Posted on 11/02/2006 8:09:04 PM PST by hipaatwo
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 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'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.
Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
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.
as has been mentioned by someone else in another post, to say that Iraq was one year away from building a nuke, in reference to an entire decade (ie. "the 90's), makes little sense. The sentence does seem to imply that 2002 was the period of time refered to, otherwise why even mention 2002. If it was the author's intent to focus on the 90's why even confuse matters by mentioning 2002? your interpretation seems to be incorrect.
ping
As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:
There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.
Now you can read that as Iraq had a workable nuke design in 1991 if you'd like and we'll all just say it's a bad joke.
try again ? that's from the same freaking article...
"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."
"doesn't count"
That's right ... even if Saddam had all the info stashed in secret documents that he could have wheeled out and created a bomb out of in a crash program in 1 year (the experts' estimate) once the sanctions were lifted, it 'doesnt count' because .... well, because!
bump
SWEET!!!
The New York Times may think they are reporting another "gotcha" on Bush....but, this is THE gotcha that Bush has for all of the war in Iraq naysayers!!!
This 1998 article indicates that there was still concern about Iraq's development of nuclear weapons and the inability to verify...
http://www.nci.org/i/ib21998.htm
Talk radio tomorrow is going to be spectacular.
Try what again?
You are missing the point. Iraq was on the way. 1991, 2001, doesn`t matter. They had kicked out the inspectors, they had demonstrated they were working on nukes, and,even if these reports were from 1991, certainly in 2001 they still had the desire and knowledge.
BYBY WMD ARGUEMENT
Listening how media is currently reporting this story (crikets chirping )on ABC CBS radio feeds as well as yahoo and msn indicates it is a positive story confirming wmd program. Compare and contrast to first minutes Foley, Bush DUI, Iraqi ammo dump, negative stories broke.
Strategerist - I get your point... people are a bit too giddy here.
"They are apparently pretty detailed summaries with diagrams."
So?? Iran was already well into their nuclear weapons 'program' long before these 'summaries' were posted on a website...were they not?
Are you and the NYT going to argue that Iran's whole nuclear infrastructure was built between March 19, 2003-October 2006??
Are you going to argue that they built the whole program... not ever knowing if they would ever be able to find info on the internet in order to complete it?
Good grief..you would have to be an absolute fool to believe this dribble!!
"So they just had the retained knowledge and could start it up as soon as they wanted to? Like, say, in a year? "
That may not be others' opinion, but it's mine. They found thousands of pages stashed in a Baghdad rose garden that one of the scientists hid from inspectors for 12 years ... people yawn at it "oh, 12 years old". excuse me, but nuclear weapons technology started in the 1940s. If Saddam was within 1 year in 1991, he could have MADE HIMSELF GET WITHIN ONE YEAR AGAIN VERY QUICKLY.
If he was given a free reign in 2003, he'd be making the same noises Iran is making by now. he'd still need centrifuges, but maybe he'd get some from RPNK!
This is another reminder of the real seriousness of the WMD threat that Saddam posed.
Here's the thing that could hurt...alot:
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.”
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.