Skip to comments.
Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
NRO ^
| Jim Geraghty
Posted on 11/02/2006 8:09:04 PM PST by hipaatwo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 401-402 next last
To: hipaatwo
The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb.
Umm, no. It's a poorly written paragraph of the article, but they're not saying Iraq was one year away from having an atomic bomb in 2002 - they mean 1991.
61
posted on
11/02/2006 8:27:34 PM PST
by
Strategerist
(Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
To: Aussie Dasher; SandRat
Iraqi security forces continue to develop into a capable force and continue to take the lead. On Tuesday in Ramadi, the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Brigade of the 7th Iraqi Army Division assumed responsibility in its area of operations.
This now makes 90 Iraq army battalions in the lead. In total today, there are six of 10 Iraqi army divisions in the lead, 30 of 36 Iraqi brigades, and 90 of 112 Iraqi battalions in the lead. And we operate in support of them.
All across Iraq, we continue to see an increasingly capable Iraqi security force continuing to take the lead.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6836&Itemid=30
62
posted on
11/02/2006 8:27:50 PM PST
by
george76
(Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
To: Jackson Brown
OK-so if they are so in a wad about the documents showing the nuke program they are going to have to give equal weight to the documents that show he had a WMD program and when those documents are dated.
If anything, they have given notice to ALL the documents and their contents.
63
posted on
11/02/2006 8:27:56 PM PST
by
pnz1
(Halp!)
To: hipaatwo
This has to go in the RYMB category
64
posted on
11/02/2006 8:27:57 PM PST
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: hipaatwo; Aliska
65
posted on
11/02/2006 8:28:40 PM PST
by
blondee123
(Politicians are like diapers, need to be changed often & for the same reason!)
To: Mo1
Chrissy Matthews will wet himself over another non story.
66
posted on
11/02/2006 8:29:01 PM PST
by
samadams2000
(Somebody important make....THE CALL!)
To: msnimje
And do you know what %&!!@# you can do with Aluminum Tubes!!
67
posted on
11/02/2006 8:29:27 PM PST
by
MMcC
To: CharlesWayneCT
If we don't let them, we can win the spin on this story. Good post (#24). I hope you're right...
68
posted on
11/02/2006 8:29:41 PM PST
by
nutmeg
(National security trumps everything else.)
To: blondee123
Hi blondee123, please allow me to put my bookmark on your chair. :)
69
posted on
11/02/2006 8:29:58 PM PST
by
Chena
("I'm not young enough to know everything." (Oscar Wilde))
To: Aliska
Aliska, I dont know if that is going to be the content of the Move America Forward announcement. (BTW for those not familiar with them, they are not a liberal group)
..but I got a feeling this NYTimes article is somehow related to it.
70
posted on
11/02/2006 8:30:12 PM PST
by
mware
To: LikeLight
a. NYT has just confirmed that Saddam had viable WMD tech in his possession right to the end (he wasn't supposed to have it)
No they aren't.
It's a surprisingly poorly-written and confusing article by NYT standards, but you've really got to read the thing twice and really understand the nature of the documents. 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.
71
posted on
11/02/2006 8:31:09 PM PST
by
Strategerist
(Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
To: hipaatwo
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program.
To: Strategerist
Here's the money quote, by the NYT, in it's very own words:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s 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. Husseins scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
It doesn't get any sweeter than this. NYT confirms Bush was right on WMD!
73
posted on
11/02/2006 8:32:39 PM PST
by
LikeLight
(RYMB)
To: stylin19a
Iraq had not yet come up with a design for a workable weapon in 1991. Try again.
74
posted on
11/02/2006 8:32:39 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Jhengis Johnny was against an apology before he was for it, sort of.)
To: hipaatwo
Ping me OK, but it should be at the link I posted. I don't have any inside scoop or anything, just have a friend who kind of knows some people. This just came through as a newsletter to him it appears. He just helped me with a problem with some info I've been compiling, but I still need a good source.
75
posted on
11/02/2006 8:32:54 PM PST
by
Aliska
To: Strategerist
So they just had the retained knowledge and could start it up as soon as they wanted to? Like, say, in a year?
76
posted on
11/02/2006 8:33:04 PM PST
by
bnelson44
(Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
To: bnelson44
"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.
77
posted on
11/02/2006 8:34:15 PM PST
by
HarryCaul
(www.whitehousepresscorps.com)
To: Strategerist
Umm, no. It's a poorly written paragraph of the article, but they're not saying Iraq was one year away from having an atomic bomb in 2002 - they mean 1991.Uh no they could not have meant that. Iraq did not have a workable design for a nuclear weapon in 1992.
78
posted on
11/02/2006 8:34:29 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
(Jhengis Johnny was against an apology before he was for it, sort of.)
To: LikeLight
It doesn't get any sweeter than this. NYT confirms Bush was right on WMD!
If you consider "sweet" to be a very poorly written paragraph that you're completely misunderstanding, I guess.
79
posted on
11/02/2006 8:34:34 PM PST
by
Strategerist
(Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
To: hsalaw; Howlin; holdonnow
I'm sure Iran didn't need to read those documents in order to make a nuke - not only could they look up "how to build a nuclear bomb" on the internet, but Russia and/or Germany have probably given them a hand, as well.Exactly!
80
posted on
11/02/2006 8:35:01 PM PST
by
nutmeg
(National security trumps everything else.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 401-402 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson