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.
Looks like the IAEA has been on quite a campaign of disinformation and subterfuge if you ask me!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
The BBC says it is so ....
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/
Even the Commie News Network says so ...
"They're reports BY the Iraqis TO the international inspectors, the Iraqis doing what they were required to do, summarizing the nuclear research they did PRIOR to the 1991 Gulf War."
The article does not limit this to prior to the 1991 Gulf War.
One other thing. The Iraqis were supposed to do far more than report or summarize the nuclear research, they were to turn it over to the IAEA, or show proof that they destroyed it. Clearly neither was the case here.
"The Iraqis brought an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem, which is precisely the strategy for Iraq."
That can't be. We don't have a strategy for Iraq. Haven't you been listening to the news? /sarcasm.
"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."
1. The site was created in March, but these docs were not posted until recent weeks.
2. The GOP leaders urged to get the site created and have documents put out on it.
3. An extremely large number of docs were put on the site in March and shortly after.
4. No docs were put on for several months.
5. The NYTimes and others ignored this site from its inception.
6. Suddenly more docs are put on the site.
7. Suddenly the NYTimes finds docs that were recently put out on the site and makes accusations.
Is it me, or were these docs put out, then pointed out to the NYTimes?
One other thing. From reading the article, it appears that only experience weapons experts are making any waves about this. In other words, if you do not know how to build a nuke, you would not know what these documents had in them. You would not know if they were real or not.
The reason the site was closed down was because the NYTimes let the cat out of the bag regarding the effectiveness of these documents.
Thanks. I saw it!
"To me it reads like they were "a year away" BEFORE the first Gulf War ... not after. Am I reading this wrong?"
Is a nuke that was designed before the Gulf War unable to kill now?
That Brer Rabbit was something else. Who wouldn't love him?
Lets see the NYTimes totally buried the story of the Libyans running a nuclear research program for Saddam even after the Colonel ADMITTED IT and turned over everything to the US, yet you don't believe it could hide another Saddam program?
Don't you think there would have been SOME interest in such a story? Some enterprising reporter would have a great story here but noooo that might help Bush and the GOP. So they are looking at any and every trivial story in depth rather than forego their Treason.
Hoekstra is no friend of the NYTimes.
There are plenty of dumb ideas floating around from people who don't have a clue you aren't alone.
How did the NY Times get a copy of Hoekstra's letter to the President in which Hoekstra complained about Congress getting too little information about domestic surveillance programs?
The letter was plastered on the NY Times website back in July. All the MSM picked up on it.
What does that have to do with being the "friend" of the NY Times? I would call it "using the enemy to undermine itself."
I call it the NY Times and Hoekstra being on the same side using Hoekstra's "confidential letter" to undermine the President and his attempt to keep some intelligence activities away from leaky congress.
How is that the "enemy" being undermined?
Jane Harmon joined in too.
Q:How did the NY Times get a copy of Hoekstra's letter to the President in which Hoekstra complained about Congress getting too little information about domestic surveillance programs?
This information had to be released; it in no way undermines the President rather, it strengthens his case.
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.