JVERITAS Responds to the 11/3 NYT Article Regarding Iraq Nuclear Program.

November 3rd 2006 | jveritas

[jveritas]

The New York Times article to be published on November 3rd 2006 is about the US putting some captured Iraqi documents on the Foreign Military Intelligence Office (FMSO) website that talks about what the NYT and the IAEA call sensitive information from Iraq 1996 "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration FFCD presented to the UN and IAEA in 1996 and that talks about Iraq nuclear clandestine program. The IAEA and the New York Times claim that Iran may be using some of the technology in this FFCD which is a laughable idea as shown below.

That is from the IAEA website regardinf their report on Iraq FFCD presented to them by the Iraqis in 1996: “ 3. On 7 September 1996 in Baghdad Iraq delivered what it considered to be the definitive version of the "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration" (FFCD-F) of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear programme. The IAEA with the assistance of technical experts from Member States undertook a comprehensive review of the document.” Link: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC41/Documents/gc41-20.html

So the FFCD was discussed with member states experts of the IAEA. There are 142 members in the IAEA including Iran. I am not saying that the IAEA discussed the Iraqi FFCD with Iranians but the FFCD was not such a secret document and the Iranians would have been able to access it in one way or another if it really provide them with any useful information.

What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program. In this document it states that Saddam personally approved his Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency to re-use nuclear equipments that include something called “Degussa Furnaces” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities. The Degussa Vacuum furnaces were supplied to Iraq in the 1980’s by a German firm (Degussa AG based in Frankfurt Germany) and these furnaces later on became the subject of investigations of the German firm in the early 1990’s where the company claimed that they did not know that Iraq would have used them in its nuclear program.

The New York Times had an article in 1998 titled “An Iraqi Defector Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Research” where the Degussa furnaces were mentioned as part of “previous” Iraq nuclear program and the controversy surrounding the sale of these furnaces and the investigations later on(link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html ). The irony is that this is not only a New York Times article but also it was written by JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN once of the worst accusers (liars) that the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMD. Where are you Scott Shane????

Link to the translated document on FR: 2001 Iraqi Document: Saddam Approved the Re-Use of Nuclear Equipment http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725141/posts

Moreover, there are documents dated 1999-2001 that talk about Saddam regime projects to re-build some of the nuclear program facilities like RWTS (Radioactive Waste Treatment Station) and Radio-Chemistry laboratories which were part of Iraq previous clandestine nuclear program. Link to the translated document on FR: Iraqi Documents: Projects to Rebuild Saddam Nuclear Facilities http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718125/posts .

Also this one

Iraqi Documents Show Plans for Prohibited Nuclear Projects http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709390/posts

[jveritas]

I will contact him.

[Brad from Tennessee]

"I thought that Judith Miller covered the Middle East for the NYT and supported the WMD assertion."

Miller also risked her life--traveling to Kurdistan--to get interviews and hard evidence on Saddam's and "Chemical Ali"'s use of mustard, sarin and nerve gas to murder thousands of Kurds. Miller's insistence that Iraq possessed, and was developing, weapons of mass destruction put her at odds with the quirky Times publisher and chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. When she refused to participate in the lynching of Karl Rove, in the Plame affair, she was judged politically unreliable by Sulzberger and fired. This was after spending three months in lock-up for not revealing sources. Miller's books and articles on WMD represent some of the rare, objective journalism produced by the Times since the politically partisan "Pinch" took over the Times. When Sulzberger, as publisher, fired Miller, he removed the ethical and organizational "wall" that is supposed to separate the newsroom from corporate management. Sulzberger has spent more than a decade staffing the Times news/editorial department with the most superficial, mediocre propagandists in the industry. Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger Sr. was a World War II Marine who served in the Pacific. He was a traditional liberal and a businessman. "Pinch" was a draft dodger, a trust-fund hippie and a Vietnam protester. He has turned the most august newspaper in the world into a cheap, embarrassing political pamphlet. His lame business practices have sent the Times Company on a course with fiscal disaster.

The whole rest of the U.S. establishment news media would not make a pimple on Judith Miller's ass.

[centexan]

bump for AM reading

[jveritas]

I mean I will call up Rush show if he is going to talk about this subject and explain to him the very important findings in these documents, of course if I get through...

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the reminder of e.d.hill@foxnews.com , will add now.

It doesn't take all that much time to send singly and if more FReepers would take that time our message would get out.

[jveritas]

I hope that the President will address this head on. The truth is on his and our side.

[kabar]

There must be a reason, i.e., hidden agenda, as to why the NYT released this report now. I can't believe that they would believe foolishly that this would harm Bush. Maybe the WH was getting ready to release it or some other damaging information prior to Tuesday. Whatever the motivation, the NYT has validated the documents.

[waimea.man]

I mean I will call up Rush show if he is going to talk about this subject and explain to him the very important findings in these documents, of course if I get through...

And also tell him about how Scott Shane earlier interviewed you, but dismissed the documents. That's a great angle to this story.

[jveritas]

Thank you very much Danae. I shall write a more detailed article on the most important things I found not only on WMD issues but also about Saddam regime very strong relation with terrorism including the infamous meeting his Intelligence service has with Osama Bin Laden. It is all in the documents.

[no dems]

Forgive me but, who is Scott Shane?

[Eva]

I know that everything that you say about Miller is true, but I still don't get her involvement in the warning that Muslim finacial group that they were about to be raided. I always thought that her refusal to testify in the Muslim terrorist support case caused her harsh treatment in case against Rove.

[kabar]

You may also wish to send your article to Kean and Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission as well as to Senator Pat Roberts and Rep Pete Hoekstra.

[TigersEye]

If he doesn't know your name now he will by morning. ; )

I sent e-mails to all those media links. Everybody else do it too. Just give them the title of the thread (I put it in the subject line and repeated it in the body) and copy and paste the URL of this thread. It's more than enough to get their attention. FReep those inboxes!

[jveritas]

The New York Times article about the Iraqi documents on March 28 2006 by Scott Shane:

Iraqi Documents Are Put on Web, and Search Is On

By SCOTT SHANE

Published: March 28, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28intel.html?ex=1301202000&en=7522b02c7aa72c27&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[waimea.man]

Forgive me but, who is Scott Shane?

He is a reporter for the NYT who wrote about the documents back in March.

[Shelayne]

What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

The NYTimes just gave credibility to all of the documents that Joseph translated here on FR! And there are some HUGE discoveries--like the March 11(?)2001 document that called out Iraqi Pilots for suicide missions against American interests!

The NYTimes hoped they opened a can of worms in their zeal to "get Bush", instead they seem to have opened a can of "whoop a**"--Bush style.

They are going to wish they never printed their story. No matter how badly their missive was worded, the perception will be "Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons" and the NYTimes is verifying it. John and Jane Q. Public aren't going to get into the complexities of the argument, they are going to see that Saddam had the "blueprints", our troops captured them, they were put on the internet, and they are real and dangerous, but bottom line will be: "Saddam could have a nuke within a year."

What a November Surprise!

[Albertafriend]

Someone send this to John Ziegler too. He's beeen having so much fun with the Kerry that he broke this will be the icing on the cake.

[jveritas]

He is the New York Times reporter who wrote this latest article and another one on March 28 2006 where he dismissed the values of these Iraqi documents.

[Semi Civil Servant]

Someone close to the EIB microphone has posted on this very thread. Be assured, Rush has it. And if Rush has it, the world has it tomorrow.

[no dems]

Thanks.