Replies

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."