"That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.
"These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.
"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime.
"Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."
And Hoekstra lands a left, a right, and now a shot to the chin! The NYT goes DOOOOOOWN
--and if the Administration had a spine there would have been indictments for treason--
Ouch, I felt sympathy pain for the NYT just reading that statement. Actually, it felt kinda good... ;-)
Good - someone in authority is repeating that key important sentence. Let it ring throughout the land - he had a nuke program.
How widely has this statement appeared? Michelle Malkin's blog, obviously, which is widely read on the internet. What about the NY Times? Have they deigned to acknowledge it? Will they print it?
Bears repeating:
"The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."
That's a crock. The IAEA said Saddam was innocent./s
"These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.
Read the whole thing.
O.K. Very Good.
.
Now WHAT are we going to DO ABOUT IRAN !!!!!
I sure wish the president or a few Republicans would hold a major press conference and read this statement to the American voters. Democrats would be toast on Tuesday. And in '08.
So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit...NY Times says some Saddam documents are dangerous....
PING for brilliant response to the NYTimes.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
The New York Times Strikes (Out) Again
Senator Santorum Comments on Release of Valuable Information in Pre-War Documents Discovered in Iraq
U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide (Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program)
Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought (different thread than link above)
Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
JVERITAS Responds to the 11/3 NYT Article Regarding Iraq Nuclear Program.
KNOCK OUT PUNCH! BTTT!
And, remember that only a few short months ago there were very serious calls to declassify all documents, so that the yet to be translated arabic language docs could be studied by all on the net??
I recall that Negroponte was for the release.
Thank God that didn't happen!
You traitorous, leftist p.o.s.