Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

NRO ^ | Jim Geraghty

[hipaatwo]

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.

[nopardons]

bttt

[WOSG]

My take:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

However, it begs a question - if Saddam's scientists were that close, and those documents were preserved, and they knew what they needed to do to reconstitute the program, and they had the yellowcake (under seals that can be broken, just like Iran did), and they had the money (via the oil-for-bribes scheme) - wouldn't Iraq today be not much different from Iran and North Korea, in posing immediate dangers of acquiring nuclear weapons?

Yes, they would. We don't have a timetable, we don't know when the 'verge of' would have translated into a reality, we just know that it would have happened sooner or later.

[gb63]

As I posted on another thread a few minutes ago, this is opening a door for pointing out the WMD program by Iraq, now proved on the front page of the NYT. The information on the web site came from, among other sources, a hippie generation book that told how to build a bomb. The information and a dollar will get you ... a cup of coffee. It is the processing of the materials, changing atoms, that really counts. Every country on Earth knows HOW to make a nuke.

[Strategerist]

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.

It's blatantly obvious to me from context, and also from the context of the entire article, that when they say "on the verge" they mean before Gulf War I, not 2002. It's that one of the reports that the Iraqis made about the 1991 program was from 2002.

However, I've had little succces previously on FR from keeping people from living in hopeful fantasyworlds, and I don't think I'm going to have much success in this one either.

[bybybill]

IT`s this elections DWI story but it will backfire cause it adds to the justifications for the war. It also attracts needed attention to all the other documents we captured. The only bad thing is it might take SEN.Carry off the front pages.

[Question Liberal Authority]

This same newspaper exposed the top secret details of our program to monitor Al-Qaeda's banking transactions. Their assertion was that exposing the program didn't help one terrorists in any way.

This same newspaper exposed the details of top secret Al-Qaeda detention facilities. Their assertion was that exposing the program didn't help the terrorists in any way.

This same newspaper treated the president of Iran like a rock star, asserting that his nuclear ambitions were peaceful and/or defensive, and that he did not pose a danger to the United States in any way.

NOW it turns out that the United States exposed the details of Saddam's top secret nuclear program and this newpaper's assertion is that this will provide tremendous aid and comfort to the enemies of America.

[REDWOOD99]

Bottom line: "Bush lied" is out the window! Try rebutting that.

[Intolerant in NJ]

...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...yeah, like Iran went to the internet and "other public forums" for info on how to build nuclear weapons - we're in big trouble if this is the level of sophistication of our "nuclear experts"......

[LikeLight]

They're reports BY the Iraqis TO the international inspectors, the Iraqis doing what they were required to do, summarizing the nuclear research they did PRIOR to the 1991 Gulf War.

If they're just summaries, then how could posting them on the internet possibly be dangerous? The NYT can't have it both ways. And why is the IAEI is so worried about them being posted, if they're just "summaries"?

[Strategerist]

Bottom line: "Bush lied" is out the window! Try rebutting that.

You haven't understood a single line of the NYT story or a single reply I've made on this thread, have you?

[elhombrelibre]

And the lie "No War for Oil" is overtaken by the fact that we never stole Iraq's oil. Don't expect the NYT to ever admit that or the Left-wing cranks that said that about Bush or big oil.

[Strategerist]

They are apparently pretty detailed summaries with diagrams.

[A Citizen Reporter]

You are living in a little world of your own. But keep spinning. LOL

[george76]

[WOSG]

"The way I read this is, "the incompetent Bush Administration" put documents on the internet telling people how to make a nuclear bomb."

That's what the slimes is trying to say ... but what they are REALLY admitting is that there are documents that show
Saddam Hussein and his minions knew how to make a nuclear bomb, or were a good part of the way there.


WHY WOULDN'T IRAQ THEMSELVES BE ONE OF THOSE DANGEROS STATES IF SADDAM WAS LEFT IN POWER?

"I think that's the point the slimes is trying to make. I don't think this is a good thing."

The people this info would have helped most is the Iraqis themselves...


NY Times:
"A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”"

[elhombrelibre]

Democrats' taunts inspire terrorist and encourage them to think we lack the resolve to finish the job.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Thanks but we don't need your reading comprehension tips, or your haughty attitude.

[rjp2005]

Fellow freepers, I have only one simply succinct statement to make regarding this latest special development....

WOOOOOO - HOOOO!!!!

First Kerry, now the New York Times, my goodness what will the hat trick be?

[REDWOOD99]

I've been following your replies to various threads for quite a while. You are a troll.