Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Grey Lady's November Surprise (Dean Barnett on the NYT)
www.HughHewitt.com ^ | 11/03/2006 | Dean Barnett

Posted on 11/03/2006 9:15:26 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fmsodocuments; iraq; jveritas; newyorktimes; nyt; nytimes; nytreasontimes; prewardocs; saddamdocs; saddamnuke; santorum; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: talleyman

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!!


21 posted on 11/03/2006 9:46:51 AM PST by TheKidster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

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


22 posted on 11/03/2006 9:47:07 AM PST by Repub4bush (Tony is the Best Press Secretary Ever!!!!! (Sorry Ari, I liked you too, but you ain't Tony!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
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.
23 posted on 11/03/2006 9:47:25 AM PST by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
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.

24 posted on 11/03/2006 9:50:07 AM PST by Spunky ("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

25 posted on 11/03/2006 9:51:19 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spunky

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


26 posted on 11/03/2006 9:54:17 AM PST by cripplecreek (If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Renfield; Enchante
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>.

27 posted on 11/03/2006 10:02:33 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer; tarheelswamprat; jveritas; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; Marine_Uncle; ...

Thanks for posting this....

pinging others.....


28 posted on 11/03/2006 10:03:59 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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?


29 posted on 11/03/2006 10:08:44 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

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.


30 posted on 11/03/2006 10:13:15 AM PST by The Blitherer (We all know the truth now, and it is incontrovertible: Karl Rove is one magnificent bastard! - D. B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 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.


31 posted on 11/03/2006 10:14:22 AM PST by The Blitherer (We all know the truth now, and it is incontrovertible: Karl Rove is one magnificent bastard! - D. B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

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.


32 posted on 11/03/2006 10:16:30 AM PST by OldFriend (JOHN F. KERRY, BETRAYING OUR TROOPS AGAIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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."


33 posted on 11/03/2006 10:17:17 AM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Spunky

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


34 posted on 11/03/2006 10:17:23 AM PST by OldFriend (JOHN F. KERRY, BETRAYING OUR TROOPS AGAIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
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.

35 posted on 11/03/2006 10:18:24 AM PST by listenhillary (Driveby MEDIA -should be forced to file Federal Election Commission reports NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 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.]

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


36 posted on 11/03/2006 10:21:27 AM PST by khnyny (God Bless the Republic for which it stands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
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.

37 posted on 11/03/2006 10:24:42 AM PST by TigersEye ("Everywhere I go there's a Predator in tow, life goes on without me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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.


38 posted on 11/03/2006 10:37:24 AM PST by Air Gap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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


39 posted on 11/03/2006 10:48:29 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

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.


40 posted on 11/03/2006 11:00:39 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson