Posted on 11/02/2006 8:09:04 PM PST by 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.
Nevermind - I found it on this linked article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5065&en=9b92b000e0a064e6&ex=1163134800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Speaking of liberals ... =8^P
Hey, all, I know the lowlifes at the NY Slimes think this article is some kind of blow against the Bush WH, but isn't the very possession of such docs and plans by Saddam's regime a gross violation of the UN inspections regime that was supposed to guarantee (sic) that Saddam could not re-start his nuke program?
This is an inherent contradiction for the bozos at the IAEA and NY Slimes who have sprung this "October surprise" just 4 days before US elections: if these nuke plans are so dangerous because they could help Iran or anyone else toward "the bomb" then they were/are also so dangerous in Saddam's hands and he was supposed to give them up to the UN inspectors!!
The Slimes unwittingly proves yet again that Saddam refused to give up his WMD ambitions and refused to abide by the prohibitions from the 1991 cease-fire and the glorious UN inspections program.
Thanks!
In addition to the IAEA bozos, these are some of the leftists the NY Slimes relies upon in preparing this grossly slanted hit-piece (both Siebert and Blanton are associated with the left-wing "1st Amendment Center" which serves leftist activist groups under the pretence of merely being about the 1st Amendment):
A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy
[Siebert led Hazel O'Leary's notorious and reckless declassification program at the Dept. of Energy under the Clinton administration]
Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/biography.aspx?name=blanton
The "National Security Archive" is a far-left activist group which exists to pry thousands of documents out of the federal security bureaucracies with FOIA requests so that leftist tools in the media can rant about them. Blanton made his name flogging "Iran-Contra" stories.
---most experts agree on this
Name them please?
"Do not underestimate the American people. Here's the bottom line that the NYT cannot get around. They're claiming that this info would be extremely dangerous in Iran's hands. That means they are tacitly admitting that the same info was equally dangerous in Saddam's hands, where it would still be, YEARS after we deposed Saddam had we not taken him out."
Yes, but if you follow that line of reasoning through, the result would appear to be miles away from a net political positive. That this information was dangerous enough to warrant expending troops and treasure to remove the possibility that Saddam might share it with rogue regimes… and that once we had it safely in our possession, vindicating the sacrifices required to secure it, we released it onto the internet and into the public domain?...
It seems to me it will be far better for our side if this turns out much ado about nothing – that the alleged dangerous documents were mostly benign and not a serious breach of nuclear secrets.
But I thought Saddam had no WMD. I thought Bush lied. Wow, this changes my whole worldview.
I am a little out of the loop today (children's programming on TV now), has this been the BOMBSHELL that the NYT advertised?
Unfortunately, it's relatively simple to build a nuke. The tough part is finding enriched uranium.
http://www.beloit.edu/~belmag/03fall/03fall_features/03fall_dobson.html
Guess these college kids didn't go to Niger on spring break!
That's why the posting of the plans is not as catastrophic as it was make out to be.
(I know its been said before, but adding my thougts anyway)
Wait-a-minute..... but I thought Saddam had no WMD and it was all a Bush lie in order to steal the oil for Halliburton and the J0000Z.
How in the hell would we find a 'how to build a nuke' primer from the files of a guy who was contained, who had impenetrable iron-clad sanctions on him, and had no interest in WMD?
How do you know?
even if we did find stock-piles of WMD's in Iraq and pointed to the exact spot to where they are at, the NYT would come out with a story saying that Bush has found them and told the terrorist where exactly where they are, and where to get them, making this world more dangerous.
Makes me think that we might have found some stockpiles, but won't say anything about them, in fear of just that. Maybe leaking the info to how to build a nuke was the only way Rove could get the NYT's to admit that Bush was RIGHT.
It's that Rove guy again :)
Can someone explain to me the origin of the "magnificent bastard" bit?
Be real. So these are the only documents ever produced in Iraq with "how to" and "who to"? The right people of Saddam's forces have tons more of these. To think otherwise is illogical. And Saddam loalists are connected to just about everyone "bad" in the region including alqueda, the Palestinians, the dufus in Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.