultTemplate=Iaea%2Fiaea_stnd.hts&ViewTemplate=Iaea%2Fiaeacvw_smpl.hts&AdvOptions=true&ShowGroups=false&ShowSum=&image.x=12&image.y=10

So until I see this on the IA EA website, or some more confirming
news is generated, or even specific details of the facilities in
question are provided... I don't believe it.

OTOH, for conspiracy folks (I'm a LIHOPer myself), it would make
sense that Bushco allows terrorists to acquire material in Iraq
(thus "proving" that Saddam had WMD) and then build a dirty bomb
which is used in the US, like, say, LAX (since we know Bin Laden
never gives up on a target). If the bomb is detonated in October
(but early enough for the investigation to prove that it originated
in "Iraq" and was used by "Bin Laden" before the election), then
Bushco gets to hit the "trifecta" again... WMDs, links to terror,
stay the course on the worldwide crusade.