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

Skip to comments.

Rep. Hoekstra (Republican) responds to NYTimes
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006267.htm ^

Posted on 11/03/2006 10:21:47 AM PST by WBL 1952

From Michael Malkin's blog: Hoekstra's response to NYT admitting Saddam was apparently a very dangerous man.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cia; cialeak; fmsodocuments; iran; iraq; jveritas; msm; newyorktimes; nyt; nytimes; prewardocs; saddamdocs; saddamnuke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last
"Yesterday's article by the New York Times highlights a number of important issues with respect to Iraq's WMD programs, as well as the importance of the documents that have been recovered in Iraq," said U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "I am pleased that the document release program continues to stimulate public discussion of these issues. "With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

"That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.

"These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.

"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime.

"Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."

1 posted on 11/03/2006 10:21:47 AM PST by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

And Hoekstra lands a left, a right, and now a shot to the chin! The NYT goes DOOOOOOWN


2 posted on 11/03/2006 10:25:14 AM PST by bybybill (`IF TH E RATS WIN, WE LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
-- The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."--

--and if the Administration had a spine there would have been indictments for treason--

3 posted on 11/03/2006 10:25:33 AM PST by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

Ouch, I felt sympathy pain for the NYT just reading that statement. Actually, it felt kinda good... ;-)


4 posted on 11/03/2006 10:26:05 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 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

Good - someone in authority is repeating that key important sentence. Let it ring throughout the land - he had a nuke program.


5 posted on 11/03/2006 10:27:51 AM PST by rjp2005 (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

How widely has this statement appeared? Michelle Malkin's blog, obviously, which is widely read on the internet. What about the NY Times? Have they deigned to acknowledge it? Will they print it?


6 posted on 11/03/2006 10:28:15 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

bump


7 posted on 11/03/2006 10:31:04 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

bump


8 posted on 11/03/2006 10:31:05 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bybybill

"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime."


WOW.........


9 posted on 11/03/2006 10:33:36 AM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
The NYT goes DOOOOOOWN

They're only used to going down on the Democrats.

10 posted on 11/03/2006 10:34:00 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

Bears repeating:

"The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."


11 posted on 11/03/2006 10:36:03 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

You're right, well worth hilighting - that's big.


12 posted on 11/03/2006 10:39:12 AM PST by agrace (http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/agrace/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum

"Bears repeating: "

Needs to be shouted from the roof tops.


13 posted on 11/03/2006 10:39:13 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Absolutely!


14 posted on 11/03/2006 10:40:57 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents.

That's a crock. The IAEA said Saddam was innocent./s

15 posted on 11/03/2006 10:43:06 AM PST by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

could be the other way around. its so hard to tell when they are so constantly intertwined in such an unsightly orgy of liberal hysteria....


16 posted on 11/03/2006 10:44:15 AM PST by bpjam (Not Voting in '06? Turn in your VRWC card at exit quietly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.

"These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.

Read the whole thing.

17 posted on 11/03/2006 10:44:20 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

O.K. Very Good.
.
Now WHAT are we going to DO ABOUT IRAN !!!!!


18 posted on 11/03/2006 10:45:29 AM PST by PEACE ENFORCER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PEACE ENFORCER
Now WHAT are we going to DO ABOUT IRAN !!!!!

Here's a hint, look to NK to see what we will do....

19 posted on 11/03/2006 10:47:54 AM PST by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

This is what I don't get:

If Republicans had a huge press conference right now or this evening and repeated Hoekstra's statement in full and highlighted the portion you highlighted as well as others, Democrats would NOT gain control of either house of Congress. It just wouldn't happen.


20 posted on 11/03/2006 10:51:22 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bybybill

It you want to parody Howard Cosell's call of Frazier-Foreman it's, "DOWN GOES THE NYT; DOWN GOES THE NYT, DOWN GOES THE NYT!"


21 posted on 11/03/2006 10:52:04 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine's brother (HOOAH! It's an Army thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine's brother
"DOWN GOES THE NYT; DOWN GOES THE NYT, DOWN GOES THE NYT!"

They're the proverbial bad penny.

22 posted on 11/03/2006 10:54:38 AM PST by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze; Mo1; Txsleuth; SE Mom

I sure wish the president or a few Republicans would hold a major press conference and read this statement to the American voters. Democrats would be toast on Tuesday. And in '08.


23 posted on 11/03/2006 10:54:49 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952; Peach
In fact the people opposing the documents were saying that it should not be published not because they contain any sensitive information but because these documents are "irrelevant". Now liberals and Bush haters are going 180 degree so in this case let them seriously consider the many documents which prove that Saddam was still working on his WMD projects including his nuclear program.
24 posted on 11/03/2006 10:55:34 AM PST by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952; tarheelswamprat; jveritas; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; Marine_Uncle; blam; ...
Thanks for posting this.....pinging others. From the Captain's Quarters:

So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit...NY Times says some Saddam documents are dangerous....

25 posted on 11/03/2006 10:56:07 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

PING for brilliant response to the NYTimes.


26 posted on 11/03/2006 10:56:16 AM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

"
If Republicans had a huge press conference right now or this evening and repeated Hoekstra's statement in full and highlighted the portion you highlighted as well as others, Democrats would NOT gain control of either house of Congress. It just wouldn't happen."

Correct, better PR needed in face of the full scale MSM-Democrat onslaught of garbage ...

I am not looking forward to the Nancy Congress Clown Show.

Not at all.


27 posted on 11/03/2006 10:57:32 AM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: agrace

Never have trusted ElBaradei and it would not be surprising if this NYT story was intended to run interference for the IAEA in the event all of this comes out!!


28 posted on 11/03/2006 10:59:42 AM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

I've been terribly disappointed in both the Congressional and WH public relations campaign for years. I understand full well about the press, but honestly, if they can't call FNC and get an interview, or at least hold a HUGE press conference that the media is FORCED to cover, then maybe they really ARE the stupid party :-)


29 posted on 11/03/2006 11:00:34 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Peach

"If Republicans had a huge press conference right now or this evening and repeated Hoekstra's statement in full and highlighted the portion you highlighted as well as others, Democrats would NOT gain control of either house of Congress. It just wouldn't happen."

I hope they hear you!! Wonder if this ties in with the big announcement coming out from MAF tomorrow?


30 posted on 11/03/2006 11:01:53 AM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Agreed. 100%.

Thanks for all you do, jveritas. You are a national treasure.


31 posted on 11/03/2006 11:02:27 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

What is coming out on Monday and what is MAF?


32 posted on 11/03/2006 11:02:54 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
"Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."
33 posted on 11/03/2006 11:04:48 AM PST by Enchante (There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Drive-By Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

It is all very intriguing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1730449/posts


34 posted on 11/03/2006 11:05:37 AM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I've been terribly disappointed in both the Congressional and WH public relations campaign for years. I understand full well about the press, but honestly, if they can't call FNC and get an interview, or at least hold a HUGE press conference that the media is FORCED to cover, then maybe they really ARE the stupid party :-)

I couldn't agree with you more, Peach. So this is just posted on Michelle Malkin's blog, but nowhere else? Bush should have already called a press conference over this today... this story doesn't seem to have the wide coverage I expected...

35 posted on 11/03/2006 11:06:14 AM PST by nutmeg (National security trumps everything else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; DKNY; ...
ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

36 posted on 11/03/2006 11:06:51 AM PST by nutmeg (National security trumps everything else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

I know. It's so frustrating.

What can WE Do to get this story out?

Bombard our Congressman's office? Call/e-mail FNC?

It just doesn't have the same impact if the president does it, but I guess we shouldn't give up with just a few days left to the election.


37 posted on 11/03/2006 11:07:26 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jveritas; Peach
BBC has nothing on this NY Times story but has this one on their RSS Feed:

US stops audit of Iraq rebuilding

Conspiracy?

38 posted on 11/03/2006 11:07:33 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Peach

So, why has Bush's adminstration continually avoided opportunities to show how right they were to do what they did? Why the big show yesterday by AG Gonzalez to go round up a bunch of "bad guys" having nothing to do with the War on IslamoNazis? I am really confused about the mixed messages and poor communication skills - do they really want to lose?


39 posted on 11/03/2006 11:09:06 AM PST by Sioux-san (God save the Sheeple)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Well! I had not seen that. Maybe they're doing the work the Congress and the president should be doing in terms of getting some important information into the airwaves.

I hope everyone knows that I love this president and support him 100%, but I'm still really, really disappointed that he doesn't seem to understand the importance of this stuff and even with Tony Snow there, his PR campaign just isn't up to speed.


40 posted on 11/03/2006 11:09:12 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sioux-san

Sometimes it seems that way, doesn't it? But I know the president is working his tail off campaigning; I just wish he knew the importance of getting THIS particularly information into the airwaves.


41 posted on 11/03/2006 11:10:37 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Oh crud. Sheesh.

All the more reason why the president should be highlighting the importance of some of these documents. Color me discouraged and wishing we could put some freepers in charge of PR in the White House.


42 posted on 11/03/2006 11:11:45 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
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 (different thread than link above)

Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

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

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

43 posted on 11/03/2006 11:12:56 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: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This headline is 100% dishonest - the facts in the story don't say the auditing HAS stopped already, the claim is that the bill contained a "sunset" provision for the office to close in 2007. Normally that should be simply good practice for any government program that is not intended to last forever (nearly all do, unless they are forced to close up shop when the reason for their existence has been satisfied).

If the program needs to be extended, then as Sen. Warner suggests, it can be extended. This article is just the usual b.s. propaganda from the left - it's not even newsworthy!!


44 posted on 11/03/2006 11:14:08 AM PST by Enchante (There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Drive-By Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

His third paragraph should have been his FIRST.


45 posted on 11/03/2006 11:14:50 AM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

There has to be National Security concerns at work here that our Prez thinks are more important than an election. That's all I can figure. I think he is concerned more about our troops and our nation's safety than he is the polls.


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

To: Peach
I sure wish the president or a few Republicans would hold a major press conference and read this statement to the American voters.

Why don't they? Why do they schmooze these damaging articles against their so-called opponents? If Rove is such a smart one, why aren't they?

47 posted on 11/03/2006 11:16:49 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Me too, I've always gotten an uneasy feeling about El Baradei.


48 posted on 11/03/2006 11:16:58 AM PST by agrace (http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/agrace/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Great links, thanks for the list!! I recommend adding these for evidence of how the NY Times has known for months of a far greater nuke security issue (an actual warhead blueprint from the Clintonista CIA to Iran) and has not devoted any hysterical front-page treatments to this story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614979/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551976/posts

They are dishonest hypocritical frauds who are openly working for the Demagogic Party.


49 posted on 11/03/2006 11:17:25 AM PST by Enchante (There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Drive-By Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
How widely has this statement appeared?

So far no where else at the present time.

50 posted on 11/03/2006 11:18:59 AM PST by TexKat (Just because you did not see it or read it, that does not mean it did or did not happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 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