What Sir Humphrey's doesn't tell you
Adolf has tried to make a big deal about a couple of tons of enriched uranium and sundry other radioactive items found in Iraq and removed by the US in 2004.
What he doesn't bother to tell you is the material, low enriched uranium, was found after the first Gulf War way back in 1992 and put under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Adolf:
Predictably shabby.
What he doesn't bother to tell you is the material, low enriched uranium, was found after the first Gulf War way back in 1992 and put under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Adolf:
Remember the barrels of cyclosarin (commercial insecticide) found next to shell filling equipment? How strange that before today there has been no mention in the MSM about two tons of enriched uranium. Not just a couple of pounds of the stuff but two bloody tons! All the media talked about was Jo Wilson and Nigeria. It's called 'black hole' journalism. Don't want to know, didn't see.As to the supposedly non-existent media coverage, well even a cursory Google throws up stories in the MSM from both ends of the spectrum, Fox and BBC, in addition to the one linked above.
Predictably shabby.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 4:33 PM
5 Comments:
Next time I oblige you with additional information would you kindly refrain from smart arse sarcasm vis a vis 'predictably shabby.' That's the sort of thing I would expect from a predictable wanker.
I happily concede I missed the fact that the material had been reported in 2004. After all, I'm a blogger not a journalist, so I can admit it when I make a mistake.
While you're at it you might ask yourself (if you can get a word in) why the Americans at the first opportunity removed the two tons of material from the 'safe keeping' of the UN. You will note they gave the UN no warning. Why not? The answer might be found at Schrebrenicia, or in Koffi Annan's Mercedes if you can ever find it or in the bribes which bought off the whole corrupt shabby shambles which is the UN.
Please let me know when you have completed your scintillating review of the careful and factually analytical destruction of your favorite left wing lies by the editorial team of the Chicago Tribune. I searched your blog for evidence of any rational discussion but all I could find was links to the ridiculous Daily Kos blog. This is the poor bastard who finds he can't afford to live in Californioa where all the loony left wing policies he espouses have been enacted.
Oh and just for finishers, lets see your constitutional law references which justify your assertions that the current NSA surveilance is illegal. What do you have to say about the people who leaked the classified information to the NYT? Do you approve of their actions? Does it not occur to you it is theri actions, not the President's actions which have endangered various judicial processes? Are you aware there is strong speculation the two ring leaders are Rockefeller and FISA Judge Roberton?
Shouldn't be too difficult. But then it might. After all you are a journalist, aren't you?
Additional information??? You mean like your source???
Dude, I know it's important to be polite when using the Sir Humphrey's comments function, but otherwise I'll do as you do - get stuck in.
In addition to the media reports, you not only neglected to mention 2004, but 1992 when the stuff was originally found and also what the stuff was.
As to the removal fromn the UN, well, I told YOU about that!
Finally I don't need constitutional law references, as neither Kos (nor I, but I'm not an expert) are arguing the action was unconsitutional. Kos argues the actions were illegal and he provides several references.
The leaks are justified if the wiretapping was illegal. It's called whistleblowing in those circumstances. But that's not one for bloggers to finally adjudicate on - the courts will do that and either you or I will be right. Wait and see.
Right now we do know the President did not own up to the full extent of the surveillance.
Finally on the Chicago Tribune, it's a very good analysis, but not the only one possible, as they admit. In part it seems written to justify the paper's own call for war.
The Presidents argument for preventive war, a real innovation, required an imminent threat. That's why the WMD argument was to the fore.
As you will be aware I don't like to argue on the basis of interpretation, but on the basis of the facts on which interpretations can and are built. If you don't get those right, the interpretation is worthless. There are a lot of crappy "facts" being thrown around in this argument and Major E, the man who was there, just added some more.
Haha! You gotta love those Humphs... who needs a coherent argument when you got lotsa big potty words?!
For goodness sake lets get Adolf onto the New year Honours list, all he wants is to be loved and accepted.
Well, they've just given Tom Jones a knighthood, so I guess that's not too silly an idea!
OK, it is really :-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home