For FReepers:
For the NYT, Lefties:
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.
extra buttery
OK, thanks! I figured there ought to be a thread about it, should have run a search. Maybe we ought to discuss it on that thread when it breaks. You people decide.
No problem. China and Pakistan provided the little details. I refuse to lower myself to name calling.
Don't tell me. Somebody mispoke again, and WE are "misunderstanding". Twice in one week? LOL
So what we see in actions taking place all over Iraq is that Iraqis are taking charge of their country, and they're doing it valiantly.
Violence will flare up again in areas that are under Iraqi control. The question will be, can they handle these situations themselves?
In all these incidents they did; they responded and they returned calm to the areas.
The Iraqis brought an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem, which is precisely the strategy for Iraq.
If you read the entire NYTimes article you'll find that the documents were posted at the behest of Congressional GOP leaders to prove that Iraq was indeed still trying to create a nuclear weapon which, of course, Iraq, the Times, Hans Blix, the UN, etc. all said Saddam Hussein was not doing. This story is clearly a liberal spin job and we are led to believe that the only documents on the website were these that are helpful to Iran. Of course, these documents would be helpful to any entity but the Times says helpful to Iran because there's more bang for the liberal buck that way.
Trust me when I tell you this pre-election surprise is a flat-out bust. The Times knows it and that's why they waited until Friday to run it.
see what I wrote at post #6...
Is this revelation not consistent with David Kay's report on the status of Iraq's nuclear weapons program?
I do believe it's time for FR to invent the "DIAPER BRIGADE"!
It's a weird article, so I can sort of see how people are hopefully twisting it, but the strange thing, as I see it that is really confusing people (and which isn't made clear till the end of the article is this:
The documents that were made public that the proliferation experts are upset about were Iraqi reports MADE AT THE REQUEST OF IAEA INSPECTORS about their pre-1991 nuclear program.
It SEEMS that what was "captured" was the Iraqi copies of these reports they had given to the IAEA (of which the details and technical diagrams they didn't make public themselves) and then these were what was posted on the internet.
NY Times and the IAEA are lying about it being "how to build the bomb" and I bet they are more worried about something more damaging that hasn't been published yet. Why would Iran go a US Government website when they can just go to Amazon.com?
Say it ain't so! ;)
The Iraqis had a nuclear weapons program in 1991. This story reveals that the Iraqis cooperated with the IAEA inspectors in making a report on what they had accomplished in that pre-1991 program.
Another botched joke incident? How likely is that?
For FReepers:
For the NYT, Lefties:
THANK YOU NEW YORK TIMES! I didn't know you wanted Reps to win after all. Thank you for telling the world Saddam was One Year away from having an ATOM BOMB!
And thank you for confirming we're not moronic idiots for believing it all along!
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."
That Iraq was very close to a nuclear weapon just before Gulf War I has been very well known for quite some time now.
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.