Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (53258)	7/7/2004 7:17:43 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793809

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

To: MrLucky who wrote (53258)	7/7/2004 7:21:11 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793809

My guess is that the GOP does not want this hot potato on the table before November 3rd. I think two things are going on in the Pentagon that cause this controversy. One - we are at war, and they don't think the troop shortage is long term. Two - the reorganization is going to free up more "tooth" from the "tail" and we will get more bang for our buck. These are both arguable points, but I think the discussion at the puzzle palace on this subject is honest. The Admin could have got a higher authorization of troops if they had wanted it.