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.
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
But, but it's impossible, cause IRAQ had no plans to make a nuclear bomb, so it can't be!
Is John Kerry an advisor for the NY Times?
Their heads are going to spin clear off tomorrow.
Makes my day!
That was fast. I just got it a few minutes ago, don't have many Republicans in my address book, two of my kids is all I know for sure. Maybe they will announce it sooner or maybe it concerns something different. Maybe it is related, it got leaked to the NYT, and this is their pre-emptive strike. I'll try not to jump to conclusions.
As long as Saddam had the money, and as long as he was in power he was going to have the money, he could have bought a nuke from Libya, North Korean, or that A.Q. Khan creep.
Have you seen this old post? It seems he went so far as to test a device. There were quite a few casualties.
a. NYT has just confirmed that Saddam had viable WMD tech in his possession right to the end (he wasn't supposed to have it)
b. NYT is lamely spinning this as a story of U.S. ineptitude, but to buy their very shaky premise, you'd have to agree that such technology was "safer" in the hands of Saddam
c. NYT staff is out drinking or in bed right now - - - but the Pajama Media is just getting to work - - - too bad, NYT!