[Strategerist]

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.

[A Citizen Reporter]

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

[bybybill]

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

[ruschpa]

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

[outofstyle]

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.

[tobyhill]

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.

[blake6900]

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.

[Sir Gawain]

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.

Um, you're still dodging the obvious question. If the "documents being in Saddam's possession as recently as a few years ago" is nothing more than a non-story, then why are the documents dangerous enough to be removed from the website? Why are they dangerous enough to be reported on by the NYT? Helloooo?