Skip to comments.NYT Reporting Friday, Sources Say: U.S. Posting of Iraq Nuke Docs on Web Could Have Helped Iran
Posted on 11/02/2006 7:14:31 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Federal government set up Web site -- Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal -- to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb'... Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums...
Website now shut... Developing...
I am sure the writer will offer no apology for his botched joke.
This really is a hot potato for the dems. How can they come out and call the administration irresponsible for posting dangerous Iraq data when Iraq was supposedly not dangerous??
I'm sure Carter will be right there to help him on election day
They are referring to right after the Persian Gulf war ended.
Geeze. Guess the NYTimes thinks we would believe anything they published.
Be that as it may, the question still remains: If Hussein intended to disarm completely and go the straight and narrow route, why did he keep these "how to build a H-bomb" documents around?
I still think that this hurts really hurts the left. The argument that Iran only recently learned how t build a bomb, because of us is typical NY Slimes sophistry.
Gulf War ended 1991 - How is that "the 1990s and 2002"?
Thanks for providing this important information, jveritas.
I think Santorum was very instrumental in getting these documents released...with Hoekstra...
I HOPE that Santorum USES this article for the next 4 days!!
Yeah that argument does make sense, I just hope it doesn't get drowned out.
If they were referring to right after the Gulf war cease fire was signed, why would Hussein have additional documents up until 2002? Unless of course, his program never ended.
BTTT, BOOKMARKING, and LET'S ROLL!
I agree that they shouldn't have had them in 2002. I was just trying to figure out what the NYT was trying to say in that paragraph. It's pretty poorly written.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves:
Well that shoots down the argument that Iran got their nuke information from these documents
And this part proves that someone over at the UN and been reading these documents and have said nothing about it
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.
My first chance to thank you from all my heart for what you have been doing. It's been invaluable, and will be even more so in 2008!
One reason for posting these documents was that DoD didn't have enough translators to handle all the documents, so they couldn't know what was in most of these documents. Even if they knew and released some of them (like NYT and Dems do) they'd be accused of "selectively leaking" favorable news (like NYT and Dems do) and "manipulating" classified info for political gain (like NYT and Dems do). This article is much more a thinly veiled attack on Republican Congressmen just before elections, as inane as it is, more so than attack on Bush. NYT is trying to blame them for making very important nuclear "secrets" available to Iran. All NYT cares about is to get the "great unwashed" confused enough and angry enough to go the polls and vote against Republicans instead of sitting out.
I questioned if NYT article writers would mention your translations and FR, which apparently they couldn't do lest their "facts" become totally incongruent. As it is, it becomes just another "botched joke".
I hope some other FReepers coordinated and downloaded even more documents, so the great work can continue uninterrupted, and possibly somewhat automated (I am not an expert on Arabic, but maybe there can be some keyword or pattern search of documents in digital format? PDFs? to weed out "relevant" documents)
Ok. The documents show that Hussein was about a year away from having a nuke before we went in. But we all know how the msm, dems, libs will spin this. "Bush put out information on how to build nukes." Hate to say it, but this will probably be the final nail in the Bush presidency.
If I get this right, the documents show how far along Iraq`s nuke program was in 1991. If thats true, putting info on the internet on how to build a nuke (where anyone or any country could see it) is incredibly stupid. I`ve been with Bush through thick and thin, but what the hell was he thinking when he allowed this?
there may have been some signicant errors planted in there just to misguide someone, though it's hard to believe after Pakistan's Khan's Nukes R US project that there is anyone left in the world without the wherewithal to put a nuke together.
Mum's the word, chum.