Patriotism in the most elementary sense of the term (the word derives from the Latin patria or “fatherland”), suggests the loyalty that all citizens owe to their country or nation. With varying degrees of intensity, nearly all Americans claim to be patriotic citizens of the republic. But the term also has a narrower, more specific history, with sharper political implications. In the two centuries since the Revolutionary War, patriotism has tended to shift from a left‐wing to a right‐wing cause.
The term first achieved prominence in Anglo‐American politics during the second quarter of the eighteenth century. The British ministry of Sir Robert Walpole, which admitted only Whigs to office and castigated all Tories as disloyal to the Hanoverian dynasty, alienated a number of prominent Whigs, who took the name “Patriots” to distinguish themselves from the Tory opposition. But some prominent Tories, such as Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, saw an opportunity to create a combined Tory and Whig opposition strong enough to topple Walpole, and also appropriated the label “Patriot” for that goal. By 1750, even Frederick, Prince of Wales, claimed to be a patriot prince, an ambition he bequeathed to his son, who inherited the throne as George III in 1760. To everyone invoking a patriot identity, the label implied placing loyalty to one's country ahead of personal interest or factional causes.
North American spokesmen jubilantly hailed the accession of George III as a “Patriot King,” only to find that his ministers threatened their liberties through direct parliamentary taxation of the colonies. As the resistance movement gained coherence and grew more militant, its members called themselves “Sons of Liberty,” “Whigs,” and “Patriots.” Their enemies were “Tories,” who preferred the softer name of “Loyalists.” The launching of American independence identified American patriots as republicans and enemies of monarchy, a radical position in the eighteenth century that would become associated with “left” politics during the French Revolution a few years later. That association persisted into the early national period. Democratic‐Republicans called their opponents “Tories” and “monocrats” (champions of monarchy), not “Federalists.” By 1800, the Federalists seemed to oblige them by increasingly refusing to celebrate the Fourth of July (they preferred Washington's Birthday as their national festival) and above all by refusing to read the Declaration of Independence in public lest it offend Great Britain. Well into the nineteenth century, the term patriot retained these radical associations.
The veterans' movements that followed the Civil War probably marked a shift toward a more conservative definition of patriot. In the former Confederate states, secret paramilitary societies such as the Ku Klux Klan drew heavily on Confederate veterans and their younger kin to undermine Radical Reconstruction through terrorist acts. They saw themselves as patriots committed to “redeeming” the South for white supremacy from “black Republican” rule. The Union counterpart was much less militant, but over time the veterans' group known as the Grand Army of the Republic grew less eager to celebrate emancipation and more inclined to glory in the triumph of the Union, while agitating for bonuses and other veterans' benefits.
That trend has continued in the twentieth century. Veterans' organizations, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, have at times almost claimed a monopoly on American patriotism and have often questioned the loyalty of citizens who disagreed with their objectives. The word patriot was becoming strongly associated with the Right in politics, partly because the Left often advocated such internationalist causes as the republican side in the Spanish Civil War and decolonization movements after World War II, both of which also had strong Communist support.
The Vietnam War sealed these identities. The Left opposed the war and tried to end it; the Right denounced such efforts as disloyal and appropriated all the symbols of American patriotism. By the 1972 presidential election, President Richard M. Nixon, who had served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, but without seeing combat, successfully invoked his own patriotism while overwhelming his Democrat opponent, George McGovern, who had survived twenty‐five missions as a bomber pilot in the European theater of World War II but never used his Army Air Force record to win votes in the campaign.
The label “Patriot,” at least in its partisan sense, is recently shifting even further to the right. It has been actively appropriated by paramilitary militia movements around the country, which now seem to equate “Patriot” with white supremacy and a fierce hatred for most actions of the federal government. The ability to capture the label remains an important touchstone in American public life.
BAGHDAD - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.
President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.
U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.
Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.
"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.
No Champ... What you are asking for is some sort of united realization that the United States of America is the most horrendous evil country that ever existed on the planet because of "ills" and atrocities that "we" (but of course not YOU) have committed over our history..
But yet you leave out the blood and sacrifice that this country has given to freedom across the world... that is so easily forgotten by YOU isn't it?
Is or has this experiment in Democracy been perfect? NO... Has any OTHER nation on this earth been perfect... NO.. but I wouldn't trade or disrespect my position in life and stature as a citizen in this awesome country for any other on the planet...Why can't you? We as a country have made mistakes as all other established nations have, including the warring nations of the Apache and Cherokee oppressing peaceful 'native American' nations did before we ever stepped foot on OUR soil...
So yes you do seem to carry 250+ years of 'guilt' that you cant seem to get over...
So lets ask you a question, name one nation on this green earth that you would prefer we be or that you wish to be a part of? Got an answer for that one?
Why am I proud to be an American? because unlike most nations YOU are free to be an idiot. Because YOU are able to be a disrespectful ass to those that have given the ultimate sacrifice (my Grand Father included) so that YOU have the unique privilege to talk so much SHIT against the country that has given YOU, us.. so much...
Bottom line yes, hit the fuckin bricks if you are so enamored with discounting all that this wonderful country and its citizens has done for the world and for YOUR way of life...AGAIN, don't let the DOOR hit ya where the good Lord split ya....
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Or if you will..
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
My little friend, honestly I don't blame you...I blame the POS education system that has forgotten to teach you the blessings of liberty, sacrafice and honor that comes with the MASSIVE responsibility that freedom comes with...
You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after 9/11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism."
So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.
In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-9/11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?
Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Thursday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq ... I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
The flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in determining the ultimate pace of the withdrawal.
Done. And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.
Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and most importantly his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.
After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.
As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.
Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
When you use the phrase “… feel proud of having the fortune …” are you suggesting that we should be proud of luck? It never occurred to me to take pride in anything other than an accomplishment. Proud of luck. I’ll have to give that more consideration.
You do realize that I spent the majority of my previous post pointing out the atrocities that were committed during the birth of this nation. When you say that God placed American society on the earth, are you suggesting that God was complicit in those atrocities? This is a very curious line of thinking. I believe you should give that more consideration.
My post this morning was an honest inquiry into the origins of this American pride I hear so much about. I don’t understand it, but would very much like to. To be honest, my opinion is that those who speak it the loudest understand it the littlest. They’re simply told that they live in the greatest country on earth, and it fills them with pride. But I believe any honest examination of different first world countries shows that the liberties and lifestyles the citizenry enjoy are basically the same.
But I don’t want to think that so many who are so proud are really so ignorant. I want someone to disagree with me and tell me all the things about America that they believe set this place apart from every other country in the world. That was why it was so disheartening to read your reply. You immediately assumed you could say nothing to enlighten me (which, in this case, assuming makes it so) and then told me to go to North Korea, Iran or Cuba. Is that what makes the country great? The fact that people who wonder why are immediately told to leave?
And by the way, it isn’t guilt that I feel. After all, I’m not personally responsible for genocide, slavery or any of the other horrific, bloodthirsty crimes that were necessary to form this nation. But I do feel a sense of shame that I reap the benefits of all those centuries of immorality and evil. I really don’t understand how anyone who knows the true history of this place could feel any differently. For every dollar that is earned in this system, a “thank you” and a “we’re truly sorry” should go out to every Native American and African American everywhere in the country.
I don’t really understand what you mean about cherry picking quotes from the Bible. Are you suggesting that Proverbs 16:18 means something other than “Pride comes before a fall?” Is there some passage in the Bible that indicates that pride is a good thing? And why do you assume I don’t “believe” in the Bible? The Bible has many interesting and valuable things to say. I may not agree with all of it (Is that what you mean by believe?), but understanding where and why I disagree with it helps me understand myself better. Do you believe in the Bible? If so, you should read the Upanishads, the Koran, the Mahayana sutras and the Apocrypha. Understanding where and why you disagree with those texts will help you understand yourself and your religion better.
I had a sense of déjà vu when I saw the photos that emerged in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. Even as the Bush administration was spinning the notion that the torture of prisoners was the work of "a few bad apples" low in the military hierarchy, I knew that we were seeing evidence of a systemic policy set at the top. It's not that I am a genius. It's simply that, having worked at a rape crisis center and been trained in the basics of sex crime, I have learned that all sex predators go about things in certain recognizable ways.
We now know that the torture of prisoners was the result of a policy set in the White House by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Rice -- who actually chaired the torture meetings. The Pentagon has also acknowledged that it had authorized sexualized abuse of detainees as part of interrogation practices to be performed by female operatives. And documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union have Rumsfeld, in his own words, checking in on the sexualized humiliation of prisoners.
The sexualization of torture from the top basically turned Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay into an organized sex-crime ring in which the trafficked sex slaves were US-held prisoners. Looking at the classic S and M nature of some of this torture, it is hard not to speculate that someone setting policy was aroused by all of this. And Phillipe Sands' impeccably documented Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, now proves that sex crime was authorized and, at least one source reports, eroticized: Diane Beaver, the Staff Judge Advocate at Guantanamo who signed off on many torture techniques, told Sands about brainstorming sessions that included the use of "sexual tension," which was "culturally taboo, disrespectful, humiliating and potentially unexpected."
"These brainstorming meetings at Guantanamo produced animated discussion," writes Sands. "'Who has the glassy eyes?" Beaver asked herself as she surveyed the men around the room, thirty or more of them. She was invariably the only woman in the room, keeping control of the boys. The younger men would get excited, agitated, even: "You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas" [reported Beaver]. A wan smile crossed Beaver's face: "And I said to myself, you know what, I don't have a dick to get hard, I can stay detached."' [Sands, p 63]
The nonsexual torture that was committed ranged from beatings and suffocation, electrodes attached to sensitive areas, and forced sleep deprivation, to prisoners being hung by the wrists from the ceiling and placed in solitary confinement until psychosis was induced. These abuses violate both US and international law. Three former military attorneys, recognizing this blunt truth, refused to participate in the "military tribunals" -- rather, "show trials" -- aimed at condemning men whose confessions were elicited through torture.
Though we can now debate what the penalty for waterboarding should be, America as a nation, maintaining an odd silence, still cannot seem to discuss the sex crimes involved.
Why? It's not as if the sex crimes that US leaders either authorized or tolerated are not staring Americans in the face: the images of male prisoners with their heads hooded with women's underwear; the documented reports of female US soldiers deployed to smear menstrual blood on the faces of male prisoners, and of military interrogators or contractors forcing prisoners to simulate sex with each other, to penetrate themselves with objects, or to submit to being penetrated by objects. Indeed, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was written deliberately with loopholes that gave immunity to perpetrators of many kinds of sexual humiliation and abuse.
There is also the testimony by female soldiers such as Lynndie England about compelling male prisoners to masturbate, as well as an FBI memo objecting to a policy of "highly aggressive interrogation techniques." The memo cites a female interrogator rubbing lotion on a shackled detainee and whispering in his ear -- during Ramadan when sexual contact with a strange woman would be most offensive -- then suddenly bending back his thumbs until he grimaced in pain, and violently grabbing his genitals. Sexual abuse in US-operated prisons got worse and worse over time, ultimately including, according to doctors who examined detainees, anal sodomy.
All this may sound bizarre if you are a normal person, but it is standard operating procedure for sex offenders. Those who work in the field know that once sex abusers control a powerless victim, they will invariably push the boundaries with ever more extreme behavior. Abusers start by undressing their victims, but once that line has been breached, you are likely to hear from the victim about oral and anal penetration, greater and greater pain and fear being inflicted, and more and more carelessness about exposing the crimes as the perpetrator's inhibitions fall away.
The perpetrator is also likely to engage in ever-escalating rationalizations, often arguing that the offenses serve a greater good. Finally, the victim is blamed for the abuse: in the case of the detainees, if they would only "behave," and confess, they wouldn't bring all this on themselves.
Silence, and even collusion, is also typical of sex crimes within a family. Americans are behaving like a dysfunctional family by shielding sex criminals in their midst through silence.
Just as sex criminals -- and the leaders who directed the use of rape and sexual abuse as a military strategy -- were tried and sentenced after the wars in Bosnia and Sierra Leone, so Americans must hold accountable those who committed, or authorized, sex crimes in US-operated prisons. Throughout the world, this perverse and graphic criminality has added fuel to anxiety about US cultural and military power. These acts need to be called by their true names -- war crimes and sex crimes -- and people in America need to demand justice for the perpetrators and their victims. As in a family, only when people start to speak out and tell the truth about rape and sexual assault can the healing begin.
*Many of the posters here on a regular basis know plenty about me, my views, and political beliefs. So how can you even label ME as anonymous?
*Prior Military
*currently work in environmental protection
*currently in college
*pro-life
*pro-capitalism
*pro-oil drilling
*anti-socialism
*anti-illegals (immigration)
This remark is dismaying on several levels, partly because Ickes is virtually channeling Karl Rove, who implied something similar in a recent interview with GQ -- not backed up by any information of course. Just planting this vague idea in Joe Average Voter's head that there's something about Barry -- pick your vice, political or personal -- that all the kool kidz inside the Beltway know about, and it's going to pop one week before the election, is the only strategy here. As if the Clinton camp wouldn't use that information now, when they are still so eager to win but probably can't do so without a "game changer." "
"News Flash: Both candidates are a bad joke. Both political parties are criminal enterprises.
You partisan fools who are arguing about flip flops, past associations, a candidates age, etc. are simply wasting your time. Who the hell do you think you are converting?
Prediction: McCain will be elected after a humdinger of an "October surprise."
You heard it here first."
1. The War in Iraq was Illegal, unjust, and unnecessary. I am not proud of the doctrine of "pre-emption" because I don't think America should start wars needlessly, especially if they are based upon lies.
Our "leaders" chose to take our country into an illegal, unjust, and unnecessary war by hyping intelligence and scaring people into fearful submission. This war has now killed tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis and wounded tens of thousands more, while costing us nearly $300 billion dollars and making us far less safe and far more hated than we were before this debacle. The American people may not know the "real" reason for this radical policy, but here are some of the stated reasons:
"Saddam Hussein has WMD"; "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator;" "Saddam Hussein had a role in 9/11;" "Saddam Hussein has ties to al-Queda;" "We want to bring democracy to the Middle East;" "We are going to fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to fight them at home;" "Iraq is the front-line of the War on Terror;" (and my personal favorite) "He tried to kill my daddy;"
And of course, there was the unstated reason, widely supposed, but rarely acknowledged: "They've got a lot of oil and gas in that region and we use a lot of it in America."
2. America has acted as a rogue nation, even a pariah state, over the past five years, and I am not proud of our "my way or the highway" unilateralism. If this were elementary school, this Administration would receive an "Unsatisfactory" grade for "Gets along well with others."
Our current Administration has thumbed its collective nose at all forms of multilateralism and international cooperation, withdrawing from the land mine treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (so the warmongers will be free to design "mini-nukes", "bunker busters" and the desire to control outer space), the World Court, many of the Geneva conventions against torture and prisoner abuse, and are one of two countries which have not signed the Rights of the Child document (the other being Somalia)! The U.S. has now committed many of the same acts for which the "war criminals" at Nuremburg were tried and convicted.
3. The country I love practices respect for human rights, and I am not proud of the fact that we have become a nation of torturers.
Our present rulers seem to find it perfectly acceptable to torture other human beings, hold people without charge or legal representation indefinitely, and is now accused of using chemical weapons (white phosphorus and a new form of napalm) against a country that was alleged to have WMD, but, in fact, did not. How ironic is it that the CIA uses abandoned Soviet Gulags and that we used the same chemical weapon on Iraqi civilians in Fallujah that Saddam used on the Kurds in 1991!
4. I am not proud of the reverse Robin Hood syndrome that has recently gripped our economy.
Our cyrrebt rulers have been recklessly looting our countries wealth and resources, stealing from the poor and giving the spoils to the rich. No "welfare queen" ever had it as good as these "pigs at the trough" who never met a tax cut for the rich or a pork project in their district that they didn't love. The result has been the largest income redistribution in our history, revealing shameful poverty in the world's richest nation, and budget deficits as far as the eye can see.
5. I am not proud of the movement toward plutocracy, and I'm even less proud of kleptocracy, as Paul Krugman and Jim Hightower have dubbed the present form of government.
America has become a country of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, opening up the environment to the polluters, while cynically calling such initiatives "clear skies" and the like. It would seem that the country as a whole is (in the words of a famous bumper sticker) "spending our children's inheritance!"
6. I am not proud of the way our Constitution and, in general, the rule of law have been undermined by the cabal in charge of America.
Our rulers place themselves above the law and above the Constitution, from which our other laws are derived. They also disregard international laws and pursue their private interests at the expense of both public goods and fundamental values, Examples range from the illegal war in Iraq, to the deceptively-named "USA Patriot Act" that assaults civil liberties, to the many scandals currently embroiling the likes of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Michael Scanlon, Jack Abramoff, Kenneth Tomlinson, and so on. Oh, and how is former Enron CEO Ken Lay doing these days?
7. I am not proud of what has happened to America's standing in the world.
Even our closest allies must keep at arm's length from us, lest they be infected with the contagion of corruption. America has recently thumbed its collective nose at the rest of the world, acting as a global hegemon that tolerates no rivals, while carelessly disregarding the lessons to be learned from past Empires. Other countries and their peoples now regard the U.S. as a greater threat to world security, peace, and justice than either terrorism or the most brutal dictators on the planet.
8. I am not proud of the way our democracy has been undermined or hijacked.
From the role of money in the election process, to the voting scandals of 2000, 20004, and 2005, to the emergence of a one-party country, the corporate party comprised of two branches: Republican and Republican-lite. The U.S. is in real danger of losing its democracy, when we cannot even verify election results. We are fast becoming a democracy in name only. There is little left at present of the founders' robust notion of democracy.
9. I am not proud of the way the separation between church and state has been eroded.
The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of our Constitution and it is being eroded. Those in power use religion shamelessly to "turn out the base" over issues such as gay-marriage, abortion rights, physician-assisted suicide, Terri Schaivo, stem-cell research, and so on, but these same rulers display no moral principles in their own conduct and policies. They use religion and talk a lot about morality and/or values, but they exemplify none of it, as far as I can tell. "Ye shall know me by my works."
10. I am not proud of the job the media have done in functioning as the fourth estate.
Do not forget that Thomas Jefferson famously said that if he had to choose between a free press without a government or a government without a free press, he would choose the former.
America no longer can boast of a high-quality, independent media, now that four corporations control all media, for whom profit is a greater concern than the truth or an informed electorate, and instead of being skeptical (or even critical) has come to act as the public address system for the Administration.
Please, somebody, call or write me when you find my America.
Dr. Gary Alan Scott is a philosophy professor at Loyola College in Maryland. He is currently the Director of Loyola's International Nachbahr Huis in Leuven, Belgium. He is currently working on a book entitled "The Failure to Reason." You can email him at gscott@loyola.edu.
Iraq + yellowcake = ?
July 7, 2008 7:26 PM
Canada just received a huge shipment of uranium from Iraq, wtf?
The Port of Montreal just received a shipment of yellowcake from Iraq.
I am very confused by this; I've read quite a bit about Iraq and WMDs, and the way I understood it was like this:
Saddam was rumoured to have purchased yellowcake uranium from Africa (Niger specifically), and Joseph Wilson was sent to investigate. He found no evidence that Saddam had actually obtained any, and in return for his non-cooperation in the search for WMDs his wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy.
Now, how does this all fit with this huge shipment (550 tonnes), and the fact that we all know there were no WMDs in Iraq?
posted by Vindaloo to law & government (7 comments total)
Relics of the early-80s nuclear program that ended with the Israelis bombing the Osirak reactor.
From the IAEA:
In the period 1979 through 1982, Iraq procured yellowcake from both Portugal and Niger and uranium dioxide from Brazil.
...
The yellowcake procured from Portugal was supplied in two batches. Batch 1, received on 20 June 1980, consisted of 429 drums containing 138,098 kg of yellowcake and batch two, received as three consignments over the period from 17 May 1982 through 20 June 1982, consisted of 487 drums containing 148,348 kg yellow cake. By letters dated 6 August 1981, 1 June 1982 and 21 July 1982, Iraq notified the IAEA of the receipt of this material, which confirmed the complementary notifications received from Portugal at the time of shipment.
In other words, nothing to see there.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:36 PM on July 7
From the wikipedia article on the Niger uranium forgeries:
The irony is that the Tuwaitha facility south of Baghdad already possessed yellow cake uranium. Between 1980 and 1982, Iraq procured more than 400 tons of yellowcake from Portugal and Niger which remained in a storage complex close to Tuwaitha. [15] [16] The facility and its yellowcake were monitored and frequently inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency after the 1991 Gulf War. About 1.8 metric tons of "yellow cake" and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing as the Iraqis left Tuwaitha unattended during the war.[17]When the facility was first encountered by U.S. Marines, they thought they had stumbled upon an illegal weapons cache; according to nuclear experts, however, they actually wound up breaking the IAEA seals that are "designed to ensure the materials aren't diverted for weapons use or end up in the wrong hands."[18] The Pentagon dispatched a team to survey the site "after a month of official indecision", finding it heavily looted and said it was impossible to tell whether nuclear materials were missing.[19]
In July of 2008, what was believed to be the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, the United States government shipped 550 metric tonnes of concentrated natural uranium or yellowcake to Montreal, Canada. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp.[20]
Shorter version: Hussein didn't buy extra yellowcake from Niger, but he still had some left over that folks already knew about.
posted by zamboni at 7:41 PM on July 7
The AP article on the subject says that the yellowcake in question was acquired before the First Gulf War:
Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
posted by Johnny Assay at 7:43 PM on July 7
If I remember right, the yellowcake was "found" in 2005 and it made big headlines at the time because, hey, they found uranium in Iraq. But what was buried in 4th paragraph, if it was reported at all, was that a) the US already knew about this stash and b) it's not refined enough to even be usable in a dirty bomb, let alone WMDs.
posted by lekvar at 7:47 PM on July 7
[removed the news article text dump, include a link in a comment if it's critical to your question please, thanks.]
posted by jessamyn at 7:57 PM on July 7
FYI, from Wikipedia: Uranium is a naturally occurring element that can be found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water... Its average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million, or about 40 times as abundant as silver... It is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver, and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum.
posted by neuron at 8:23 PM on July 7
If you're curious as to why Canada, it's because we produce about 30% of the world's uranium, more than anywhere else, and we have a decent amount of nuclear plants + lots of research into reactors that uses not-very-refined uranium (for multiple obvious reasons). So a bit more yellowcake won't go unused.
"The only way he [Sen. McCain] could have reminded more voters more pungently that he is not a spring chicken is if he had begun the speech with, 'Abraham Lincoln told me...'"
A John McCain supporter explains that he [Sen. John McCain] wasn't mistaken about al Qaida and Iran... It was just a senior moment...
And that reassures me how?"
"John McCain can get 54 million dollars to run for president, but a supposedly hidden, classified X-rated FBI contained film of Marilyn Monroe only sells for a million and a half? That's a bargain."
"The televangelists who say [Hurricane] Katrina was retribution against gays, that the Catholic Church is the great whore, and John McCain should be president... Mr. McCain is alright with the first two, as long as he hears the third."
Oh and for my good friend and fellow American J. Madison...Ronald Reagan was a shitty president who until W., had the worst record of any American President. No matter how you looneys on the right portray him. Reagan sucked.
ha ha ha Worse than Bush is your new Slogan? How did he become your candidate in 2008?
(CNN) – John McCain issued a promise Tuesday that may cause a bit of unrest with a broad swath of voters:
He'll veto every single beer?
In a slip of the tongue while railing against excessive earmarks at the National Small Business Summit in Washington, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee inadvertently pledged to veto the popular alcoholic beverage.
"I will use the veto as needed. I will veto every single beer — bill with earmarks," he said, as rumblings from the crowd could be heard. "And every single bill that we have come across my desk I will make them famous. I will veto them, you will know their names."
Filed under: Dumbass John McBush
Oh and Ronald Ray-Gun was a shitty President anyway you slice it.
I'm sure Iraq enjoyed the generosity of our embargoes and sanctions starving and killing them and their children for the last decade.
Cuba I'm sure was thrilled with the generosity and holiness we have been showing them for 30 years. The present we gave them of our CIA secretly attacking them and then placing an illegal prison in their country where we later would torture innocent people. God Bless us!
CIA Drug trafficking as pointed out in the Iran Contra scandals not to mention the Contra's we gifted Iran with.
China loves our generosity by being their largest importer. Walmart loves being our largest employer and only paying $1000 a year above poverty level for avg workers. So where in the hell is the generosity you speak of? The 30% income tax that goes to gun toting IRS and their illegal taxes? The billions going to bomb and occupy Iraq?
Or the training we generosly gave Saddam and Osoma.
The Generosity of training murders at the School of Americas.
We generously gave Japan not 1 but 2 nuclear bombs... So we killed a few hundred thousand, that was generous of us wasn't it?
We were generous with New Orleans post Katrina. We were generous to Mexico when we stole 1/3 of their country, to the natives Americans, the Hawaiians, Alaskans.
We were generous enough to start 2 wars for the sake of ending terror yet we haven't even collected the evidence to place Bin laden on the FBI's wanted list FOR THE CRIMES OF 911. Generous with the bombs not so generous with the proof it appears.
It seems when it comes to murder and destruction our country is VERY generous.
How are we the "most free" that is arguable at best and hardly true. We are not even close to being in the top numbers for healthcare, education, employment (or lack of!)
God didn't put America or the United States here. Superstitious people make less and less sense each day.
Your comments about "don't let the door hit yah" I'm sick of hearing. The whole "if you don't like it leave it" argument is ridiculous. As our Declaration of independence states we have the right to change the government as we see fit. We may not be proud of our large military empire or the fact we were born under one governments control or another. You cannot be proud of something you do not chose. And I am certainly not proud of the choices our Government has been making throughout at least the last decade (i say farther back but for sake of simplicity).
Again with the death wish? What a tool. Will you confess that next time you're at church, being a "good christian"?
And for what it's worth, I too usually drink domestic - at least a Callihans - they brew their own, you know. But I never drink that crappy bud/miller/coors shit. That isn't beer. That's swill.
Glad to year you're not wasting your vote on Mac. Not that I care. You go ahead and vote for some local clone of Randy Cunningham - have fun with that. And I have to tell you - from what you've said, no matter WHO becomes president in Nov, you'll be unhappy. Brother, that warms my heart. I just hope it's that black guy with the funny name that you will have to call President, who you'll have to tell your kids to "respect"...
Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya...
And yes I do read the bible, and can probably cherry pick a quote or two as well but whats the point really...
(Million bucks says you don't even believe in the bible in the first place)
There's nothing that anyone can say or explain to you to change your mind is there? You're obviously sickened with your guilt, no reason to stay in such a horrible place right?
I on the other hand know how fortunate and PROUD I am to be an American!
And while the Europeans took the east coast, the Spaniards took the west. In order for us to have California and San Diego, it became necessary for us to fight and kill those Spanish colonists who themselves had to fight and kill Native Americans. Am I to derive feelings of pride from the fact that our colonial campaigns were so successful, not just against indigenous peoples but against other colonialists as well?
And let’s not forget slavery. There is every indication that, if not for the slave trade, the European colonies on the east coast could not have survived. American ingenuity and determination were not enough to overcome the tremendous difficulties faced by those early settlers. So the birth of our glorious nation required the free labor provided by the wholesale enslavement of peoples from Africa. Am I to be proud, then, that my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were secured by resorting to murder, enslavement and the wanton destruction of whole cultures and peoples?
AP-What was billed as an opportunity for healing and a bid for party unity
turned ugly on Tuesday afternoon, as presumptive Democrat nominee Barack Obama was first heckled and then virtually chased from the stage by an agitated crowd of Hillary supporters demanding extended family & medical
leave, more paid time off, and subsidized hormone replacement.
When Obama pleaded for unity "for the good of the Democratic party," the
mood of the overwhelmingly female crowd quickly turned ugly. First loud chanting broke out:"Hil-lar-ry!" and "Forget Petraeus - Howard Dean Betrayed Us," an apparent reference to the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries.
Sheilded by aides, Obama returned to the podium and finally mollified the angry crowd by pledging that his first act as president would be to outlaw lesbian hunting. The pledge was largely symbolic since Wisconsin is the only remaining state that still has a lesbian hunting season, (New Mexico banned the practice in 1969.)
Obama related a tragic incident where a large bull lesbian had been gut-shot by a hunter and escaped into the woods. The wounded lesbian turned rogue and, attracted by his plaid shirt, mauled a Mexican gardener. She was eventually captured and euthanized via an intravenous injection of estrogen.
BAGHDAD - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.
President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.
U.S. officials had no immediate comment Tuesday on al-Rubaie's statement.
Al-Rubaie spoke to reporters after briefing Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf on the progress of the government's security efforts and the talks.
I have to suspect that he/she/it is the same guy who rants and raves on this list about the great Mexican Invasion Conspiracy. To him I say this: Go back to your Klavern, put that sheet back on your head and stay with your own kind, you cracker!
Well I didn't get the email so I have to conclude that you got it because you're so much the extremist as to imply that someone's a racist just because he openly opposes the open borders policies of the current administration and of BOTH presidential candidates. Typical politics of race-baiting and hate-mongering!!! You should be better than that!
Well I say more power to this person and to others for raising awareness on this issue. He is absolutely 100% correct that both candidates are pandering to the open borders community. Hell, both of the candidates are coming to San Diego next weekend to pander to La Raza. Well La Raza may be bringing economic benefits to the area, but as far as I'm concerned, La Raza is not welcome here. I hope the convention attracts lots of protests against the open-borders/illegal-immigrant-amnesty policies that are being promoted.
IT IS NOT ABOUT RACISM - IT IS ABOUT RESPECT FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY!!!
If they want to make a point by breaking the law, then go back to their own countries and make a political stand - which is really what is needed to solve their economic injustices. By coming here, they are basically saying that their own countries are not worthy of the efforts to be improved.
First of all, could you please explain whom you're referring to when you use the pronoun "we"? Are you referring to "we" the People i.e. as in the consumer? Are you referring to "we" the government of the U.S. i.e. as in the corrupt inept bunch who have been selling out the American public for the benefit of big oil companies? Are you referring to "we" as being you stockholders of big oil companies? Or are you referring to "we" as being those of you wealthy executives of the Big Oil companies? The interpretation of what you write varies greatly, based upon whom you mean as "we"!
But do you personally own the land upon where you plan to drill? Do you personally have the equipment and technical expertise to be able to drill for oil on your own? And do you personally have the wealth and technical know-how to be able to build a refinery and refine oil on your own?
Assuming that the answer to one or more of these questions is a "no", then you in effect are merely acting as a shill for Big Oil. Well you may want to reconsider remaining invested in Big Oil and in oil futures because those "viable REAL alternatives" are already here! We (meaning the consumer) are only limited by our will and our financial ability to make the initial investment toward conversion! (and the "will" part of our limitations is quickly disappearing with each increase in price at the gas pump)
(and that does not include burning our FOOD for fuel)
Unless of course you're referring to fuel for the human body - in which case the burning of our food for fuel is indeed quite OK! (even desirable)
Till then, as as I schooled Mikey try choking yourself as you find an alternative to oxygen.. because you mud-hut types are asking for the same exact thing to our economy
but no we cant find and use our own resources because pricks like you and your goracle... (as I said before) want Americans to live in mud huts eating their own dung so they are some mythical representation of "Green"
Fortunately, the big corporations have not yet figured out a way to extort money from us in order for us to breathe oxygen - although I'm sure they'd try if it were easily done. You do realize don't you that life on earth survived perfectly well for many many eons without using any oil? But what you apparently haven't figured out yet is that our knowledge about science and technology has mushroomed in the past century? There is no need to go back to mud-huts or a stone age lifestyle and you are being disingenuous in suggesting that we ever will.
All the while the rest of the world surpasses us in wealth and standard of living...
Not if the rest of the world succumbs to the extortion tactics of Big Oil. In fact, a great deal of the world is struggling to survive right now because the increase in oil prices has caused farming and food production to become prohibitively expensive. Well providing more fuel to farmers will not do a whit bit of good if the price of fuel remains high. Note that except for the decline in the value of the dollar, there has not been a single thing that has increased the cost in drilling for oil, pumping oil, or refining it. (And even the decline in the dollar is not even close to accounting for the enormous price increases during the past year) These price increases are not warranted ..... they are quite simply EXTORTION!
Vroom Vroom mother fucker... deal with it bieotch...I'm leaving my lights on all day, AC blowing cold and am on the gas like a mother fucker... just don't let your prius find its way underneath my horsepower....YOUR gonna lose....
No, actually YOU are going to lose because YOU are the one who is going to be paying the bills for the electricity, the AC, and especially for the gas. And yes, you will also be paying the higher insurance premiums (and maybe some good hard jail time) for putting your horsepower on top of our Priuses! Well enjoy it while you have it because I don't think taxpayers are going to agree to bail you out for your reckless spending and reckless behavior! (And we shouldn't be bailing out homeowners who default on their loans either!)
I hope you enjoy living on the streets and sleeping under bridges!
I LOVE my electricity on demand
I LOVE the comfort that my AC provides
I LOVE the food that fills my refrigerator
and I LOVE the 530 Horses that my Detroit built 8cyl internal combustion gives me....
ALL THANKS TO OIL and American ingenuity...
Shame you have such guilt, but don't you dare expect me to live in squalor because you have a problem with it.... The American way of life is not the problem, its the solution....Wake up turd...
First of all, nobody is asking you to live in squalor. However, if you continue to give into the extortion tactics of Big Oil, you most certainly will eventually lose all your assets ...... and then you will be living in squalor!
You are stuck in the past .... in the pre-oil-extortion days of years past. But if you are able to afford those 530 horses and that 8 cyl internal combustion engine, then you most definitely can afford to put solar panels on the roof of your home so that you will literally never ever have to pay for that electricity on demand, the comfort of AC, or the energy to keep the food cold in your refrigerator. After the solar panels and installation are paid off, it will all be free! (and you'll even get a tax credit to boot) How can that be a bad deal? That's not living in squalor or mud huts ...... that is becoming PERSONALLY ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!!! (and THAT is the American way ..... or at least it use to be before we all became addicted to oil!)
And the following excerpts: The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.
Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.
The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.
The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.
Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.
But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years."
ANYMORE EXCUSES FOR LIBERAL STUPIDITY AND COMPLETE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND?
Well maybe you should get off your guilt ridden ass and insist we drill our own resources, build refineries and power plants... WHILE we find viable REAL alternatives to the same energy value as fossil fuels...
Till then, as as I schooled Mikey try choking yourself as you find an alternative to oxygen.. because you mud-hut types are asking for the same exact thing to our economy
but no we cant find and use our own resources because pricks like you and your goracle... (as I said before) want Americans to live in mud huts eating their own dung so they are some mythical representation of "Green"
All the while the rest of the world surpasses us in wealth and standard of living...Not on my watch...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter read at last Tuesday's annual luncheon of San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, Obama stealthily announced his opposition to California's Proposition 8, a November ballot initiative that insists that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Prop 8 was spawned in May after the California Supreme Court by a 4-to-3 vote struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the court struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law as well as a similar law, passed by referendum in 2000 with a 61% majority.
In his letter, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee supported the California court's logic, saying he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.
]]>