Skip to comments.Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
Posted on 11/02/2006 8:09:04 PM PST by hipaatwo
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
Bottom line: "Bush lied" is out the window! Try rebutting that.
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"?
You haven't understood a single line of the NYT story or a single reply I've made on this thread, have you?
They are apparently pretty detailed summaries with diagrams.
You are living in a little world of your own. But keep spinning. LOL
"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...
"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 agencys 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."
Democrats' taunts inspire terrorist and encourage them to think we lack the resolve to finish the job.
Thanks but we don't need your reading comprehension tips, or your haughty attitude.
WOOOOOO - HOOOO!!!!
First Kerry, now the New York Times, my goodness what will the hat trick be?
I've been following your replies to various threads for quite a while. You are a troll.
as has been mentioned by someone else in another post, to say that Iraq was one year away from building a nuke, in reference to an entire decade (ie. "the 90's), makes little sense. The sentence does seem to imply that 2002 was the period of time refered to, otherwise why even mention 2002. If it was the author's intent to focus on the 90's why even confuse matters by mentioning 2002? your interpretation seems to be incorrect.
As of 16 December 1998, the following assessment could be made of Iraq's clandestine programme:
There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iraq's explanation of its progress towards the finalisation of a workable design for its nuclear weapons was considered to be consistent with the resources and time scale indicated by the available programme documentation.
Now you can read that as Iraq had a workable nuke design in 1991 if you'd like and we'll all just say it's a bad joke.
try again ? that's from the same freaking article...
"But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraqs secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."
That's right ... even if Saddam had all the info stashed in secret documents that he could have wheeled out and created a bomb out of in a crash program in 1 year (the experts' estimate) once the sanctions were lifted, it 'doesnt count' because .... well, because!
The New York Times may think they are reporting another "gotcha" on Bush....but, this is THE gotcha that Bush has for all of the war in Iraq naysayers!!!
This 1998 article indicates that there was still concern about Iraq's development of nuclear weapons and the inability to verify...
Talk radio tomorrow is going to be spectacular.
Try what again?
You are missing the point. Iraq was on the way. 1991, 2001, doesn`t matter. They had kicked out the inspectors, they had demonstrated they were working on nukes, and,even if these reports were from 1991, certainly in 2001 they still had the desire and knowledge.
BYBY WMD ARGUEMENT
Listening how media is currently reporting this story (crikets chirping )on ABC CBS radio feeds as well as yahoo and msn indicates it is a positive story confirming wmd program. Compare and contrast to first minutes Foley, Bush DUI, Iraqi ammo dump, negative stories broke.
Strategerist - I get your point... people are a bit too giddy here.
"They are apparently pretty detailed summaries with diagrams."
So?? Iran was already well into their nuclear weapons 'program' long before these 'summaries' were posted on a website...were they not?
Are you and the NYT going to argue that Iran's whole nuclear infrastructure was built between March 19, 2003-October 2006??
Are you going to argue that they built the whole program... not ever knowing if they would ever be able to find info on the internet in order to complete it?
Good grief..you would have to be an absolute fool to believe this dribble!!
"So they just had the retained knowledge and could start it up as soon as they wanted to? Like, say, in a year? "
That may not be others' opinion, but it's mine. They found thousands of pages stashed in a Baghdad rose garden that one of the scientists hid from inspectors for 12 years ... people yawn at it "oh, 12 years old". excuse me, but nuclear weapons technology started in the 1940s. If Saddam was within 1 year in 1991, he could have MADE HIMSELF GET WITHIN ONE YEAR AGAIN VERY QUICKLY.
If he was given a free reign in 2003, he'd be making the same noises Iran is making by now. he'd still need centrifuges, but maybe he'd get some from RPNK!
This is another reminder of the real seriousness of the WMD threat that Saddam posed.
Here's the thing that could hurt...alot:
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to leverage the Internet to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraqs secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.
And 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.
You are likely correct that there is no earth shaking news in this because it relates to the situation at the time of Gulf War I. However, it is sufficiently muddled that both sides will get play. I think the bottom line will be a wash or a small gain for the good guys.
Please ping me if you find out anything about this Move America Forward announcement. Thanks!
His point is wrong. Iraq had no workable design in 1991 or 1992. See #125.
Tuesday: "And the Democrats are about to run out the clock up two scores and there's a handoff to Kerry AND IT'S A FUMBLE!! Conservatives ball!"
Friday: "Here comes the onsides kick, ball kicked to the NYTimes and they fall on -- no wait FUMBLE! GOP has it - down the sideline 30, 20, 10 TOUCHDOWN! Game Tied! Pandemonium!
Dude. Any half way competent engineer can figure out how to build a crude, but very deadly and destructive nuke in a few hours via public libraries, or today, the Internet. To put it bluntly, building a nuke is not "rocket science."
The basic knowledge hasn't been "secret" since the 1950s. Understand even a little about physics, and it is not all that complex. The only hard part is getting the materials necessary. That is also very expensive which is why nukes have been the sole property of nation-states and not the stuff of the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh.
It's also why we have a thing called non-proliferation. It's not the knowledge. It's the materials.
I'm hesitant to actually call someone that without proof, but I have to say, the thought has crossed my mind.
Rush needs to get on this on his show tomorrow, and let the public know how the Slimes and the MSM wants to be 2 sided with this issue.
Let's just accept your premise. Okay, so you concede that Saddam maintained details and technical diagrams of his nuke program. And, the NYT is saying that if posted on the internet, these details and diagrams could enable Iran to build nukes. But in Saddam's hands they were no threat? Like he didn't have a freakin' copy machine? He couldn't sell them to Al Qaeda or Iran or North Korea? Or decide to go ahead and build them himself? The very fact that the IAEA (and the NYT) is in such a huff about these documents shows that Saddam had something very dangerous, just like Bush always said. This pops the "no WMD" balloon once and for all.