Free Republic

The big "scoop" on today's front page will be deconstructed at length. Our own professor Geraghty has already done a fine job, and Ed Morrissey has added some further thought and analysis. The bottom line is that the Times has apparently embraced the position taken by Senators Santorum and Roberts, and Representative Hoekstra: that much valuable information was contained in captured Iraqi documents, and that the Intelligence Community was far too slow in translating and evaluating the documents, and that it would be a Very Good Thing to start posting the documents online so that they could be evaluated. Santorum...

The New Yorks times confirms that in 2002 Saddam Hussein's "scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away:" 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. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing...

<p>The New York Times article to be published on November 3rd 2006 is about the US putting some captured Iraqi documents on the Foreign Military Intelligence Office (FMSO) website that talks about what the NYT and the IAEA call sensitive information from Iraq 1996 "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration FFCD presented to the UN and IAEA in 1996 and that talks about Iraq nuclear clandestine program. The IAEA and the New York Times claim that Iran may be using some of the technology in this FFCD which is a laughable idea as shown below.</p>

When I saw the headline on Drudge earlier tonight, that the New York Times had a big story coming out tomorrow that had something to do with Iraq and WMDs, I was ready for an October November Surprise. Well, Drudge is giving us the scoop. And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this: U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN... NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site — Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal — to make public a vast archive of Iraqi...

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

You see kids – this is what happens when your worldview gets hopelessly narrow. In its semi-annual November surprise, the New York Times “reveals” that the Bush administration put documents on the web that showed that Iraq was quite far along in its quest for nuclear weapons. Naturally, that’s not the focus of the story. The focus of the story is the cursed incompetence of the Bush administration, the Republican Party, and even right-wing media-types (like me!) who wanted the documents released. But the takeaway from the story for normal people won’t be that conservatives both inside and outside the...

Lewisburg, PA -- Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, commented today on a story published in The New York Times that calls to question the release of valuable information contained in captured pre-war documents discovered in Iraq. “It is incumbent on the President, as our Commander in Chief, to hold members of the intelligence community accountable to the law if an error was made in improperly posting sensitive information on the Internet.” “In the legislation that I authored, and in correspondence with the President, the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, I...

From Michael Malkin's blog: Hoekstra's response to NYT admitting Saddam was apparently a very dangerous man.

Over the past year or so, I have provided CQ readers with a number of translations from key Iraqi Intelligence Service documents that have been translated by either the FMSO or by Joseph Shahda of the Free Republic website. I even engaged two interpreters to verify one particularly explosive memo last April, after Shahda published his own translation. That memo dealt with IIS plans to get volunteers for suicide missions to 'strike American interests". One particular criticism that appeared with each new translation was that the documents were never proven genuine, although no one could explain the logic behind the...