Posted on 11/03/2006 7:06:22 AM PST by rudy45
It sounds like the Bush decision to invade Iraq was the right thing to do after all. I think Mr. Broad, the author of this article, deserves a lot of credit for writing it, and that we should tell him so. He can be reached at 212-556-1234 or via email at broad@nytimes.com
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thanks for posting.
I agree they deserve a thank you.
Help me out, Mr. Broad. The fact that the administration posted 12 whole pages of documents that might have helped an existing nuclear program (Iran) but couldn't help terrorists is supposed to make Bush look bad, yet the fact that in 2002 the Iraqis were a year away from having a nuke doesn't deserved the screaming headline "BUSH DIDN'T LIE!"?
That they were very close to a nuclear weapon in 1991 is news to people?
There must be some mistake here. I can't believe the NY Times would publish anything that lends credence to the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq!
I hate to be paranoid, but I suspect a trick of some sort. Taken at its face value the article certainly supports the invasion of Iraq. We must be missing something here!
Couldn't agree more. This morning I was amazed that no one connected the dots and the MSM is portraying this as a major screw up. Nobody said: hey wait a minute - I thought those guys were not interested in nukes!
You mean the fact that a great many people have completely misunderstood, out of hope, a poorly written paragraph?
I've been out of the loop on this article so I have a question. Is there anything in the article that acknowledges Iraq was working on nukes after 1991? If the Times limits it's claim that all work preceded the 1991 sanctions then it's just another hit piece since we know via Jveritas that the program continued. If, on the other hand the Times acknowledges the program continued post sanctions, then they're basically admitting what we knew all along (even if the article is still an attempted hit piece). So, which is it?
---
the fact that in 2002 the Iraqis were a year away from having a nuke doesn't deserved the screaming headline "BUSH DIDN'T LIE!"?
---
Where was the posted or written?
The catch is most of FR misinterpreted the NYT article mentioning the Iraqis were a year away from a nuclear weapon when Gulf War I occurred in 1991, to be saying that the Iraqis were a year away from a nuclear weapon in 2002.
Pundits at large are making that assumption - 2002 not 1991.
Yup, right on page 1 of the Times. Also in other papers also, I think including the Philadelphia Inquirer.
But I thought those things were to be suppressed until after the elections... It sounds like a right winger's LEAK to me... :)
With the media constantly harping that there was no WMD in Iraq prior to the liberation, people have a misguided notion that there really was no WMD. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The documents the NYT is referring to were documents that the Iraqis produced that were REQUESTED BY THE IAEA and the Iraqis provided to them (BEFORE GW II) to explain what they had accomplished in their pre-1991 nuclear program. These documents were very detailed and comprehensive.
What the IAEA and people in the article were complaining about is the US made the documents publicly avaliable on the web.
It was a badly written paragraph but if you carefully re-read the paragraph, and the context of the entire article, unless one is a complete moron or is completely blinded by wishful thinking, it's obvious the NYT is referring to the now long-known fact that the Iraqis were perhaps 1 year away from a nuclear weapon in 1991.
It's that one of the documents the Iraqis provided to the IAEA describing their pre-1991 program was from 2002.
So the NYT has basically ignored the documents interpreted post GW one so they can make the case the documents are dangerous without actually acknowledging the program continued. That sounds more like the NYT I know and despise. I'm assuming all the claims here and elsewhere are wrong and that the NYT didn't say Iraq was 1 year away from a nuke in 2002 and instead that's a misinterpretation of the article. Correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.