The Grey Lady's November Surprise (Dean Barnett on the NYT)

www.HughHewitt.com ^ | 11/03/2006 | Dean Barnett

[The Blitherer]

You see kids – this is what happens when your worldview gets hopelessly narrow.

In its semi-annual November surprise, the New York Times “reveals” that the Bush administration put documents on the web that showed that Iraq was quite far along in its quest for nuclear weapons. Naturally, that’s not the focus of the story. The focus of the story is the cursed incompetence of the Bush administration, the Republican Party, and even right-wing media-types (like me!) who wanted the documents released.

But the takeaway from the story for normal people won’t be that conservatives both inside and outside the administration are all a bunch of blithering incompetents. Besides, Andrew Sullivan’s vote had already been pretty much sewed up. The “news” in the story is how far along Saddam was in his bid to acquire the ultimate WMD. While that’s an old story to many of us, it’s heartening to see the Times splash it all over this morning’s front page and in so doing refresh the nation’s memory regarding the most disputed causus belli of the current war.

The Times lengthy reportage pounds the theme that some of the documents could give potential malefactors like those nice Mullahs in Iran a shortcut to nuclear weaponry. The Times quotes a predictably unnamed diplomat fretting, “It’s a cookbook. If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”

Let’s just posit for the sake of argument that the Times’ huge exposé is news-breaking of the first order and is no way, shape or form a maladroit effort at electioneering. Let’s assume that the Times really does think that this information being posted on the web made the world a vastly more dangerous place.

If that’s the case, why did the Times wait until just last night to confront the government with this information even though the Times dates the concerns of experts to “recent weeks”? One would think the Times’ heartfelt patriotism would have compelled the paper to bring its concerns to the government immediately rather than hold off until four days before an election.

Giggle. Read the Times’ story closely and you’ll hear yet another death rattle from the lumbering carcass of the mainstream media.

[The Blitherer]

IMHO, Barnett is always good at making things seem extremely clear.

[linear]

Maybe I'm nitpicking, or maybe I'm just one of those dumb vets that Kerry mentioned, but isn't it a "bi-annual" November surprise, as opposed to "semi-annual"?

[cripplecreek]

Rush Limbaugh is saying that when the documents first appeared on the net, the democrats and the moonbat immediately doubted their authenticity.

It's just so typical of them. They demand something, get what they wanted, discount it as fake, hope it goes away, then cheer when it reappears because they've changed position.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

A stopped calendar is right twice a year, of course.

[thehumanlynx]

The NYT is just looking out for America. Conservatives are always making a big deal out of a info filled story.

Stupid Conservatives. They expect the news to actually report news for news' sake.. Idiots.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Well, the left also questioned the English translations of the documents.

[linear]

Unless it crosses the event horizion of a black hole, in which case it could be right four times a year.

[caseinpoint]

Wearing my tinfoil hat here: maybe the Grey Lady has read the tea leaves and switched sides so that it can still claim to be relevant by affecting the outcome of the election.

Nah--too sophisticated for them.

[Renfield]

Captain Ed Morrissey has an excellent post on the subject:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008425.php

(He has many embedded links to a lot of important information, so I'll just post the link in stead of the article). Well worth your exploration.

[Petronski]

But that ain't no lady.

[The Blitherer]

lol! That's REALLY funny!

[cvq3842]

Unfortunately, it's relatively simple to build a nuke. The tough part is finding enriched uranium.

http://www.beloit.edu/~belmag/03fall/03fall_features/03fall_dobson.html

Guess these college kids didn't go to Niger on spring break!

That's why the posting of the plans is not as catastrophic as it was made out to be. No, they shouldn't have been posted. But the Times has endorsed the view that these are a grand threat. It's the idea of Saddam's danger that's underlined.

Logic 101. Having these plans makes you a danger. Saddam had the plans. therefore he is a danger.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


The Blitherer,


The NY-Times story is pathetic.


ANY knowlegable Mid-East journalist or military intelligence analyst (worth their salt) KNOWS that the Soviets have already given "miniaturized" nuclear-weapon design files to the Iranians, in exchange for Iran's giving the Soviets billions worth of nuclear facility and arms deals.


Privately, I think Iran ALREADY has nuclear weapons, already sitting on selected Shaab-3 missiles ... and are merely "baiting" Isreal to attack with a long, outrageous parade of diplomatic-military provocations.


Patton-at-Bastogne

"May God and His Angels Guard Your Sacred Throne, and May You Long Become It."

Shakespeare, Henry V, Act I, Scene II


.

[finnman69]

If it's so dangerous, Iraq should not have had these documents, and Pres. Bush did the right thing.

END of story.

[FreedomNeocon]

Wait-a-minute but Saddam was contained... we had those iron-clad sanctions and oil-for-food program and the UN watching over him. Plus he had no interest in WMD, and had nothing to do with terrorism.

But somehow he had this 'how to build a nuke' primer, was a year away (if he could find a place to purchase yellow cake), housed terrorists (who mysteriously were killed on the eve of the war) and had terrorist training camp, openly paid for Palestinian suicide bombers, etc...

The cognitive dissonance is boggling...

[BigSkyFreeper]

The larger point of the NY Times story is that it showed Joe Wilson to be a friggen liar, and vindicated the Bush administration.

[talleyman]

Since when does the NY Slimes have a problem with revealing (allegedly) sensitive information?

[Suzy Quzy]

It's not a November Surprise....it's a ROVEmber Surprise.

[syriacus]

According to an old CNN article, In 2002, the UK declassified Nuke building docs

LONDON, England -- Britain's Ministry of Defence has confirmed it has made public information describing in detail the make-up of a nuclear bomb.

The plans give complete cross-sections, precise measurements and full details of materials used for all the components, including the plutonium core and the initiator that sets off the chain reaction causing the blast. [excerpt]

Thanks to Sturm Ruger for posting the link to the CNN article last night.

[The Blitherer]

Has Carl Rove's magnificant mind control finally extended over the free-thinkers at the New York Times? Tune in next time...

[TheKidster]

Since when does the NY Slimes have a problem with revealing (allegedly) sensitive information?

Amen to that!! The NY Slimes actually expressing concern that sensitive US secrets were made public. Isn't this the same rag that time and time again has published leaked info about US efforts to prosecute the WOT??
AI can't wait until these clowns and thier cohorts are completely pushed out of the biz by sites like this and Drudge!!

[Repub4bush]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1731259/posts?page=1,50

[Spunky]

My brother was visiting last April when jervitas was beginning to translate these documents I tried to show my brother them. He read the first statement on the government site where they put up a disclaimer and said they would not nor could not prove the authenticity of the documents. My brother said if the government won't stand by them, I won't even read them.

I wonder how the NYT article is effecting him. I wonder if he is thinking Bush's administration was stupid to put them on the net for the Iranians to access (Like the NYT is trying to indicate), or is he thinking my sister tried to show me that Iraq had WMD and President Bush was correct after all.

[Spunky]

Funny how the New York Times wouldn't translate any of the documents until they find one THEY THINK will effect the election.

And how stupid do they think we all are. We all know you can find out how to make a bomb many places on the Internet.

[pabianice]

[cripplecreek]

The left is so dedicated to blind opposition that they don't even see a problem with contradicting themselves to remain in opposition.

[ravingnutter]

OMG...from a link at your link:

Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear Bomb

Hmmm...wonder why that story never made the front page of the NYT < /sarcasm>.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for posting this....

pinging others.....

[albie]

I'm a tad confused on this issue. Even listening to Rush today didn't clear this up. (I went to Military Acadamy )back in the 70's. Perhaps that's why I don't get it.) This seems to me to be a good story for Repub's. It reveals that there were WMD or at least a possible atom bomb in the making. Bush vindicated? What are your thoughts?

[The Blitherer]

It's all about spin. The papers reveal that Saddam had a shortcut to making a nuclear bomb, and all he needed was the enriched uranium from Niger. But the NYT is spinning the story, trying to focus on those idiots in the Bush admin who let this get posted online. I think its gonna backfire on them, though.

[The Blitherer]

Oh, let me just clear up that I was being sarcastic with the whole "idiots" comment. That's how the NYT is trying to make it look.

[OldFriend]

I expect the NYSlimes to post the diagrams and technical information on it's website in the near future. With a special not to the terrorists running Iran and North Korea.

[albie]

I think its gonna backfire on them, though.


Thank you. I know that the NYSlimes certainly didn't mean it as a prop for Bush, but I figured that most folks would figure this out and say..."hmm, seems to me that Bush did the right thing going over to Iraq."

[OldFriend]

Your brother is ignoring the entire story. Nope, not going to read that, not going to listen to that either. Nope Nope Nope.

[listenhillary]

Which is it? A bogus dump of unrelated documents or a how to manual for a nuclear bomb?

Salon.com April 13, 2006

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/13/document_dump/index_np.html Bush's bogus document dump

The administration seeded its new public archive of Iraq documents with jihadist materials completely unrelated to Saddam.

By Fritz Umbach

While the world has watched claim after claim about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction dissolve like a mirage, the Bush administration has never deviated from one assertion in its shifting case for war: that there was an operational connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. As evidence of the manipulation of prewar intelligence keeps surfacing, the administration has now taken that equally dubious claim and made it virtual.

Lacking evidence of a real-world link between Saddam and the perpetrators of 9/11, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by Bush appointee John Negroponte, has apparently decided to create one in cyberspace -- by seeding its new online Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents archive with suggestive jihadist materials, and by linking the site to an entirely unrelated database of al-Qaida materials.

[khnyny]

[Rush Limbaugh is saying that when the documents first appeared on the net, the democrats and the moonbat immediately doubted their authenticity.

It's just so typical of them. They demand something, get what they wanted, discount it as fake, hope it goes away, then cheer when it reappears because they've changed position.]

LOL. That about sums up the Dems. They also like to "create" their reality.

[TigersEye]

Bush vindicated! Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought

The New York Times Strikes (Out) Again

Senator Santorum Comments on Release of Valuable Information in Pre-War Documents Discovered in Iraq

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide (Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program)

Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought

Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

JVERITAS Responds to the 11/3 NYT Article Regarding Iraq Nuclear Program.

[Air Gap]

Desperation is ugly. You can't have it both ways, now can you? The "dangerous" information in the hands of Saddam only made "dangerous" by the evil Americans because they published information that confirmed that Saddam was pursuing WMD. The stakes are high for the MSM. If they fail their uselessness will be exposed. The scramble for the lifeboats will not be pretty. At least when the Titanic sank they had a calm sea.

[Peach]

Rep. Hoekstra's response to the NYT is a thing of beauty as well. He denies that ANYONE warned the goverment/Congress about the danger posed in those documents.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731635/posts

[cvq3842]

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Also, Joe Wilson's original oral report said saddam proibably was looking for uranium in Niger. It's only after a job from Kerry that he wrote the NYT op-ed.

FDR would have had him executed.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this parody of the NY Times newsroom after releasing the November surprise:

November 3, 2006
NYTimes: Bush told truth! Saddam a true threat! Yellowcake!

**************************A leadin******************************

So, the NY Times twirls its mustache and writes:

Stupid Evil Bush Reveals Saddam’s Nuke Plans, and He was Only a Year Away from Having Nukes and….and….

Times Peon #1: HOLY CRAP, Mr. Keller, did we just validate everything Dick Cheney and Colin Powell and stupid evil George Bush said to the UN? When we’re spilling secrets, we’re not supposed to do that!

Keller: OMG, WE DID! We DID validate these scheming nazi theocon bastards!!!

Times Peon #2: And…and…and what about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and those sixteen words Bush said…you know, the impeachable 16 words about the Brit intelligence and the Yellowcake! Jim Geraghty at TKS says we might have freaking validated that story, too!

Keller: Ohhhhhh crap! And freaking bloggers! Okay, let’s spin this, baby, spin it! All hands on deck! Turn this ship around! Call Chris Matthews! Call MoDo - no, wait, don’t call her, she’ll make it worse by pretending to be Emma Peel, or something - call Bob Herbert! He’s a wiz at shifting the rudder! Spin, spin! Call Olbermann!

Peon #3: Aye, Aye, captain! Uh, sir, Olbermann is chewing floorboard and Matthews is crying, again. Should we call Judith Miller, sir?

See link for the complete parody.....it is well done!!!!!!!

[Panzerlied]

I'll take Bi-annual for $200, Alex.

[TigersEye]

Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear Bomb

Iran - CIA 'gave bomb plan to Tehran' (Clinton Legacy - Nuclear weapons)

[Mo1]

Privately, I think Iran ALREADY has nuclear weapons, already sitting on selected Shaab-3 missiles ... and are merely "baiting" Isreal to attack with a long, outrageous parade of diplomatic-military provocations.

---

4 January 1994
US Undersecretary for International Security Lynn Davis says that Iranian nuclear procurement is "inconsistent with any rational civil nuclear program." The CIA has concluded that Iran's nuclear program is in its "infancy stage," but that Iran could possess nuclear weapons by the year 2000.
—Security Affairs, April-May 1994, p. 3; Jack Kelley, "Nuclear Program in the works/US firms many have helped supply parts," USA Today January 4, 1994; in Lexis-Nexis, < http://www.lexis-nexis.com/>, 13 February 1994.

[Marine_Uncle]

Somehow I don't think those 300 tons of yellowcake and 1.5 tons of enriched uranium sitting in Salmon Pak where going to be used for say making ice cream or yogurt.