so let me see if I have this straight...
There were no WMDs in Iraq, and there is no evidence that Saddam was researching them or working to acquire them, but when evidence of said research is posted publically, it might help other badguys with research, even though there is no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and the other guys were further along in their nuke program?
Only the New York Times could come up with that story.
this is unreal.
iraq has no WMD, the Niger deal was not an attempt for them to get yellowcake, they had no nuclear program.
but a bunch of their sketches and equations, posted on the web, are allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon as easy as assembling a lego bridge.
--so let me see if I have this straight...
There were no WMDs in Iraq, and there is no evidence that Saddam was researching them or working to acquire them, but when evidence of said research is posted publically, it might help other badguys with research, even though there is no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and the other guys were further along in their nuke program?
Only the New York Times could come up with that story.--
This could be a PRE-EMPTIVE strike attempt by NYT, to SPIN info favorable to the Administration (hence unfavorable to the libs) that was scheduled to come out a bit later.
ABC News (Brian Ross & Nightline) did something similar with the Saddam Tapes back in March (or April?) 2006. They tried to spin info. to make it sound like Saddam was no threat.
Yep. The average Joe is going to hear this, hear Old Media spin it as Anti-Bush, and say to themselves, "Wait a minute. I thought Saddam was a harmless old man with no WMD or nuke program. You mean to tell me that he was dangerous after all? Well then, President Bush was right all along."