Monday, July 21, 2008

For Christ's Sake!

You retards just don't stop, do you? Hot on the heels of my last entry I get another "Pro-Bush" e-mail informing me that "yellow-cake uranium" was found in Iraq and this both vindicates the Bush Administration and proves that Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson were liars. Here is the e-mail:

Christopher Merola
Friday, July 11, 2008
On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq. The opening paragraph is as follows:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program – a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium – reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, "Bush lied." Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.
It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.
This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story? Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.
This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment – was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy.

Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied? As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.
Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.
During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations" for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.
Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.
Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.
Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements.
It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other "lies" he may have told.
Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was "unequivocally wrong." Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.
Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration "outed" her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration -- who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.
The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get.
As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that,
"Bush lied," we should tell them to, "Have the yellowcake and eat it too."

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Here's the deal, kids: Yes, over 500 tons of YCU was found in Iraq. As a matter of fact, it was found by UN weapons inspectors prior to 1991! It was documented, stored and legally possessed by Iraq according to international laws. This has nothing to do with Bush's supposed WMD's or Plame, or Wilson, or Nigeria. It is not weapons grade uranium.

The YCU has been moved to Montreal where it will be used to produce nuclear power. What I'd like to know is, why all the secrecy? Could it be that the Bush Administration didn't want the world to know what deal was made with Canada to obtain the YCU? Where does the money go? And how much of our tax dollars were spent moving an energy source that will not benefit Americans? Who profits here?

I'll tell you who: The Salem Web Network.

They are arguably the world's largest "faith-based" internet company and are owned by Salem Communications, the fifth largest radio network in the U.S., following Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel and CBS. For my money, I would disregard anything remotely called "news" from these people as the primary goal of SWN is to, "replicate Salem's leadership position in radio in the digital world."


Not save souls. Not promote peace and understanding. Not enrich the lives of human beings throughout God's universe. Just to become a huge self-serving conglomerate by any means necessary. I've read Dante's Inferno folks, and I know exactly where the good folks at Salem will be hanging out. There's plenty of space in the 8th Circle for people like this, and the sooner they get there, the better off we'll all be.


Anonymous said...

You DO realize that this article came from the AP and not Salem Web Network, correct? Salem has news sites where they post the latest news, this article coming form the Associated Press was one of those articles. Search the title and you'll see that this article about yellowcake is all over the internet on ALL major news sites.

M Styborski said...

You DO realize that you're a moron, correct?

Read it again, from the top. Only the first and third paragraphs arefrom the AP story. The rest is all Neo-Con, far right, holier-than-thou, religious fanatic, dumber-than-dirt, bullshit.

Yes, the real article IS all over the internet and here is one place you can read it:

You can also pay the AP $1.50 to see it, but since you're so incredibly stupid I thought I'd save you the six bits.

Game Over. Next contestant please!

Anonymous said...

can you let me know how Salem profits from the tax dollars spent? How do they gain anything in writing about uranium? How does Salem make any money off this? Just interested in knowing your reasoning.

M Styborski said...

OK, so no response on how you bungled your first attempt at embarrassing me? Fine. Let's move on.

Salem Chairman Stuart Epperson and CEO Edward Astinger, III, have given thousands of dollars to the Republican Party and it's candidates over the years, and so has the Salem Communications Corporate PAC. Nothing wrong with that, really, but consider that the Bush Administration has virtually disemboweled the restrictions on ownership of media outlets enabling groups like Clear Channel and Salem to dominate the markets they are in and literally push out competitors. Can you say Media Monopoly?

By publishing falsehoods like the "article" in question, Salem attempts to vidicate the Bush Administration to it's audience, who will, (Salem hopes,) blindly support whoever Salem tells them to.

Regarding this article, it's like preaching to the converted. Bush fans simply want to believe that he's not a clueless dolt who lied to them. Salem gives this pack of lies to them, and like moths to a bright light, they flock in support to both Bush and Salem, never bothering to double-check the facts. Salem gets donations, the Salem PAC carves out a nice chunk for the Republicans and they in turn loosen the corporate restrictions on Salem who profits by being able to buy out, and silence, their competitors.

I never said Salem profited from the Uranium sale. In fact, Canada purchased the uranium directly from Iraq with the help of the United States. In re-reading my post I could have been more clear on that point. Sorry, I sometimes assume some of my readers are able to think for themselves.

Now, may I ask you why my reporting on Salem bothers you so much? And why you haven't mentioned anything about the fact that the article in question is filled with falsehoods?
If Salem ran a story claiming cancer could be eradicated by covering yourself in honey for two hours a day, would you double check it? Or would you automatically go out and buy 100 gallons of Sue B?

I notice you favor the "anonymous" style of discourse, which begs the question: Are you Epperson, Astinger or one of their employees?

Eagerly awaiting full disclosure,
M Styborski