Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-402 next last
he'd still need centrifuges, but maybe he'd get some from RPNK!

Or just buy the enriched uranium.

151 posted on 11/02/2006 8:58:53 PM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (Charlie Mike, son))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

The MSM just got outflanked. And that's really saying something, considering they're all flank.

152 posted on 11/02/2006 8:59:25 PM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: A Citizen Reporter
Just hope it has enough negative effect for the DEMS before the election.
153 posted on 11/02/2006 8:59:27 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 22 | View Replies]

Check out the new thread by Freeper jveritas
154 posted on 11/02/2006 8:59:32 PM PST by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

"European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms."

So...these are apparently the documents used to justify the invasion.

Did they indicate danger or not?

Simple question.

155 posted on 11/02/2006 9:00:02 PM PST by HarryCaul (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: All

This will backfire on them.

156 posted on 11/02/2006 9:00:17 PM PST by Sun (If we lose the Senate, the Dems will have control of the judiciary committee. Vote on Nov. 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


You are right about the threat he posed. Iraq may have had the KNOWLEDGE to build a bomb for a long time. It was the ability to process the material causing the delay.

157 posted on 11/02/2006 9:00:39 PM PST by gb63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
It's a surprisingly poorly-written and confusing article by NYT standards, but you've really got to read the thing twice and really understand the nature of the documents. 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.

I believe this is the paragraph in question:

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 interesting that the author is careful to say "in the 1990's and in 2002". Also the author refers to "experts" on multiple occasions yet names none except for one individual mentioned in the following paragraph. This paragraph is actually in the article before the above paragraph so it's doubtful that this "expert" is one associated with the above statements:

“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”

My point is there are no experts named. But this sentence, 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, contrary to what you say, does not specify that this was per communications between the Iraqi governement and UN inspectors nor does it specify which "year" in which Iraq was "as little as a year away" from a nuclear weapon.

158 posted on 11/02/2006 9:01:31 PM PST by blake6900 (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
OKAY....WHICH pundits will come out tomorrow and try and SPIN this in favor of the DEMS......NAMES...????
159 posted on 11/02/2006 9:01:47 PM PST by goodnesswins (I think the real problem is islamo-bombia! (Rummyfan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

You said so much better what I have been trying to point out on this and another thread about this. Thanks.

160 posted on 11/02/2006 9:03:10 PM PST by gb63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


because it's leftovers....pre 2003.
sarin gas in artillary shells don't count... leftovers..pre 2003
mustard gas shells don't count...leftovers pre 2003
3 vials of anthrax don't count...leftovers pre 2003

it doesn't matter what they found and when it was found...the RATS will discount it as being pre 2003

161 posted on 11/02/2006 9:03:51 PM PST by stylin19a ("Klaatu Barada Nikto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; All

I repeat what I wrote to Strategy dude:

"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 weapons 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(compliments of Saddam Hussein and the USA) in order to complete it?

Good would have to be an absolute fool to believe this dribble!!

162 posted on 11/02/2006 9:03:51 PM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ruschpa

You are a troll.

163 posted on 11/02/2006 9:03:51 PM PST by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo


164 posted on 11/02/2006 9:04:04 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (I'm not paranoid. But everyone thinks I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CptRepublican; george76

Maybe the Pubs were going to show papers right before the election that PROVES there were WMD and the NYTimes is heading the info off at the pass........

165 posted on 11/02/2006 9:04:23 PM PST by bitt ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Who's job was it between 1991 and Iraq War to assure that Saddam had no "know how" information on the bomb? The IAEA. If he retained anything that could have enabled him to reconstitute his program whether it would have took 2 months or 20 years was against the UN resolution on having WMD info. The article also mentions some Chems but fails to mention what years those docs are from.
166 posted on 11/02/2006 9:04:40 PM PST by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

This can't be true.

I mean Hans Blix just said that there were no wmd programs, and that Iraq was better off when he was getting oil vouchers, err, I mean, under Saddam.

167 posted on 11/02/2006 9:06:14 PM PST by TeddyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sundog
Expanding on the link you provided.

New PreWarDoc fits with Gwynne Roberts article about Iraqi nuclear test

The article describes a conversation with a man called “Leone” who claimed to be a nuclear scientist working in Iraq. He approached Gwynne with tales of hidden nuclear programs, hidden nuclear weapons and most surprisingly a claim of a successful nuclear test performed in the Rezzaza Lake area of southern Iraq in 1989.


But putting this story together with a newly released document does present an intriguing clue. A few weeks ago a man named Joseph or screen name “Jveritas” started putting original translations on the Free Republic website. One of them was interesting but did not receive a lot of attention: ISGQ-2004-00224003

168 posted on 11/02/2006 9:06:36 PM PST by TigersEye ("Everywhere I go there's a Predator in tow, life goes on without me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
this could start looking like an Abbott & Costello routine.
I was responding to your post # 74
169 posted on 11/02/2006 9:07:39 PM PST by stylin19a ("Klaatu Barada Nikto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: HarryCaul; bnelson44

"So they just had the retained knowledge and could start it up as soon as they wanted to? Like, say, in a year?"

Yes. IMHO. All Saddam would need is scientists and centrifuges - he had the uranium (under seal, but Iran broke seals too).

"Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war."

"Captured during the war. First line of the article."

Captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 ... let's be clear about it.

The UN inspectors, and 1991 war did *not* clean out Saddam's WMD documents or his programs fully. Saddam kept secret documents on them.

Let's review the tape, shall we:
1. Saddam had serious nuclear program during 1970s and 1980s. It was stunted but not stopped by Osirak reactor bombing by Israelis.
2. After Desert Storm, the ceasefire agreement required Saddam to reveal his WMD programs. He never willingly revealed his nuclear program, but it was uncovered, and we were shocked to find him close to having operational nukes.
3. After 12 years of sanctions and lack of answers on WMDs, and multiple cases where Iraq lied (like about bio-weapons), and 17 resolutions by the UN, the US decided the
4. In Operation Iraqi Freedom we uncovered documents the Iraqis still had on hand up until 2003. These documents would give an future Iraqi WMD program a "roadmap" for building an atom bomb that would shave off many years of any such program.
5. The fact that Iraq successfully held on those documents through 12 years of sanctions and inspections indicates that they *never* would have been exposed and removed. Saddam could have restarted them at any time.

The NYTimes is in a snit over possible leakage of some sensitive information, although in reality as article itself points out, it probably is not much use to non-serious WMD programs (and there are today 2 main threats - Iran and RPNK - and both are beyond where Iraq was).

But the NY Times has unwittingly LENT SUPPORT TO THE ORIGINAL CASSUS BELLI FOR REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE WMD THREAT MAY HAVE BEEN LATENT AND NOT ACTIVE, BUT THE THREAT REMAINED AND WAS REAL. With both a loss of sanctions and the oil-for-bribes money, Saddam could have been on a quick ramp to nuclear weapons within years.

Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!

170 posted on 11/02/2006 9:07:58 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Yeah, I know you were. And I still don't know what you're talking about Lou.

171 posted on 11/02/2006 9:09:28 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Jhengis Johnny was against an apology before he was for it, sort of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
I hope Rush, Hannity, and Levin is all over this story coming out from the NYTs tomorrow, and it has such a negative effect on the DEMS,,,,,,
172 posted on 11/02/2006 9:09:38 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 56 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
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.

With all due respect you're a little full of yourself. This article is clearly a spin piece and the author is careful in the way he's written it. There is much supposed fact yet little of it attributed to anyone, named or unnamed. In fact it's not far away from an Op-Ed piece but it does appear you've bought into the reasoning behind the article existence in the first place.

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.

With all due respect again, you could very well be wrong this time.

173 posted on 11/02/2006 9:10:16 PM PST by blake6900 (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Dude. That may be true but it's also irrelevant when the New Yawk Slimes is slamming President Bush and talking down to the mentally challenged living among us who will be voting on Tuesday while believing that President Bush told the terrorists how to build a nuke "on da intanet." The New Yawk Times said it so it must be true.

174 posted on 11/02/2006 9:10:55 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (This just in! Islamofascists say they will not "change direction" after U.S. elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

He's their spokes person.

175 posted on 11/02/2006 9:11:04 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 53 | View Replies]

To: bitt
Another shoe will drop. Once again the idiot press takes the bait . By tues. they will be stupefied. Smells like briar patch to me.....
176 posted on 11/02/2006 9:11:26 PM PST by fantom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I found a more interesting investigation of this bomb detonation in a large diameter cave here.

177 posted on 11/02/2006 9:11:30 PM PST by Sundog (Say a prayer for Westy -- he has been absent too long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

I don't know if he is considered a pundit, but I see Alan Colmes bouncing right out of his seat on this one...

178 posted on 11/02/2006 9:12:39 PM PST by pnz1 (Halp!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Jackson Brown

"This goes to VERY BIG -- the BIGGEST of the -- issues about the WHOLE IRAQ WAR -- did Saddam have active WMD programs.

The NYTs is saying yes -- to the WORLD. "

Others are pointing out that NYTimes likely never intended its statements to say 'active', and our own Kay report indicated that the nuke program was dormant in 2003. HOWEVER ... What is compelling is the point that NYTimes is saying that at one point in the past, Saddam was "on the verge", and with this info its hard to get get back "off" the verge if you ever reconstitute the program.

Anyone who thinks about it knows it makes sense, but alas the liberal MSM has got the "no WMDs" drumbeat pounding for so long, people assume that means "no threat". Wrong.

even if the program was dormant - the threat was there, ready to become an imminent threat at the time of Saddam's choosing.

Despite the violence in the new democratic Iraq, despite the "mess", despite the cost, we are better off removing Saddam's threat and turning an Arab coutnry from a dictatorship to a democracy.

179 posted on 11/02/2006 9:13:34 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: fantom

"Smells like briar patch to me....." a southern gal..that was my favorite story growing up! My great grandmother use to tell it with quite a! I pray you are right!!

180 posted on 11/02/2006 9:14:50 PM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"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

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

181 posted on 11/02/2006 9:15:15 PM PST by Danette ("If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blake6900

To me it reads like they were "a year away" BEFORE the first Gulf War ... not after. Am I reading this wrong?

182 posted on 11/02/2006 9:15:46 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Remember the wiretap story and the terror finance tracking story? Those were supposed to nail the Administration, but the public saw through them. That will happen again. There's no way that there was anything in these documents that helped Iran get a bomb they haven't even developed yet, and probably nothing that isn't on the Internet already.

183 posted on 11/02/2006 9:16:02 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (People who say there are jobs Americans won't do haven't seen "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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."

IMHO, that is only a subset of what they got.
I know there were thousands of pages from Saddam's nuke program that the inspectors never knew existed, but which were found in Baghdad (this was around June 2003). This set was probably in the data dump, and it would make sense that internal technical docs would be more 'sensitive' than reports to IAEA.

184 posted on 11/02/2006 9:16:55 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

His nuclear program was subcontracted to Libya.

185 posted on 11/02/2006 9:16:57 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo
A Sickening Episode: Nuclear Looting in Iraq and the Global Threat From Radiological Weapons

By Andy Oppenheimer

After several months of US opposition to the recall of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - or other UN inspectors - into Iraq, the IAEA was allowed back in at the end of May for a limited and heavily restricted mission: securing a small looted area - Location C - within the al-Tuwaitha facility. More than 500 tonnes of natural uranium and 1.8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium were stored at al-Tuwaitha, plus smaller amounts of highly radioactive cesium-137, cobalt-60 and strontium-90. These materials were left over from Iraq's original nuclear weapons programme conducted in the 1980s and were sealed under IAEA safeguards since after the 1991 Gulf War.

He had the plans. (Thanks NYTs) He had a good start on materials and the aluminum tubes show he intended to further enrich what he had.

186 posted on 11/02/2006 9:17:10 PM PST by TigersEye ("Everywhere I go there's a Predator in tow, life goes on without me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sundog; fantom

ya think, fantom? sounds too easy...maybe we'll end up tarred... :)

mark for info

187 posted on 11/02/2006 9:18:19 PM PST by bitt ("And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

see Jveritas at

188 posted on 11/02/2006 9:18:51 PM PST by gb63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: bannie

Don't worry, I'm sure they won't let it become habit. (slipping facts in among their spin and sensationalism that is)

189 posted on 11/02/2006 9:19:04 PM PST by CodeMasterPhilzar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1035rep

Thanks for that! Once again, FReepers find the truth!

190 posted on 11/02/2006 9:20:01 PM PST by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: MMcC

He's a dem apologist at the least. Ruschpa, too.

191 posted on 11/02/2006 9:20:55 PM PST by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight

I wonder how much play this will get in the MSM ?

192 posted on 11/02/2006 9:22:31 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 73 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

"That Iraq was very close to a nuclear weapon just before Gulf War I has been very well known for quite some time now."

Well, we seemed to know that in 2003 too when we invaded and all the Democrats were lining up and talking about how Saddam really was a threat ... We understood then that if Saddam was dangerous in 1991, he would be dangerous again if we didnt do something about it; at *best*, he could be caged but he never be tamed. IF Saddam was 1 year away in 1991, he could get hiself that close quite quickly, since he had the technical material on hand to make progress.

Saddam's history of pursuit of WMDs, and the reality underlying the suspicions about Saddam's programs, has been forgotten in the roar of the leftist 'Bush lied' rhetoric.
This is a helpful reminder that Howard Dean and his 10,000 maniacs are full of it.

193 posted on 11/02/2006 9:22:46 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Sundog

That is an interesting analysis of how to cloak an underground nuclear detonation.

194 posted on 11/02/2006 9:24:08 PM PST by TigersEye ("Everywhere I go there's a Predator in tow, life goes on without me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: hemogoblin
I am willing to bet that the records-foolishly-posted-on-the-Web story was fed to some overeager, gullible reporter or editor at the Times, with the trick folded inside.

Who fed it? Hmmmm ...

195 posted on 11/02/2006 9:24:34 PM PST by hemogoblin (Kerry's an a$$hole! Oops, guess I botched that joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


From how I understand it the documents the NYT are talking about are reports written by the Iraqis to the United Nations inspectors about their nuclear program, not secret documents that they were trying to hide from them. That kind of explains why they still had them in 2003, but you would think the UN inspectors wouldn't have let them keep copies.

196 posted on 11/02/2006 9:24:46 PM PST by scsscs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
The NYT is arguing that the documents which were confiscated from Iraq in 2003 (meaning they were in Saddam's possession until we took him out) are so dangerous, that publishing them online could help Iran with their nuke program.

They CANNOT make this argument without admitting that Saddam had possession of this very same extremely dangerous info, which could have been sold to any enemy of the US (Al Qaeda, perhaps) by Iraq, until the moment we pulled him from the rat hole.

Either Saddam was dangerous or he wasn't. The NYT cannot have it both ways.

197 posted on 11/02/2006 9:27:14 PM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LikeLight
NYT staff is out drinking or in bed right now ...

Either way, they're all going to have hangovers tomorrow.

198 posted on 11/02/2006 9:27:17 PM PST by matt1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).

199 posted on 11/02/2006 9:27:26 PM PST by Danette ("If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: hemogoblin
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
200 posted on 11/02/2006 9:29:30 PM PST by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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
Topics · Post Article

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