Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s 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. Husseins scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.
Umm, no. It's a poorly written paragraph of the article, but they're not saying Iraq was one year away from having an atomic bomb in 2002 - they mean 1991.
in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is true, why did Bush spend the last 3 years bumbling the message about why we went in there? He's practically admitted there were no WMD. Why did he do that? I just don't get why he didn't stick to his guns on the PR side of the Iraq war. I just don't get it at all. He folded his cards and let the traitors, losers and other assorted Democratic scumbags rake in a pot they didn't earn and didn't deserve. Why?