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.
because it's leftovers....pre 2003.
sarin gas in artillary shells don't count... leftovers..pre 2003
mustard gas shells don't count...leftovers pre 2003
3 vials of anthrax don't count...leftovers pre 2003
it doesn't matter what they found and when it was found...the RATS will discount it as being pre 2003
I repeat what I wrote to Strategy dude:
"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 weapons 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(compliments of Saddam Hussein and the USA) in order to complete it?
Good grief..you would have to be an absolute fool to believe this dribble!!
You are a troll.
Maybe the Pubs were going to show papers right before the election that PROVES there were WMD and the NYTimes is heading the info off at the pass........
This can't be true.
I mean Hans Blix just said that there were no wmd programs, and that Iraq was better off when he was getting oil vouchers, err, I mean, under Saddam.
New PreWarDoc fits with Gwynne Roberts article about Iraqi nuclear testThe article describes a conversation with a man called “Leone” who claimed to be a nuclear scientist working in Iraq. He approached Gwynne with tales of hidden nuclear programs, hidden nuclear weapons and most surprisingly a claim of a successful nuclear test performed in the Rezzaza Lake area of southern Iraq in 1989.
(snip)
But putting this story together with a newly released document does present an intriguing clue. A few weeks ago a man named Joseph or screen name “Jveritas” started putting original translations on the Free Republic website. One of them was interesting but did not receive a lot of attention: ISGQ-2004-00224003
"So they just had the retained knowledge and could start it up as soon as they wanted to? Like, say, in a year?"
Yes. IMHO. All Saddam would need is scientists and centrifuges - he had the uranium (under seal, but Iran broke seals too).
"Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war."
"Captured during the war. First line of the article."
Captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 ... let's be clear about it.
The UN inspectors, and 1991 war did *not* clean out Saddam's WMD documents or his programs fully. Saddam kept secret documents on them.
Let's review the tape, shall we:
1. Saddam had serious nuclear program during 1970s and 1980s. It was stunted but not stopped by Osirak reactor bombing by Israelis.
2. After Desert Storm, the ceasefire agreement required Saddam to reveal his WMD programs. He never willingly revealed his nuclear program, but it was uncovered, and we were shocked to find him close to having operational nukes.
3. After 12 years of sanctions and lack of answers on WMDs, and multiple cases where Iraq lied (like about bio-weapons), and 17 resolutions by the UN, the US decided the
4. In Operation Iraqi Freedom we uncovered documents the Iraqis still had on hand up until 2003. These documents would give an future Iraqi WMD program a "roadmap" for building an atom bomb that would shave off many years of any such program.
5. The fact that Iraq successfully held on those documents through 12 years of sanctions and inspections indicates that they *never* would have been exposed and removed. Saddam could have restarted them at any time.
The NYTimes is in a snit over possible leakage of some sensitive information, although in reality as article itself points out, it probably is not much use to non-serious WMD programs (and there are today 2 main threats - Iran and RPNK - and both are beyond where Iraq was).
But the NY Times has unwittingly LENT SUPPORT TO THE ORIGINAL CASSUS BELLI FOR REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE WMD THREAT MAY HAVE BEEN LATENT AND NOT ACTIVE, BUT THE THREAT REMAINED AND WAS REAL. With both a loss of sanctions and the oil-for-bribes money, Saddam could have been on a quick ramp to nuclear weapons within years.
Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!
Yeah, I know you were. And I still don't know what you're talking about Lou.
With all due respect you're a little full of yourself. This article is clearly a spin piece and the author is careful in the way he's written it. There is much supposed fact yet little of it attributed to anyone, named or unnamed. In fact it's not far away from an Op-Ed piece but it does appear you've bought into the reasoning behind the article existence in the first place.
However, I've had little succces previously on FR from keeping people from living in hopeful fantasyworlds, and I don't think I'm going to have much success in this one either.
With all due respect again, you could very well be wrong this time.
Dude. That may be true but it's also irrelevant when the New Yawk Slimes is slamming President Bush and talking down to the mentally challenged living among us who will be voting on Tuesday while believing that President Bush told the terrorists how to build a nuke "on da intanet." The New Yawk Times said it so it must be true.
He's their spokes person.
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/one_of_the_esse.html
I found a more interesting investigation of this bomb detonation in a large diameter cave here.
I don't know if he is considered a pundit, but I see Alan Colmes bouncing right out of his seat on this one...
"This goes to VERY BIG -- the BIGGEST of the -- issues about the WHOLE IRAQ WAR -- did Saddam have active WMD programs.
The NYTs is saying yes -- to the WORLD. "
Others are pointing out that NYTimes likely never intended its statements to say 'active', and our own Kay report indicated that the nuke program was dormant in 2003. HOWEVER ... What is compelling is the point that NYTimes is saying that at one point in the past, Saddam was "on the verge", and with this info its hard to get get back "off" the verge if you ever reconstitute the program.
Anyone who thinks about it knows it makes sense, but alas the liberal MSM has got the "no WMDs" drumbeat pounding for so long, people assume that means "no threat". Wrong.
even if the program was dormant - the threat was there, ready to become an imminent threat at the time of Saddam's choosing.
Conclusion: WE DID THE RIGHT THING TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Despite the violence in the new democratic Iraq, despite the "mess", despite the cost, we are better off removing Saddam's threat and turning an Arab coutnry from a dictatorship to a democracy.
"Smells like briar patch to me....."
LOL..as a southern gal..that was my favorite story growing up! My great grandmother use to tell it with quite a flair....lol! I pray you are right!!
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.