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.
Check this out. I think it will be good for your ping lists.
Bush's bogus document dump
The administration seeded its new public archive of Iraq documents with jihadist materials completely unrelated to Saddam.
By Fritz Umbach
While the world has watched claim after claim about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction dissolve like a mirage, the Bush administration has never deviated from one assertion in its shifting case for war: that there was an operational connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. As evidence of the manipulation of prewar intelligence keeps surfacing, the administration has now taken that equally dubious claim and made it virtual.
Lacking evidence of a real-world link between Saddam and the perpetrators of 9/11, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by Bush appointee John Negroponte, has apparently decided to create one in cyberspace -- by seeding its new online Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents archive with suggestive jihadist materials, and by linking the site to an entirely unrelated database of al-Qaida materials.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/13/document_dump/index_np.html
this is such bull. Election year hogwash.
However, Here it all comes. "Let's blow the people's minds so they vote our way"
Either way, we are in the wrong war. Osama should have gone first and all else second.
I SURE I am not the only one here who feels this way.
What the Dems should have said instead of Hussein has no n-bombs and no plans is "so what? lots of countries have them". Of course completely ignoring Hussein's deep ties to terrorists. I'm not a statistical expert, but from the little I've studied in that area, given Hussein's history a reasonable, sane person would have to assume that he either had a bomb or was working hard to make one.
IRAQ HAD THE COOKBOOK - IRAQ HAD THE CAKE
IRAQ WMD'S CONFIRMINDED BY NEW YORK TIMES
FLASHBACK:
US Reveals Iraq Nuclear Operation (1.7 Metric Tons+ Of Enriched Uranium Removed From Iraq In 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5065&en=9b92b000e0a064e6&ex=1163134800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”
Welcome to Free Republic.
Because I've read the IAEA reports about Iraq's nuclear program. If you read further down you'll see that I've quoted them in another post.
The point here is that Iraq DID have a workable design in 2002 and they DID have relationships with terrorists of various stripes.
A scene in from movie Patton. After he beat Rommel in a battle Patton says "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
THANK YOU. I forgot about that.
Yes. Though it's not what the NYT thinks. In the end, the bombshell is that Iraq was just 1 year away from a nuke.
...and these fools think there is no God!
My pleasure. Enchante handed me those links earlier today so kudos to him. Her. Them. That FReeper. ;^)
Bush Was Right!
Click and enjoy.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9029110643266711356&sourceid=zeitgeist
Nice!
Everyone ignores the fact that Saddam was VERRRRRRY close to being freed from the sanctions of the UN. Would he have sold stuff to Usama and others?? You bet!!
bump
"Richard Miniter in 'DisInformation - 22 media myths that undermine the War on Terror' states the following was found in Iraq:
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium......."
That's funny, because the IAEA clearly stated in their many reports during the Clinton years, that they had REMOVED OR RENDERED HARMLESS ALL ENRICHED URANIUM"
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/reports/s_1997_779.pdf
BUMP FOR THE THREAD!
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.