Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
NRO ^ | Jim Geraghty

Posted on 11/02/2006 8:09:04 PM PST by hipaatwo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-402 next last
To: hipaatwo

bttt


101 posted on 11/02/2006 8:41:43 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

My take:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

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.


102 posted on 11/02/2006 8:42:13 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

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.


103 posted on 11/02/2006 8:42:34 PM PST by gb63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s 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. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

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.

104 posted on 11/02/2006 8:43:22 PM PST by Strategerist (Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: blake6900
IT`s this elections DWI story but it will backfire cause it adds to the justifications for the war. It also attracts needed attention to all the other documents we captured. The only bad thing is it might take SEN.Carry off the front pages.
105 posted on 11/02/2006 8:43:25 PM PST by bybybill (`IF TH E RATS WIN, WE LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
This same newspaper exposed the top secret details of our program to monitor Al-Qaeda's banking transactions. Their assertion was that exposing the program didn't help one terrorists in any way.

This same newspaper exposed the details of top secret Al-Qaeda detention facilities. Their assertion was that exposing the program didn't help the terrorists in any way.

This same newspaper treated the president of Iran like a rock star, asserting that his nuclear ambitions were peaceful and/or defensive, and that he did not pose a danger to the United States in any way.

NOW it turns out that the United States exposed the details of Saddam's top secret nuclear program and this newpaper's assertion is that this will provide tremendous aid and comfort to the enemies of America.
106 posted on 11/02/2006 8:43:50 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority (Saddam Hussein Had A Nuclear Weapons Program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Bottom line: "Bush lied" is out the window! Try rebutting that.


107 posted on 11/02/2006 8:44:11 PM PST by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
...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...yeah, like Iran went to the internet and "other public forums" for info on how to build nuclear weapons - we're in big trouble if this is the level of sophistication of our "nuclear experts"......
108 posted on 11/02/2006 8:44:25 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
They're reports BY the Iraqis TO the international inspectors, the Iraqis doing what they were required to do, summarizing the nuclear research they did PRIOR to the 1991 Gulf War.

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"?

109 posted on 11/02/2006 8:44:49 PM PST by LikeLight (RYMB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: REDWOOD99
Bottom line: "Bush lied" is out the window! Try rebutting that.

You haven't understood a single line of the NYT story or a single reply I've made on this thread, have you?

110 posted on 11/02/2006 8:45:12 PM PST by Strategerist (Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
And the lie "No War for Oil" is overtaken by the fact that we never stole Iraq's oil. Don't expect the NYT to ever admit that or the Left-wing cranks that said that about Bush or big oil.
111 posted on 11/02/2006 8:45:48 PM PST by elhombrelibre (Global Warming Fears will do for the world what over population fears did for Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight

They are apparently pretty detailed summaries with diagrams.


112 posted on 11/02/2006 8:45:52 PM PST by Strategerist (Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

You are living in a little world of your own. But keep spinning. LOL


113 posted on 11/02/2006 8:46:01 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter (Sign at World Series in St. Louis, October 27, 2006 "The Experts are Idiots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

114 posted on 11/02/2006 8:46:49 PM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

"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...


NY Times:
"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 agency’s 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.”"


115 posted on 11/02/2006 8:46:56 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: technomage

Democrats' taunts inspire terrorist and encourage them to think we lack the resolve to finish the job.


117 posted on 11/02/2006 8:47:31 PM PST by elhombrelibre (Global Warming Fears will do for the world what over population fears did for Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Thanks but we don't need your reading comprehension tips, or your haughty attitude.


118 posted on 11/02/2006 8:48:13 PM PST by A Citizen Reporter (Sign at World Series in St. Louis, October 27, 2006 "The Experts are Idiots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Fellow freepers, I have only one simply succinct statement to make regarding this latest special development....

WOOOOOO - HOOOO!!!!

First Kerry, now the New York Times, my goodness what will the hat trick be?

119 posted on 11/02/2006 8:48:14 PM PST by rjp2005 (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I've been following your replies to various threads for quite a while. You are a troll.


120 posted on 11/02/2006 8:48:17 PM PST by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

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.


121 posted on 11/02/2006 8:48:43 PM PST by Weight of Glory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
This is also the same newspaper that mocked the very idea of an "Axis of Evil" between Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Now Irag has been dispatched, and this is supposedly a "distraction" from the nuclear ambitions of both Iran and North Korea.

So Bush was RIGHT about the Axis of Evil and Bush was RIGHT about Iraq having a nuclear weapons program.
122 posted on 11/02/2006 8:48:43 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority (Saddam Hussein Had A Nuclear Weapons Program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

ping


123 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:06 PM PST by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
"Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which ran the nuclear part of the inspections, told the Security Council in late 2002 that the deletions were “consistent with the principle that proliferation-sensitive information should not be released.”

ElBaradei knew all along that Saddam still had the technology but hung us out to dry anyway.
124 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:09 PM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Here is what IAEA says and it sure the hell ain't what you're saying.

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.

125 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:18 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Jhengis Johnny was against an apology before he was for it, sort of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

try again ? that's from the same freaking article...


126 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:27 PM PST by stylin19a ("Klaatu Barada Nikto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

"But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

"doesn't count"

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!


127 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:31 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

bump


128 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:40 PM PST by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

SWEET!!!

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!!!


129 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:52 PM PST by Txsleuth (EVERYONE VOTE---AND VOTE REPUBLICAN,...even if you have to hold your nose!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter

This 1998 article indicates that there was still concern about Iraq's development of nuclear weapons and the inability to verify...

http://www.nci.org/i/ib21998.htm


130 posted on 11/02/2006 8:49:57 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter ( I am sitting under my cone of silence, inside a copper wire cage wearing a tin foil hat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Talk radio tomorrow is going to be spectacular.


131 posted on 11/02/2006 8:50:00 PM PST by Petronski (CNN is an insidiously treasonous, enemy propaganda organ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Is John Kerry an advisor for the NY Times?

Only unintelligent uneducated drop outs who did not study hard in school are advisors for the New York Times.
132 posted on 11/02/2006 8:50:09 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority (Saddam Hussein Had A Nuclear Weapons Program)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Try what again?


133 posted on 11/02/2006 8:51:05 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Jhengis Johnny was against an apology before he was for it, sort of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

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


134 posted on 11/02/2006 8:51:22 PM PST by bybybill (`IF TH E RATS WIN, WE LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jackson Brown

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.


135 posted on 11/02/2006 8:51:41 PM PST by slapshot (""USAF- when you absolutely, positively need it delivered on target, on time, right away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Strategerist - I get your point... people are a bit too giddy here.


136 posted on 11/02/2006 8:51:44 PM PST by ruschpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Was there ever any doubt?
137 posted on 11/02/2006 8:52:10 PM PST by TigersEye ("Everywhere I go there's a Predator in tow, life goes on without me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

"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!!


138 posted on 11/02/2006 8:53:02 PM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

"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.


139 posted on 11/02/2006 8:53:46 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: blondee123

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 Iraq’s 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.”


140 posted on 11/02/2006 8:54:29 PM PST by soupcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
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.

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.

141 posted on 11/02/2006 8:55:02 PM PST by elhombrelibre (Global Warming Fears will do for the world what over population fears did for Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

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.


142 posted on 11/02/2006 8:55:04 PM PST by outofstyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Aliska

Please ping me if you find out anything about this Move America Forward announcement. Thanks!


143 posted on 11/02/2006 8:55:11 PM PST by nutmeg (National security trumps everything else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ruschpa

His point is wrong. Iraq had no workable design in 1991 or 1992. See #125.


144 posted on 11/02/2006 8:55:29 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Jhengis Johnny was against an apology before he was for it, sort of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
Does anyone else feel like we're watching an incredible football game comeback with this?

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!

145 posted on 11/02/2006 8:55:37 PM PST by rjp2005 (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
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.

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.

146 posted on 11/02/2006 8:56:35 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: REDWOOD99

I'm hesitant to actually call someone that without proof, but I have to say, the thought has crossed my mind.


147 posted on 11/02/2006 8:56:53 PM PST by MMcC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

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.


148 posted on 11/02/2006 8:57:36 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: soupcon
I have long predicted the Dems and MSM would work to get this site shut down. There is something in those docs they do not want released and this ain't it.
149 posted on 11/02/2006 8:57:51 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter ( I am sitting under my cone of silence, inside a copper wire cage wearing a tin foil hat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
It SEEMS that what was "captured" was the Iraqi copies of these reports they had given to the IAEA (of which the details and technical diagrams they didn't make public themselves) and then these were what was posted on the internet.

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.

150 posted on 11/02/2006 8:58:31 PM PST by LikeLight (RYMB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-402 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson