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.
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.
You are likely correct that there is no earth shaking news in this because it relates to the situation at the time of Gulf War I. However, it is sufficiently muddled that both sides will get play. I think the bottom line will be a wash or a small gain for the good guys.
Please ping me if you find out anything about this Move America Forward announcement. Thanks!
His point is wrong. Iraq had no workable design in 1991 or 1992. See #125.
Tuesday: "And the Democrats are about to run out the clock up two scores and there's a handoff to Kerry AND IT'S A FUMBLE!! Conservatives ball!"
Friday: "Here comes the onsides kick, ball kicked to the NYTimes and they fall on -- no wait FUMBLE! GOP has it - down the sideline 30, 20, 10 TOUCHDOWN! Game Tied! Pandemonium!
Dude. Any half way competent engineer can figure out how to build a crude, but very deadly and destructive nuke in a few hours via public libraries, or today, the Internet. To put it bluntly, building a nuke is not "rocket science."
The basic knowledge hasn't been "secret" since the 1950s. Understand even a little about physics, and it is not all that complex. The only hard part is getting the materials necessary. That is also very expensive which is why nukes have been the sole property of nation-states and not the stuff of the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh.
It's also why we have a thing called non-proliferation. It's not the knowledge. It's the materials.
I'm hesitant to actually call someone that without proof, but I have to say, the thought has crossed my mind.
Rush needs to get on this on his show tomorrow, and let the public know how the Slimes and the MSM wants to be 2 sided with this issue.
Let's just accept your premise. Okay, so you concede that Saddam maintained details and technical diagrams of his nuke program. And, the NYT is saying that if posted on the internet, these details and diagrams could enable Iran to build nukes. But in Saddam's hands they were no threat? Like he didn't have a freakin' copy machine? He couldn't sell them to Al Qaeda or Iran or North Korea? Or decide to go ahead and build them himself? The very fact that the IAEA (and the NYT) is in such a huff about these documents shows that Saddam had something very dangerous, just like Bush always said. This pops the "no WMD" balloon once and for all.
Or just buy the enriched uranium.
The MSM just got outflanked. And that's really saying something, considering they're all flank.
"European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms."
So...these are apparently the documents used to justify the invasion.
Did they indicate danger or not?
Simple question.
This will backfire on them.
You are right about the threat he posed. Iraq may have had the KNOWLEDGE to build a bomb for a long time. It was the ability to process the material causing the delay.
I believe this is the paragraph in question:
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.
It's interesting that the author is careful to say "in the 1990's and in 2002". Also the author refers to "experts" on multiple occasions yet names none except for one individual mentioned in the following paragraph. This paragraph is actually in the article before the above paragraph so it's doubtful that this "expert" is one associated with the above statements:
“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”
My point is there are no experts named. But this sentence, 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, contrary to what you say, does not specify that this was per communications between the Iraqi governement and UN inspectors nor does it specify which "year" in which Iraq was "as little as a year away" from a nuclear weapon.
You said so much better what I have been trying to point out on this and another thread about this. Thanks.
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.