Every day we see how corrupt the media has become, from the New York Times, the Washington Post (sad to say, except for parts of its editorial pages), Newsweek, Time and so on. They can't do enough to trash McCain and Palin and won't do anything to unveil the carefully hidden Obama, the Chicago Democratic machine pol who rose to prominence on his soaring oratory despite his disturbing history (which of course no one has been told about).
No one dared -- or wanted to -- look behind the screen, afraid of or nervous about what they would find. So the 13 year association wth terrorist bomber William Ayers, why Obama bonded with Jeremiah Wright, why Tony Rezko, convicted of political corruption, raised $250,000 for Obama, remain unexplored.
And then there is "Bush lied." WMDs, you name it. Illustrative is a report that came across the Associated Press wire on July 5, 2008 that disappeared as quickly as if it were water in the Saudi desert. The Investor's Business Daily, a lonely voice, noticed. What do you know? Saddam had half a billion tons of yellowcake stashed away ready to be used when his friends got the UN restrictions lifted. Corruption ruled in the rest of the media, which ignored its duty to the public to report the news.
By Investor's Business Daily
Monday, July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PTWMD: Hear about the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium found in Iraq? No? Why should you? It doesn't fit the media's neat story line that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed no nuclear threat when we invaded in 2003.
It's a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad.
In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel — thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region.
This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a "significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."
Seems to us this should be big news.After all, much of the early opposition to the war in Iraq involved claims that President Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam posed little if any nuclear threat to the U.S.
This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon.
This is clear, since Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff. (The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to have known about the yellowcake in the 1990s, but did nothing to force Saddam to get rid of it. It's duplicating its error today with Iran and North Korea).
That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade.
The American Thinker Web site reported four years ago on the scary math behind Saddam's uranium hoard: 500 tons of yellowcake, once refined, could make 142 nuclear weapons.
But yellowcake wasn't all they found at Tuwaitha. According to the AP, the military also discovered "four devices for controlled radiation exposure . . . that could potentially be used in a weapon."
By the way, this should put to rest the canard peddled by the American left and by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking yellowcake from the African country of Niger.
Given what we know, including comments by officials in Niger's government, Iraq did make overtures to buy uranium. And it's quite possible all or part of the 550 tons came from there.
What's more, if Bush hadn't acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria — with its close ties to Saddam — on the way to having a nuke.
Of equal concern is why the media ignored this good news coming from Iraq. It seems to be of a piece with how they've treated other recent positive developments in Iraq.
We ask again — why aren't you seeing and hearing more about this? The reason is simple: The mainstream media find it inconveniently contradicts the story they have been telling you for years.
