Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Army Air Corps; All
Thank you very much my fellow freepers, just doing my duty. Our great thanks should go to our braves troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world.

The New York Times gave us a huge opening with their story to crush their lies and the lies of the Left that they have been spewing for the last three years. Please share this post with any news media in particular our side of the media. If someone has good contact with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or any talk radio please send them the post above. Thank you for your help.

God Bless our brave troops. God Bless America.

37 posted on 11/02/2006 9:02:26 PM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: jveritas; All

Special@foxnews.com (Brit Hume)
Hannity@foxnews.com
Oreilly@foxnews.com
Studiob@foxnews.com (Shep Smith)
Myword@foxnews.com (John Gibson)
Drudge@drudgereport.com
writemalkin@gmail.com
hhewitt@hughhewitt.com
rush@eibnet.com
Beltway@foxnews.com (Barnes & Kondracke)
Friends@foxnews.com
humanevents@humaneventsonline.com (Ann Coulter)
CNN@cnn.com
CNN.onair@cnn.com
Viewerservices@msnbc.com
Letters@Newsweek.com
Letters@NYT.com
Editor@USAToday.com
Webeditor@Washingtontimes.com
Letterstoed@washpost.com

http://intelligence.senate.gov/ (Senate Intelligence Committee)


45 posted on 11/02/2006 9:04:14 PM PST by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas

Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

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.

UPDATE: The article is up here.

Having now read it, I can see that every stop has been pulled out to ensure that a reader will believe that posting these documents was a strategic blunder of the first order.

But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that actually has the documents.

(By the way, is it just me, or is the article entirely devoid of any indication that Iran actually accessed the documents? This threat that, "You idiot! Iran could access all the documents!" is entirely speculative. If the government servers hosting the web site have signs that Iranian web browsers accessed those pages, it's a different story; my guess is somebody already knows the answer to that question.)

I'm still kinda blown away by this paragraph:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s 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. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.

And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to manual" on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year.

In other news, it's good to see that the New York Times is firmly against publicizing sensitive and classified information. Unless, of course, they're the ones doing it.


http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=


50 posted on 11/02/2006 9:05:42 PM PST by conservativepoet (NY Times is the "John Kerry" of newspapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas

For your work to fight lies and deceptions with regard to the threat that Iraq posed, I think that you should be rewarded (maybe a Presidential Medal of Freedom).


54 posted on 11/02/2006 9:06:39 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas
Why not celebrate with some dessert?


55 posted on 11/02/2006 9:07:12 PM PST by Petronski (CNN is an insidiously treasonous, enemy propaganda organ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas
The 2004 election took down Dan Rather, will 2006 be the final nail in the coffin of the NYT's?

I wonder if Imus will tell Pinch to shut up tomorrow?

Thanks for your great work.

58 posted on 11/02/2006 9:08:48 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter (Sign at World Series in St. Louis, October 27, 2006 "The Experts are Idiots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas

I will get it to Sean, before he starts show prep!


73 posted on 11/02/2006 9:14:34 PM PST by Repub4bush (Tony is the Best Press Secretary Ever!!!!! (Sorry Ari, I liked you too, but you ain't Tony!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas; holdonnow

Here's a story for Friday's show...


84 posted on 11/02/2006 9:18:53 PM PST by tgslTakoma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas
Be assured that Rush has it.
154 posted on 11/02/2006 9:45:57 PM PST by ValentinesDay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas

God bless you, jveritas. And thank you for your hard work.


156 posted on 11/02/2006 9:47:00 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas

Media emails – the formula: if they hear from 40 tp 45 people on a story, they will cover it.
CAUTION: do not mass email - they won’t look at it – email singly


e.d.hill@foxnews.com


Brit.Hume@foxnews.com
Special@foxnews.com
Hannity@foxnews.com
Oreilly@foxnews.com
Special@foxnews.com (Brit Hume)
Studiob@foxnews.com (Shepard Smith)
hardball@msnbc.com
myword@foxnews.com (John Gibson)
Drudge@drudgereport.com
captainsquartersblog.com
writemalkin@gmail.com
hhewitt@hughhewitt.com
pundit@instapundit.com
powerlinefeedback@gmail.com
Rush@eibnet.com
Intelligence@senate.gov
captain@captainsquartersblog.com
Pete.King@mail.house.gov
letters@nytimes.com
joe@msnbc.com


164 posted on 11/02/2006 9:52:45 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: jveritas

"You, sir, are a steely-eyed missle man."

Thanks for all that you do.


307 posted on 11/03/2006 3:14:44 AM PST by Josh Painter (If you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you become a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson