U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer

New York Times ^ | 2 November 2006 | William J. Broad

[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 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.

[shrinkermd]

This article according to Drudge was supposed to last several news cycles and be devastating for the Bush Administration.

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.

[edpc]

Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

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

[Jedidah]

http://tks.nationalreview.com/

Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

[Brilliant]

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.

[EQAndyBuzz]

There could be another reason for this.

Hillary! If Democrats win big, the Clintons cannot take over the DNC for Hillary's 2008 run.

[Sender]

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.

[shove_it]

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!!!

[GodfearingTexan]

I can't remember exactly, but I think Rob Portman or someone like that urged the President to publish it, which I agree with.

[gov_bean_ counter]

This may me NYT trying to create a "Bush did it too" defense for an upcoming indictment against some of their own.

[ravingnutter]

You are correct and it just underlines the contempt that the NYT has for us...they deem this information dangerous when in the hands of a conservative, but not in Saddam's regime. And here's the real kicker:

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.

[Sender]

In other words, people such as our own Jveritas can't be translating these documents and posting them "out of context"...yeah right.

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.

[jatfla]

"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.

[rawcatslyentist]

It also has the secret treasure map to Lincolns gold written in semi invisible ink, only vieweable with special z-ray glasses.

[Sender]

That jumps out at me also. They could have easily stated that clear evidence of WMD was found, paraphrased what was found and still kept the details secret.

But instead of protecting secret technical details, they seem to be more concerned with protecting an illusion that Bush lied.

[FreedomProtector]

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
“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.”

The Web site, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal,” was a constantly expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents included everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from Mr. Hussein’s intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a legion of bloggers, translators and amateur historians.

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 had 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_documents


...had a Physics professor in college (undergraduate) who earned his PhD in nuclear physics (scholarship via air force) I will never forget one day in third semester physics, the topic of a nuclear bomb came up. He draw a conceptual picture of an overview of nuclear bomb. As expected, as curious students of physics, we began asking questions. As details of certain areas of the picture [particularly related to the trigger] were asked about, he would just smile and say, "We can't talk about that part", or "can't discuss that part".

...also had professor in graduate school who worked on the B1-B bomber, that was interesting as well : ). He shared a half a dozen interesting stories about the development of the B1-B from that class. It is enjoyable to see the B1-B at air shows and know interesting bits and pieces of the history of the technical development of the aircraft.

My current 'team lead' (or old school 'boss') (who earned a masters degree from Johns Hopkins in cryptology/signal processing) used to work for the NSA. Naturally curious we occasionally ask questions, and get the expected "can't discuss that" with a smile answer : ) Occationally, we get a non-classified irrelevant funny tidbit.

[rock_lobsta]

"A basic guide to building an atom bomb"

[listenhillary]

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/

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Readable location for this release:

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.

[kellynla]

WMD BUMP!