NYT: Saddam was on verge of building Nuke, as little as a year away.

  1. NYT front page today, in a story meant to be a Nov Surprise to ensure Dem victory, there is a key concession buried in the small print:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/wo...gewanted=print

    "Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

    Wow, THIS is why we are in Iraq.

    I have a question: if these documents are as DANGEROUS as the NYT suggest, then how was it better to leave them in Saddam's hand?

    I think the NYT just vindicated the entire war.

    Of course Saddam didn't have or wasn't interested in WMD. Then WHY the concern about these documents and what they could reveal ABOUT WMDs and Saddam's program to develop them in Iraq?:

    "Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.

    At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms at the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in charge of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones.

    In April, diplomats said, the commission’s acting chief weapons inspector, Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission to the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents tabun and sarin."


    Apparently the concerns were about the technical details in a document entitled: "Summary of technical achievements of Iraq’s former nuclear program." But, haven't we been told for 3 yrs now that Bush lied because no such program existed?

    Give this story the weekend, and it will BE a NOV surprise, but not quite the one intended, I think.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 3, '06
    •  
  2. 37 Comments

  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    For the record, the actual NYT spin: Bush Administration stupid for publishing Iraq documents that could give Iran hints on nuke tech:

    1. The real admission is the danger Saddam had. You can't cry about the WMD threat of Saddam's info AND deny that Saddam was a WMD threat. Duh.

    2. The site was controlled by Congress, not the WH.

    3. Britain released their own detailed specs of making a bomb in 1995, as reported by CNN in 2002:

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/e...15/uk.nuclear/

    "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."

    "A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed to CNN that information relating to the Blue Danube bomb had been declassified seven years ago and put in the public domain at the UK's Public Record Office."


    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  4. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA

    Give this story the weekend, and it will BE a NOV surprise, but not quite the one intended, I think.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Let's hope....
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from cardiacRN2006
    Let's hope....
    See, the key to this story is for a year now, the left wing bloggers have been suggesting that any info in these docs were made up by the WH to support the WMD case for war.

    But now, in a 'late in the game' attempt to influence the election, the NYT has inadvertently admitted that the docs are genuine.

    But the real story is that the NYT knew about this all along. But because it wasn't in their political interests to talk about it, until now, it wasn't 'all the news fit to print'.

    But the upshot is this: proof of the WMD threat that necessitated action in Iraq.

    And I love Andrea Mitchell's attempt to say that the mainstream media knew nothing about this because they never thought it relevant to look at the raw military data being published from Iraqi finds. Really? I guess 'investigative reporting' these days is checking in on the DailyKos. . .

    If you're really interested in what is in those documents, jveritas of freerepublic fame has been translating some of the more spectacular finds all along. I've been reading several of them today, including detailed reports on the safety and operation of key nuclear equipment (specifically, Degussa Vacuum furnaces. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities.), reports on the status of chemical weapons precursors (Phosphorus oxychloride, Thiophosphoryl Chloride and Thionyl Chloride) in 2002, and a report on the eve of the war about the status of material being sent to Syria, including a fairly precise location in Syria regarding the initial drop point (warehouses in Deir Al Zour).

    http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

    Up until now, you haven't seen any of this because the mainstream media has bought into the specious and politically affirming claims that these docs couldn't possibly be legit. But, lo and behold, today, the NYT, oops, admits that they, in fact, are legit.

    (You have to love THIS astute analysis on how to get out their propaganda message: give CNN priority. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603696/posts)

    If the NYT REALLY wanted a story, they could have run one about THIS document, about the establishment of relations between Iraq and 'the Saudi opposition leader' one Osama Bin Ladin beginning in 1995. From the document: "in the present moment to activate this relation with him through a new channel in light of the current place where he stays."
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600579/posts

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 3, '06
  6. by   cardiacRN2006
    But the radical left wingers will still find a way to blow this off, and say that Bush is a liar, and all that other nonsense. Somehow, someway, this will all be Bush's fault (of course).


    So, the news has known about this for a year, but blew it off as jaded info coming from the white house, but now wants to believe that it's genuine so that they can influence the election?

    I hope it does influence the election.
  7. by   VeryPlainJane
    Mitchell: ...Peter Hoekstra in fact said, Quote: "Let's unleash the power of the Internet on these documents to see if there was a smoking gun on WMD's"--the intelligence experts were reluctant to release these documents..Skeptics at the time said that all this was being done by conservative bloggers and others on the Intelligence committees to try and bolster their argument that the war was in fact justified in the first place.

    These specific dozen documents-they did have a blue print for making bombs and those technical documents could have been helpful to terrorists...The net affect would likely be that it would hurt the administration because it shows that they--once again--were the gang that couldn't shoot straight!--they forced the Intelligence community to do something that the experts didn't want to do and the President himself overruled John Negroponte on.

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...hoot-straight/
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from VeryPlainJane
    Mitchell: ...Peter Hoekstra in fact said, Quote: "Let's unleash the power of the Internet on these documents to see if there was a smoking gun on WMD's"--the intelligence experts were reluctant to release these documents..Skeptics at the time said that all this was being done by conservative bloggers and others on the Intelligence committees to try and bolster their argument that the war was in fact justified in the first place.

    These specific dozen documents-they did have a blue print for making bombs and those technical documents could have been helpful to terrorists...The net affect would likely be that it would hurt the administration because it shows that they--once again--were the gang that couldn't shoot straight!--they forced the Intelligence community to do something that the experts didn't want to do and the President himself overruled John Negroponte on.

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...hoot-straight/
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Either:

    1. Saddam wasn't a threat,

    or,

    2. The information we discovered from his own documents prove a threat.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  9. by   VeryPlainJane
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Either:

    1. Saddam wasn't a threat,

    or,

    2. The information we discovered from his own documents prove a threat.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Unless it's yellow cake! lmao
  10. by   rn/writer
    Quote from VeryPlainJane
    Unless it's yellow cake! lmao
    :roll

    Good one.

    I heard someone say that liberals were for the NYT reports (when they denied nuke and WMD possibilities) before they were against them (now that they have identified the docs as legit).
  11. by   VeryPlainJane
    If saddam was only one year away from a nuke, where is it?
  12. by   Tweety
    O.K. so we're vidicated a few days before major election that the war in Iraq was the correct and just thing to do because there were weapons of mass destruction, or documents thereof since there's no physical proof.

    The man is no longer a threat and hasn't been for a couple of years.

    Now bring the troops home.

    Us left wingers are tired of the lame excuses why we are still there several years later, dying in ever increasing numbers.

    I don't give a flip about why we went there years ago. Come home now.

    Many moderate and right ring Americans are tired of this war as well as the left, regardless of this so-called vindication that it was the right thing to do.

    That is going to be the November surprise. The NYT can't change that.

    Stop blowing smoke up our ears and bring the troops home NOW.
    Last edit by Tweety on Nov 4, '06
  13. by   Sheri257
    Quote from Tweety
    The man is no longer a threat and hasn't been for a couple of years.

    Now bring the troops home.

    Us left wingers are tired of the lame excuses why we are still there several years later, dying in ever increasing numbers.

    I don't give a flip about why we went there years ago.

    Stop blowing smoke up our ears and bring the troops home NOW.
    You got that right Tweety.

    I'm so tired of the politics of hate and all of this other conservative nonsense.

    I really miss the Clinton years. Back then, the "scandal" if you could call it that was Monica. Big deal ...

    Now we've got soldiers dying in a useless war while Bin Laden is still on the loose.

    They can't nail Bin Laden so ... they resort to hypocritical gay bashing and attacking Michael J. Fox for his illness.

    They're a bunch of schoolyard bullies who do nothing but attack people who haven't hurt anyone.

    It's time for a change. I hope the Democrats don't screw it up this time.

    :typing
    Last edit by Sheri257 on Nov 4, '06
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Tweety
    O.K. so we're vidicated a few days before major election that the war in Iraq was the correct and just thing to do because there were weapons of mass destruction, or documents thereof since there's no physical proof.

    The man is no longer a threat and hasn't been for a couple of years.

    Now bring the troops home.

    Us left wingers are tired of the lame excuses why we are still there several years later, dying in ever increasing numbers.

    I don't give a flip about why we went there years ago. Come home now.

    Many moderate and right ring Americans are tired of this war as well as the left, regardless of this so-called vindication that it was the right thing to do.

    That is going to be the November surprise. The NYT can't change that.

    Stop blowing smoke up our ears and bring the troops home NOW.
    Oh, if only it were a neat video game: remove the leader and be done.

    But Saddam had systematically removed any threat to his power for decades. The chaos there is a direct result of Saddam: anybody with the political will to unite Iraq was killed 20 yrs ago.

    THAT is why the PM is weak. He wouldn't still be alive if he wasn't.

    You can't just remove a regime and declare victory. If the CASE for war his just been vindicated by the NYT, and it has, then the follow through is equally vindicated.

    While it is true that a majority of Americans want to see some real progress that leads to our eventual withdrawal, it is NOT true that the majority of Americans want to 'cut n' run'.

    The issue is one of 'competence'. You can make the argument that there should be a better course of action, and I would agree, you cannot however, make the argument that electing Democrats will provide that course of action, since they are, as a group, mum about what they would do.

    This election might be promoted as a 'referendum' on Iraq but the fact of the matter is this: regardless the results on Tuesday, our course of action in Iraq will remain unchanged for a least another year, and probably more like 3.

    This is NOT Viet Nam. If we leave, it doesn't end things, it exacerbates them. So, unlike Viet Nam, you will NOT see a cut in funding for Iraq. That is an indefensible position that would leave the Democrats open to full responsibility for the consequences. You might get a majority of Democrats to vote for cut n' run, but you will not get a sufficient majority to override either a straight Congressional Vote, or a veto.

    Our course in Iraq is set, and this election, no matter how it turns out, will not principally change that.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close