Posted on 11/02/2006 8:01:04 PM PST by RDTF
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 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.
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.”
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.
The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
As if Iran didn't already have one of these emailed to them by Pakistan or North Korea. Boy the NYT really outdid themselves in stupidity this time.
They'll be kicking themselves in the head tomorrow.
Actually years ago I remember seeing a segment on television of a junior at Princeton writing a report on how to build a nuke, and he was a C student.
And just like the mustard and nerve gas he had, the Left will say this was okay; they'll say we all knew this; they'll say it's just old news that Saddam had these things. They'll ignore the fact that he wasn't to have them anymore.
From the article:
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
and remember the Manhattan Project?
Sorry didn't provide link to the article I was quoting. It is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731252/posts
Because they want to "tear it all down". This is a surprise to you?
When was "at the time"? The 1990s or 2002?
Their readers are, and that's what counts in this propaganda war. The tone of the article says "Bush screwed up" and that's what the libs will take away from this. If they need to clarify for their stupid readers, they'll explain that during the Clinton years, Sadaam's bad stuff was all shut down and contained, then Bush came along and stirred it all back up.
Facts mean nothing to the MSM or the Dems. Politics are more emotional these days than based on logic for many of the masses.
"When was "at the time"? The 1990s or 2002?"
...or the year before the Persian Gulf War?
It's a very poorly worded sentence...
Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.
And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to manual" on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year.
So it doesn't matter when the plans were known. In 2002 the docs were written. They reflect what Saddam's gov''t knew then.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
Ref:
http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=
Excellent article. Thanks for the link.
I don't care about the anti-war crowd. This was freaking retarded. This was dangerous. Hussein was close to building a nuke, and we had the bright idea of putting all his research on the internet for Osama and Iran to download to help them along.
While we can cheer that Iraq was dangerous, we just made the world more dangerous. It pisses me off that we didn't think that maybe advanced nuclear diagrams on the internet might not be so hot of an idea.
The proper thing to do would have been to shown them to the Senate Intelligence Committee under a closed briefing, allowed no copies, just a briefing, and have the President announce it to the nation. You don't put it on the internet.
There's nothing of importance there, scientists. Remember, Saddam had no weapons program and he had no instructions on how to do anything.
Well, isn't that what you all have stated? I say leave it all up and shove it down their stupid throats.
After all, the world and its liberals continue to say there was no threat from him.
Who knows what got out and what didn't. Remember, this is a "hit piece" by the NYTs to turn an election. Don't lose sleep over it.
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.