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.
November Surprise for the DUmmies ?
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!
Beautiful!
Who was it who posted the following? Oh, year! It was me!!
Posted by Piranha to libstripper
On News/Activism ^ 11/18/2005 10:09:03 AM CST · 10 of 21 ^
So Hayes is advocating taking classified documents, which we haven't translated and don't understand, and then posting them on the internet where anyone with the most anti-American motives in the world can get access to 35,000 pages? They will know what is in the documents, and they will know how to use that information to further the war on terror.
What if the documents do discuss the WMD? What if they specifically describe where those documents have been stored? Do we really want every reader of Arabic to have immediate access to that information?
I don't understand the logic of saying, in effect, "here are some important documents. We have classified them but we don't know what they say, so we'll share them with the world."
Great ... especially the CQ post, very good.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php
He nails it in so many ways - THE DOCS VERIFY SADDAM'S WMD INTENTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM. CASE CLOSED!
How do I do a 'trackback' to get on your trackback list?
That's the point the NYT is attempting to make with this story. But the point the public will get is that the WMD threat was real after all. And the effect will be to undermine the central moonbat theme, namely that the war was not necessary, Bush lied, people died.
This is a work accident for the NYT.
The documents the article is talking about are the documets the iraqis gave the inspectors about that nuclear program(pre-1991) in the 1990's and in 2002
jesus people calm down and read
"From how I understand it the documents the NYT are talking about are reports written by the Iraqis to the United Nations inspectors"
.... well, the NYTimes would *write it* that way, but that doesn't make it the whole truth or the whole story. The set of documents is far more extensive than that, and tells some very interesting things about Saddam's support for terrorists and his WMD pursuits and his tortures and outrages and other things, most of which the NYTimes would dread to have the American people know about.
More on the rest of the story here:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731259/posts
"It was the ability to process the material causing the delay."
Yup, although dont discount the knowledge factor, if it was easy every country would have it. We were only some leakiness in the sanctions away from Iraq getting centerfuges from the same places Iran got them.
He's already been pretty squirrelly this week, even before this NY Times article :)
Do you think he's nervous about the Dems failing to take Congress?
There were no WMD stockpiles found. That is clear.
There were WMD programs. The nue program was judged to be inactive by Kay report.
"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?"
At the simplest level facts are on side of the 'no WMDs'.
To defend differently you have to explain that although the WMDs arent there, the threat was based on progams and potentials, a complicated argument to make against the 'bush lied' liars.
There's an old saying that says "Dont get into an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
The media can drown even the president out with their persistent 'no WMDs' meme.
The NYTimes article *doesnt* say Saddam had a nuke program that was active... what it does do is remind us that the nuclear WMD thrat from Saddam was real, not a lie, and could have bitten us at any time had we not put an end to saddam's regime.
BTW: ARE YOU VOTING REPUBLICAN?
NOTE TO ALL:
Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!
ABC Evening News for Thursday, Mar 29, 1990
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Headline: Iraq / Nuclear Triggers Abstract: (Studio: Peter Jennings) Indictments in case involving plot to smuggle triggers for nuclear weapons from United States to Iraq noted. (Washington: Walter Rodgers) Iraq and nuclear weapons featured; details given of statements from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi ambassador in Paris. [Iraqi undersecretary for foreign affairs Nizar HAMDOON - says they were capacitors for industrial applications.] [US Customs commissioner Carol HALLETT - says Euromac firm was found to be official purchasing office for Iraqi government.] [Disguised United States undercover AGENT - says capacitors were designed for detonating nuclear warheads.]
Begin Time: 05:35:50 pm End Time: 05:37:30 pm TVN Record Number: 127660 Copyright: Abstract and Metadata (c) 1990-2006 Vanderbilt University
One can imagine the uproar if George Bush did NOTHING and let Saddam continue developing WMD/NUKES in a post 911 world. The Dims would be screaming his incompetence.
If he vetoed HOMELAND SECURITY....the Dims/DBM would be going apoplectic.
If he vetoed the Patriot Act, the Dims/DBM would be for it.
If he did not establish the Terrorist Surveillance Program the DIMS/DBM would be pushing it's inception.
The bottom line is no matter what he would have done or did, the DIMS would be doing the same thing right now. Condemning HIM and his cabinet and calling him the worst President ever!!
Do you think that will actually be talked about on the news? My thinking is that CNN and MSNBC and everybody else in the MSM will be about the documents being posted online and that Republicans were responsible for the program. They won't focus on that this vindicates the War in Iraq but say that Republicans put plans to build a nuke on the internet. Or that Republicans were willing to risk WMD secrets getting out in order to get further justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Do you think stuff like that will take or will it be about Saddam being close to a nuke? Don't have a good feeling about this. Not enough time before the election to get the facts straightened out from the Gray Lady's distortions. Is there enough time?
exactly...didn;t the final Kay report say something like saddam planned to restart his programs after the UN sanctions/inspections were over(or something)
Maybe YOU should calm down and real......
from Jveritas research......
Iraqi Documents: Projects to Rebuild Saddam Nuclear Facilities (Translation)
Pentagon/FMSO website for Iraq Pre-war documents http://70.168.46.200/ ^ | October 12 2006 | jveritas
Posted on 10/12/2006 8:11:36 AM PDT by jveritas
Documents CMPC-2004-003978.pdf and CMPC-2004-002191.pdf contains memos dated from 1999 to 2001 that talk about projects sponsored by the Iraqi Atomic Nuclear Agency to rebuild some of their nuclear facilities and equipments. All the projects were dated after the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. These facilities and equipments were part of Iraq clandestine nuclear weapon program before the 1991 Gulf War and they were destroyed by the bombing and some were dismantled by the UN weapon inspector. Rebuilding these nuclear facilities and equipments was totally prohibited per the UN sanctions. The facilities include rebuilding Iraq Radioactive Waste Treatment Station (RWTS) that was destroyed by bombing during operation Desert Storm in 1991. Another project was to rebuild the RadioChemistry laboratories. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the RWTS and the RadioChemistry Laboratories were part of Iraq clandestine nuclear program (http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1997-779-att-3.htm, see section 3.4 of the link). Document CMCP-2004-003978 there is a project by the Iraq Atomic Agency to fix “Furnaces” from the Dicosa brand. Nuclear facilities require very specialized “furnaces” and this type of furnaces is prohibited according to the UN (http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1995-215.htm, see point 57 and 58).
is the Times talking about those documents? no..
did they actually get rebuilt?(don;t know I'm asking)
what part of pre-1991 don;t you understand
"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."
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.