Iraqi and international officials said Thursday that radioactive material was stolen from a contractor working for an oil services company in Basra Province back in November.
The
missing material was reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency
in November, but the investigation continues into its whereabouts.
Which begs the question of not just how but why is it still missing?
Shouldn't this have been tracked?
Radioactive material isn't diamonds.
It has a heat signature which should allow for satellite tracking.
Changing topics . . .
-
@realDonaldTrump supported#Iraq invasion in 2002, despite presidential campaign claims http://sptnkne.ws/aE3x
SputnikThat's only one example and you can find many more including many US outlets (which I didn't feel like giving a link to).
Will FAIR's COUNTERSPIN comment in the new episode out later today about how the MSM was happy to let Donald be in peace when he was just claiming to be against the Iraq War but when he started calling out Bully Boy Bush and the original decision and what is was built upon, suddenly the same media that sold the illegal war snapped awake and went after him?
No, of course they won't.
Ethics?
It's something FAIR sorely lacks.
Which is why they turned their heads and ignored the big story of a 'reporter' sleeping with a US government official and letting him vet her copy -- something that got Gina Chon fired.
But the official, when the scandal broke, had just been nominated to be US Ambassador to Iraq by Barack Obama so FAIR and the rest looked the other way.
They have no ethics, they have no values.
Which is why all this time is being spent on Donald Trump right now.
So Donald was for it before he was against it?
That would make him John Kerry (or have we all forgotten that ridiculous statement?).
Or maybe he was for it at one point in 2002 and then against it before it started?
That would make him Al Gore -- though we're never supposed to point that out.
The 'noble' lie being that if Al Gore had made it into the White House (which would have required a fight that Al clearly was not up to), then the US would never have gone to war with Iraq.
So you just vanish the public speech Al gave in support of the Iraq War.
The media's firestorm over this has two larger implications beyond their own need to attack anything that would question their selling of the Iraq War all those years ago. (They continue to sell it today.)
One implication would be: Hillary's not fit to be president.
If the decision to oppose it is so important that we're in stop-the-presses mode where all that can be focused on is Donald Trump, then it really does matter greatly where you stood on this originally.
And, as we all know, Hillary was for the Iraq War. In 2002. In 2003. In 2004 . . .
Another implication.
How does this play with voters?
I was against the Iraq War and spoke out as early as February2003 (a month before it started).
As such, I remember the public attitude.
Not everyone had firm and consistent views.
Might this non-stop coverage of Trump's position -- changed or evolving or whatever -- actually create sympathy in a public which saw itself go from support of the war to turning firmly against it?
Those would be topics a left media could explore.
If the left media wasn't devoting their time to electing Hillary.
Of course, a real left media would be spending time weekly to address that dropping bombs on a country does not result in peace, that these bombs kill civilians (whether governments admit it or not), that drone attacks do not breed peace, etc, etc.
But these big topics will be pushed aside by KPFA, et al to instead enlist in electing a Democrat.
The Beggar Media has no ethics.
The following community sites updated:
