Maybe I'm just really tired, but the NYT article seems to read that all the nuke docs are PRE Persian Gulf War and the reference in the article to Iraq "being as little as a year away" is referring to the timeframe before the Persian Gulf War and NOT 2002. I know that jveritas said Iraq even having nuke plans is a no-no but the Dems could argue that "everyone knew Iraq had a nuke program before the Persian Gulf War so that is old news, just like all the WMD's that have been found are pre Persian Gulf War so they don't really count" They will say this does not prove Bush right but rather incompetent.
Could this not be as bullet proof as we hope it is? What say you jveritas?
NYT: "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"
Notice the two phrases 1990s and 2002. How can Iraq be "as little as a year away" from building a bomb if they were referring to the 1990s (an entire decade)? When in the 1990s WHat year is he talking about? Unless the writer is referring to a SPECIFIC YEAR (ie 2002) the statement: "as little as a year away" makes no sense.