Skip to comments.Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
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.
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!
Oh wait...Hussein was building a nuke???
"Kerry, Keller and Rather in Love Tryst!"
The way I read this is, "the incompetent Bush Administration" put documents on the internet telling people how to make a nuclear bomb. I think that's the point the slimes is trying to make. I don't think this is a good thing.
NYTimes = insurgents blowing themselves up with their own IED.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
You can say that again...
Just like the mustard and nerve gas he had, the Left will say this was okay; they'll say we all knew this; they'll say it's just old news that Saddam had these things. They'll ignore the fact that he wasn't to have them anymore.
Depends on whether it was documents that dated from the pre-GWI program or not, really.
Say it ain't so !
Tony's press conference is going to be good tomorrow.
I'm wondering about NYT's secret agenda in admitting some facts in their "news."
BUSH WAS RIGHT!!
Connecting the dots is never a strong suit for the libs. They're salivating so heavily over a possible gotcha that the drool obscured the underlying facts - facts that undermine the entire "Bush lied" nonsense.
And of course the article is out, and it is indeed documents from the pre-1991 Iraqi program.
Their heads are going to spin clear off tomorrow.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998
Of course NYTimes wants to make it a bad thing, but in fact it proves that Saddam was a threat.
If he had detailed plans which could build a bomb in a year, he could sell them or give them to terrorists, or build his own bomb as soon as sanctions are lifted.
The administration probably shouldn't have been so open, although the democrats are on record calling for everything to be declassified.
But in order for the NYTimes to claim the Bush administration put us at risk, they have to acknowledge that Saddam had knowledge that put us at risk.
If we don't let them, we can win the spin on this story.
Well they think this will humiliate Bush. The newest bit from Drudge is "NYT: U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN..."
But see ... the problem with the NYT thinking (beyond the obvious fact that they're traitors) is that it kinda, you know, proves that Bush was RIGHT.
Bush did a good thing by heading into Iraq.
Someone else did a bad thing by posting the documents.
The NYSlimes is really calling the kettle black here. They've disclosed three or four of our national security programs, and now they're whining because of something published by the administration? That's rich. And, besides, I'm sure Iran didn't need to read those documents in order to make a nuke - not only could they look up "how to build a nuclear bomb" on the internet, but Russia and/or Germany have probably given them a hand, as well. The NYSlimes is losing it, but their last five readers will probably suck it right up and BLAME BUSH.
Oh, If the Slimes say so it must be now the truth!
when did Pakistan detonate their nuke?
Maybe they figure they better come on over to the winning side now!!!
What's the problem? Bush didn't post the documents.
F A U L T !!!
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s 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. Husseins scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.
"This is to notify you that on Saturday, November 4, 2006 Move America Forward will be making a major announcement that you will want to know about - we will have complete details posted to our website at http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org
"We will be making this announcement online and to the media at 10:00 AM Eastern // 7:00 AM Pacific. The major news event we will be unveiling pertains to America's foreign policy, and because of security concerns we cannot divulge the facts involved before Saturday morning.
"We will need your help in getting this major news story told throughout the nation, so please be sure to check in Saturday morning at the Move America Forward dot org website."
You're being too logical. This is politics. From their twisted perspective, the "Bush administration" is solely at fault.
But again, all it really proves is that Saddam really was a threat, with threatening material that he could give to any of our enemies.
I see this helping the Republicans no end by emphasizing that, you know, BUSH WAS RIGHT.
I'm not turning my back on 'em!
Oh what the hell..
R-O-V-E..you magnificent bastard!
perhaps given the article by the NYTimes, they might break their story before saturday morning.
From the Newsdesk of Unforeseen Complications to the Bureau of Unintended Consequences... MAYDAY! MAYDAY!
I believe we have us a victory in disguise, folks. Thanks, New York Times!
Ping me when it's posted or you find out, please. Thanks.
So then explain why this info was bad to have on the site?
The info was found in Iraq in 2003.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasnt dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesnt work. It cant be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once its in the hands of Iran.
Note to self ... pick up more popcorn