Posted on 11/03/2006 5:33:26 AM PST by shrinkermd
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 had 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
After years of claiming Sadaam had no WMD, the NYT now claims that posting the evidence that that Iraq was close to making an A bomb is treacherous and dangerous.
They simply can't have it both ways. Either there were WMD or their were not. Either Iraq was doing what it could to make a bomb or it was not. Publishing Iraq's efforts and progress may tangentially help someone but it also helps put the lies published by the NYT front and center.
In the meantime, this article will die a natural death except for the MSM Bush hating acolytes. We all eagerly anticipate the fire sale of NYT's assets--Boston Globe--as part of the "Pinch" brilliance downzing effort.
If all of the chemical munitions found in Iraq that pre-dated the 1991 conflict are considered "degraded", why wouldn't they consider these old documents "safe", as well?
/sarcasm
http://tks.nationalreview.com/
Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
The question I have is whether it was really "Congressional Republicans" who pressured Bush to do this, or whether it's just another NYT whitewash for the Democrats.
You can't take anything the NYT says at face value.
It's somewhat interesting that they leak US classified info all the time, but now they don't want Saddam's secrets aired over the internet.
There could be another reason for this.
Hillary! If Democrats win big, the Clintons cannot take over the DNC for Hillary's 2008 run.
I have a feeling that any technical nuclear knowledge revealed in Iraqi beaurocratic documents can be found in much greater detail on hundreds of websites...including many American sites archiving non-classified documents. This is about as much of a bombshell as finding the formula for gunpowder on the web. Who is the NYT kidding? Do they really think that Iran didn't have constant intel on everything Saddam was doing? Iran probably had moles, if not the scientists themselves, in Saddams WMD programs from the start.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it. TKS nailed it!!! Will the MSM pick up on this? Talk about your November surprise!!!
I can't remember exactly, but I think Rob Portman or someone like that urged the President to publish it, which I agree with.
This may me NYT trying to create a "Bush did it too" defense for an upcoming indictment against some of their own.
Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda.
Nope...can't have anyone second-guessing the Govt.on such things, they've never lied to us before, right? < /sarcasm> And that word "context" has cropped up alot lately...it seems to be the buzz word for the "you can't believe your lying eyes" spin.
You have to wonder about the motivations of "intelligence agencies" who DON'T want evidence of Saddam's WMD revealed. I assume they don't work for the President.
"Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, an arms design center, said some things in these documents would be helpful to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and should have remained secret."
This is one of the sections that jumped out at me. As long as the documents and plans "remained secret", the World and the MSM could continue to claim that the President/Administration lied about WMDs and Saddam's threat to the international community.
But instead of protecting secret technical details, they seem to be more concerned with protecting an illusion that Bush lied.
2002-UK declassified Nuke building docs- http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/15/uk.nuclear/
2002-UK declassified Nuke building docs- http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/15/uk.nuclear/
2002-UK declassified Nuke building docs- http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/15/uk.nuclear/
2002-UK declassified Nuke building docs- http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/15/uk.nuclear/
Starnews~~U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer
You don't need a password to read the Times article at this website.
WMD BUMP!
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.