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
IMHO, Barnett is always good at making things seem extremely clear.
1 posted on 11/03/2006 9:15:27 AM PST by The Blitherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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"?


2 posted on 11/03/2006 9:19:39 AM PST by linear (Taxonomy is a willing and pliant mistress but Reality waits at home, sharpening her knife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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.


3 posted on 11/03/2006 9:20:04 AM PST by cripplecreek (If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linear

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


4 posted on 11/03/2006 9:21:28 AM PST by wildandcrazyrussian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
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.

5 posted on 11/03/2006 9:22:29 AM PST by thehumanlynx (“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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


6 posted on 11/03/2006 9:22:36 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Karl Rove you magnificent bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wildandcrazyrussian

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


7 posted on 11/03/2006 9:23:06 AM PST by linear (Taxonomy is a willing and pliant mistress but Reality waits at home, sharpening her knife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wildandcrazyrussian

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.


8 posted on 11/03/2006 9:23:32 AM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer; All

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.


9 posted on 11/03/2006 9:24:34 AM PST by Renfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
But that ain't no lady.


10 posted on 11/03/2006 9:25:02 AM PST by Petronski (CNN is an insidiously treasonous, enemy propaganda organ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

lol! That's REALLY funny!


11 posted on 11/03/2006 9:26:04 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 10 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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.


12 posted on 11/03/2006 9:26:51 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
.


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


.
13 posted on 11/03/2006 9:27:55 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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

END of story.


14 posted on 11/03/2006 9:28:01 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
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...
15 posted on 11/03/2006 9:30:54 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (Success is not final; Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

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


16 posted on 11/03/2006 9:31:24 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Karl Rove you magnificent bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

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


17 posted on 11/03/2006 9:31:55 AM PST by talleyman (Kerry & the Surrender-Donkey Treasoncrats - trashing the troops for 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

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


18 posted on 11/03/2006 9:32:18 AM PST by Suzy Quzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer; Sturm Ruger
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.
19 posted on 11/03/2006 9:33:04 AM PST by syriacus (2002-UK declassified Nuke building docs- http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/15/uk.nuclear/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Suzy Quzy

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


20 posted on 11/03/2006 9:34:55 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 18 | View Replies]

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]

To: listenhillary
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!!!!!!!

41 posted on 11/03/2006 11:19:53 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: linear

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


42 posted on 11/03/2006 11:22:02 AM PST by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer
Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear Bomb

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

43 posted on 11/03/2006 11:28:15 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: Patton@Bastogne

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.


44 posted on 11/03/2006 11:38:41 AM PST by Mo1 (Senator Kerry's response to the military ~ Let me make this is crystal clear, I apologize to no one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

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.


45 posted on 11/03/2006 5:40:21 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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