Jveritas certainly earned another
Posted on 11/02/2006 8:48:45 PM PST by jveritas
Edited on 11/02/2006 11:06:31 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The New York Times article to be published on November 3rd 2006 is about the US putting some captured Iraqi documents on the Foreign Military Intelligence Office (FMSO) website that talks about what the NYT and the IAEA call sensitive information from Iraq 1996 "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration FFCD presented to the UN and IAEA in 1996 and that talks about Iraq nuclear clandestine program. The IAEA and the New York Times claim that Iran may be using some of the technology in this FFCD which is a laughable idea as shown below.
That is from the IAEA website regardinf their report on Iraq FFCD presented to them by the Iraqis in 1996: “ 3. On 7 September 1996 in Baghdad Iraq delivered what it considered to be the definitive version of the "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration" (FFCD-F) of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear programme. The IAEA with the assistance of technical experts from Member States undertook a comprehensive review of the document.” Link: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC41/Documents/gc41-20.html
So the FFCD was discussed with member states experts of the IAEA. There are 142 members in the IAEA including Iran. I am not saying that the IAEA discussed the Iraqi FFCD with Iranians but the FFCD was not such a secret document and the Iranians would have been able to access it in one way or another if it really provide them with any useful information.
What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.
On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program. In this document it states that Saddam personally approved his Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency to re-use nuclear equipments that include something called “Degussa Furnaces” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities. The Degussa Vacuum furnaces were supplied to Iraq in the 1980’s by a German firm (Degussa AG based in Frankfurt Germany) and these furnaces later on became the subject of investigations of the German firm in the early 1990’s where the company claimed that they did not know that Iraq would have used them in its nuclear program.
The New York Times had an article in 1998 titled “An Iraqi Defector Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Research” where the Degussa furnaces were mentioned as part of “previous” Iraq nuclear program and the controversy surrounding the sale of these furnaces and the investigations later on(link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html ). The irony is that this is not only a New York Times article but also it was written by JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN once of the worst accusers (liars) that the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMD. Where are you Scott Shane????
Link to the translated document on FR: 2001 Iraqi Document: Saddam Approved the Re-Use of Nuclear Equipment http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725141/posts
Moreover, there are documents dated 1999-2001 that talk about Saddam regime projects to re-build some of the nuclear program facilities like RWTS (Radioactive Waste Treatment Station) and Radio-Chemistry laboratories which were part of Iraq previous clandestine nuclear program. Link to the translated document on FR: Iraqi Documents: Projects to Rebuild Saddam Nuclear Facilities http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718125/posts .
Also this one
Iraqi Documents Show Plans for Prohibited Nuclear Projects http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709390/posts
Ping!
She may be afraid of no one, but she strickly a democrat shill.
She and Catherine Herridge just "covered" the New York times story. Following the New York Times plot line to the period.
Nothing follows.
bttt
Thanks for your comments.
This has to be golden moments for Howlin, you and others, who cancelled Blather's and Mape's paychecks for lying.
The dinosaur fishwraps are getting hit by multiple factors.
Of course they will never acknowledge that their vile attacks and lies against our President, his staff and our warriors has resulted in about 62 million of us not buying their papers any more. Those 62 million are the voters, who voted for GW in 2004 inspite of all the lies and attacks on him by the MSM.
If we defeat their candidates next week in the election. their approaching demise will speed up to warp speed. A lot of ad money is wasted by left wing corporations and non profits because of the past political clout of the MSM. If they fail to deliver in next week's election, the elite liberals who control these corporations and non profits will find other ways to invest their anti Republican attack money.
Jveritas certainly earned another
OUTSTANDING
NY Times tries to spring another "October surprise" 4 days before national elections, but in calling attention to the grave dangers associated with Iraq's continued possession of nuclear weapons documents, this should backfire and be rammed down the lying throats of the leftists in the MSM and IAEA, etc.
Kudos to jveritas who has done such tremendous work on the Iraq documents, and to Jim Robinson and all at FR who put us in a position to fight back agains the lying MSM and Demagogues.
With this 11th hour article designed yet again to try to influence a national election on behalf of the Demagogues, the NY Slimes renews its declaration of war on America.
In addition to taking on the Slimes and the IAEA (which is obviously helping to orchestrate this crap), we need to continue to research and take on the libs in the background who are helping the MSM to pull this kind of b.s.
Here are two people quoted in the Slimes article that particularly bear scrutiny, at least one of whom was a high official in the Clinton/O'Leary Dept. of Energy, involved himself in the scandalous declassification frenzy in O'Leary's reign:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731252/posts?page=326#326
Great post!
quote]
The big "scoop" on today's front page will be deconstructed at length. Our own professor Geraghty has already done a fine job, and Ed Morrissey has added some further thought and analysis. The bottom line is that the Times has apparently embraced the position taken by Senators Santorum and Roberts, and Representative Hoekstra: that much valuable information was contained in captured Iraqi documents, and that the Intelligence Community was far too slow in translating and evaluating the documents, and that it would be a Very Good Thing to start posting the documents online so that they could be evaluated. Santorum and Hoekstra were up against determined resistance from DNI Negroponte and his people, and many in the White House were, let us say, very slow to respond. The president always said he supported the move, but somehow it never got done. After drafting legislation that would have compel led the executive branch to start declassifying and posting the documents, Santorum, Roberts and Hoekstra finally got the process going earlier this year.
I will discuss the whole thing with Angleton over the weekend, if the ouija board works, but this story is probably a leak from intelligence people trying to embarrass the Senators and the Congressman, protect the Intel Community's "right" to classify and declassify at its own will and on its own schedule. and make the president out to be an idiot (surprise!). But, just like Senator Kerry, it is the leakers (and, insofar as the Times shares their objectives, the Times itself) who have exposed their own consumate stupidity. For the story asserts that a) Iraq was on the verge of mastering nuclear weapons technology and b) that Iran is trying to build atomic bombs. Or, "Bush didn't lie."
And in case you were wondering, Santorum, Roberts and Hoekstra always insisted that nothing that could possibly compromise national security should be posted.
Furthermore--and here you have only to look at Ed Morrissey's excellent blog--by implication the Times has given enhanced credibility to the many other explosive contents of the Iraq documents, heretofore ignored by William Broad and other Times sleuths. Those include the close working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaida.
[/quote]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/print/
Excellent!
Thanks. It is easy to make a good reply when we discuss jveritas, Buckhead and Free Republic.
Is anyone hearing ANY talk of this out there? I've heard nothing......chirp...chirp...chirp.
Kudos to jveritas who has done such tremendous work on the Iraq documents, and to Jim Robinson and all at FR who put us in a position to fight back agains the lying MSM and Demagogues.
One can only imagine the frustrations of the Marxist Homosexual Lunatics at the NY Slimes, other dinosaur fishwrap, and ABCNNBCBS, when their well planned election October Surprise coup attempts fall flat on their face due to Free Republic, a few conservative blogs, Rush, Sean and other conservative talk show hosts.
JVYMB!
Of course DU is touting this as "Bush Admin Put Dangerous Nuke Secrets On the Web!" with renewed calls for frog marching and impeachment galore. They just don't get it.
On the good side; it's out there and this counter-point is still valid...
Bush is vindicated! Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought
Rhetorical question: If Saddam was a year away in '91 how far away was he in '01?
AQ Khan made this whole issue moot.
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.