URANIUM REMOVED FROM IRAQ: DOGS NOT BARKING
rantingprofs
Via Iraqnow, and Jason asks a fairly reasonable question: HEY! How come this isn't getting more media coverage?
Almost two tons of uranium safely removed from Iraq.
Yes, you read that correctly. Almost two tons of uranium safely removed from Iraq.
The Times adds two critical details: first, the uranium was from Tuwaitha, and second, this material could have been used (by, oh, I don't know, terrorists) in a dirty bomb.
Of course, the Times adds these critical details below the fold page A-11. Ironically, that's right across from the story on Tony Blair's plaintive admission (which I did see covered on one of the networks last night) that we might never find the WMD.
That's kind of ironic, given that the whole reason most people say "CBRN" these days instead of CBW is because they want to account for the possibility of radiological weapons.
The other reason these details matter, though, is because Tuwaitha was the poster site for the lack of adequate controls after the combat phase. They'd had almost two tons, we didn't secure the site, stuff was scattered all over the place. Well, it looks like we got most of it back.
This is mentioned in the Post's even shorter piece. On page A-16. Is this really that unimportant of a story?
What's really striking here is this: broadcast news picks up stories from the Times and Post all the time. From the front page. Is it that they don't read past that in time to set their lists of stories for the day? Or that if it isn't on the front page they don't feel free to validate it as newsworthy?
rantingprofs.typepad.com |
