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.
Thus, Bush is the one responsible for Iran's nuke program, using Iraq's nuclear plan, which doesn't exist, and therefore we invaded Iraq for no reason other than for Bush to find and reveal nuke plans that Iraq doesn't have to create a nuke weapon program which Iran says doesn't exist.
Oh, hell, just stick with "Bush lied!", NYT, it's so much simpler and fits better on the front page with your latest leaked US intel secrets. Oh, and Abu Grahbe and Katrina to you.
Here is the pertinent paragraph again:
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.
The first Gulf War was late 1990-1991 so if these reports were were written in the 1990s it was after the war. It appears to me the author of this article is purposely ambiguous.
Suddenly, the New York Times
is worried about dangerous disclosures
By Michelle Malkin · November 02, 2006 11:32 PM
So, this is the big NYTimes story that was being hyped tonight: "U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide:"
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 NYTimes blabbermouths are accusing the Bush administration of being careless with national security data?
Ouch. Stop. Sides. Splitting.
Reader Mike M. sends the best response:
With all of the classified document leaks purposefully made by the NY Times--through clearly illegal sources--for the NY Times to suggest that the U.S. may have helped users of this web site to build bombs or do things to endanger America is rich.
And ripe.
Ha.
Just another rich and ripe example of how the Times' problem is, you know, that it's too "evenhanded."
***
Allah "questions the timing."
Chester remembers when the NYTimes stepped in late October 2004 al-QaQaa.
Jim Geraghty:
"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."
"This 1998 article indicates that there was still concern about Iraq's development of nuclear weapons and the inability to verify..."
You know what? WE had those concerns every year until 2003, and for good reason, because Saddam could not be trusted. ... and as we now know, he had continued to have access to documents on his nuke program.
A heck of a lot less than it would have if FReepers weren't here to unspin it. Back when the MSM dinosaurs ruled the earth, it would have dominated the news in just the way the NYT intended - as some kind of Bush scandal. Now, I think they'll just try to bury it quietly. That is, if we're dumb enough to let them.
No, not really. If they had the documents with the instructions, they could have obviously built what they needed at any time given the right materials.
Hillary. If the dems do well in the mid-terms, Hillary's shot at POTUS actually decreases because of the backlash that will come after the prolonged hearings and threats to cut off funding to the Iraq War. Hillary benefits much more from being able to criticize than from having to explain. Warner is gone, Kerry is toast, who's left? Algore? Barak Obama? Hillary's only chance to win is to foment a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with the admin in power. The only way that works is if the admin in power is Republican.
"Experts" like Ritter who said Saddam had them, then Ritter suddenly "got religion" and changed his tune?
"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."
You are correct on that... The NYT is trying to create "Bush/GOP Congress screw up" meme, and its obvious based on the wording.... yet its the tortured wording that makes it clear they are trying to make it sound like Bush having these docs public is dangerous, without the obvious corrolary that Saddam having these documents - available for use or resale - would be far more dangerous.
Kind of like Kerry's joke - this will fall flat for them.
Okay, try to follow this.
The NYT claims the info which we got from Iraq in 2003 would be dangerous in Iran's hands.
Yet, you and the NYT want us to believe the very same info was harmless in Saddam's hands.
Puh-leeze.
That's a bit misleading.
There is a big difference between "crude" device and other more effective devices, like ones that are small enough to fit onto missiles.
Saddam had many of the needed materials on hand.
What's really funny about this is that in both cases this week, the DEMS [Kerry and then the NYT's] were trying to say something about foreign policy, their biggest weakness.Both times falling completely flat, and further proving their incompetence.
They get caught up in their own egos, start believing their own spin, and fall flat on their face.
Liberals will say that Bush should have found the evidence earlier. Of course the main stream media will say it's not enough evidence and downplay it just like the fact that we've killed several thousand members of Al Queda in Iraq.
Fortunately, more Americans will see through this and realize what Bush saved us from.
But, but, but, but, I thought the DIDN'T jhave any weapons of Mass Destruction. </sarcasm off.
Um, you're still dodging the obvious question. If the "documents being in Saddam's possession as recently as a few years ago" is nothing more than a non-story, then why are the documents dangerous enough to be removed from the website? Why are they dangerous enough to be reported on by the NYT? Helloooo?
The 'rats will always discount facts. So. What?
in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is true, why did Bush spend the last 3 years bumbling the message about why we went in there? He's practically admitted there were no WMD. Why did he do that? I just don't get why he didn't stick to his guns on the PR side of the Iraq war. I just don't get it at all. He folded his cards and let the traitors, losers and other assorted Democratic scumbags rake in a pot they didn't earn and didn't deserve. Why?
bttt
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.