I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?[...]
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran.
Game, set, and match.
More from Ed Morrissey who has been translating FMSO documents for his readers;
This is apparently the Times' November surprise, but it's a surprising one indeed. The Times has just authenticated the entire collection of memos, some of which give very detailed accounts of Iraqi ties to terrorist organizations. Just this past Monday, I posted a memo which showed that the Saddam regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On September 20th, I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden.It doesn't end there with the Times, either. In a revelation buried far beneath the jump, the Times acknowledges that the UN also believed Saddam to be nearing development of nuclear weapons.
Reynolds adds;
...perhaps even more significant, given that we knew most of the above already, is that the NYT apparently regards the documents that bloggers have been translating for months as reliable, which means that reports of Iraqi intelligence's relations with Osama bin Laden, and "friendly" Western press agencies, are presumably also reliable.
Big roundup of blogosphere reaction at Stop The ACLU/
LMAO
looks so good to see this one explode in the lefties faces.
The ctv just put up a story about a poll saying Bush has made the world more dangerous . I wonder if they'll show this story ? I doubt it but .... Maybe they oughta read it but then what could be more important than brissons butt and belindas besmirching ?
That's what happens when you want to have your YellowCake and eat it too.
Makes Blix, the Dems/Libs/ NDP and anti war protesters look like the biggest idiots going. But then we all knew that
So, it turns out Bush wasn't dumb ole Dad after all.
Probably won't mean squat to the lefty, know it all teenagers though, will it?
Unfortunately, none of this compelling information will make a bit of difference to the Left. None of their bigoted minds will change. One cannot reason somebody out of a position that they didn't arrive at by reason in the first place.
Sorry folks. It means they had a program in the early 1990's, and these were left over documents. The documents may indicate that they were a year away from having the knowledge to build a bomb, but not all of the components. And seeing as pretty much all of the infastructure to create weapons was destroyed, Iraq was not really an immediate threat.
Of course... by popping this up on the web, Bush & Co have probably helped a number of regimes get a leg up on development. Nice work.
I guess it's good they pulled them down, but I wouldn't let these guys take care of my horse, what with leaving the barn door wide open and all.
CNN is dowplaying the documents, saying that the information was only about Iraq's nuclear agenda before the 1991 war. Not a word about anything after, and the major complaint of CNN was that the web site gave 'information' away to other nations.
With regard to the former, CNN doesn't acknowledge the NYT's statement that in 2002, Iraq was about a year away from a nuclear bomb. This is revealed in documents from Iraq. Therefore, the nuclear agenda and near-capability was not pre Gulf War I, but, right at the time of the 2002-2003 Iraq War. Bush stopped the Iraq attainment of such a bomb.
The CNN report also says nothing about Iraq's close ties with Al Qaeda, something that has also emerged in the documents and which the left has denied.
By the way, I think that any assertion that those web documents 'gave away the secrets of how to make a nuclear bomb' is sheer nonsense.
Any competent physicist knows how; it's not a secret. The difficulty for rogue nations is not the physics of 'how to' - but the mechanics of 'how to' - which include how to obtain the components in sufficient strength and purity without detection, how to assemble the components without detection, how to test the component for strength, etc.
"By the way, I think that any assertion that those web documents 'gave away the secrets of how to make a nuclear bomb' is sheer nonsense."
I guess you didn't read the article where they speak to all those scientist types who say that in fact this was a dangerous document to make public.
Yes. Most physicist know what it takes to make a bomb, but this contained information on things like the trigger mechanism. Obviously they realized that this was probably not the best thing to leave online, or they wouldn't have bothered to take it down.
If this proves that they were close in 2002, why isn't Bush touting it? Is he too proud? What?
Kate: Are you having problems with the comments section or am I insane (well, I AM insane, but I mean more insane than normal)? Wasn't there comments from a "Zorpheus" and others on this thread previously? Please don't say that you're editting the comments box?! While I wouldn't blame you for doing so if you were, it would fly against what you've said previously.
Just in case you ARE, I'll try to hold this comment for approval...insurance.
Oops...that obviously didn't work.
"Of course... by popping this up on the web, Bush & Co have probably helped a number of regimes get a leg up on development"
Come now. You mean there are dangerous regimes out there? Admit it, you're already painting your placard saying, "U.S. out of (insert name of dangerous regime soon to be overthrown to prevent its use of WMD)!"
Wow. You sure have me pegged. I was literally painting my placard as you wrote that, but I had to stop because I spilled paint on my dreads. Look, I can't talk, because I have to go pick up my welfare check and get stoned.
(If you aren't going to make rational points, there isn't much point in rebutting your statement is there?)
john - any engineer would know about a trigger mechanism.
As for a 'scientist-type' - (nuclear experts?) - saying it was a 'dangerous document' (???) or did they say they say something else (shocked?). This type of amgiguous reporting is trivia.
Both the techniques of making a bomb, including triggers and etc, are basic knowledge available to any competent nuclear physicist and engineer. The difficulty is not the know-how; it's the mechanics of compiling all the material.
Your newest red herring is to try to claim that IF it were really, really, really relevant to 2002, then - why isn't Bush boasting about it, which is trying to set up a counter claim that Because Bush isn't boasting about it, then, it isn't relevent to 2002. That's a logical fallacy, the two clauses (if it isn't relevant, then Bush will not boast) are not necessarily linked. Only you are linking them.
I have always wondered how much Blix was paid and by who to lie about what was going on in Iraq. Maurice Strong was very active in illegal activities re Oil for Food in Iraq. Is there a connection.
Here's a semi-rational point for you John. If you're so relaxed about Saddam having been a year away from a nuke, whether in 1991 or 2002, why are you so jittery about "regimes" learning how to build a bomb from the internet posting of these documents?
ET, the article quotes a number of senior scientists, all who say roughly the same thing, that publishing this information would be helpful to anyone trying to build a bomb. I guess you know more than they do though, so you may want to give the Bush Admin a call, and tell them to put this stuff back up, since it's clearly not a problem.
Surly, nobody has ever said that Saddam was not dangerous. Hell, I grudgingly supported going into Iraq when I figured Bush was telling the truth, but now that it is clear that he was either lying, or incompetant, I, like millions of others feel betrayed. And beyond that, this admin totally blew the war. Between not having enough troops, and torturing prisoners, they've created the situtation that currently exists in Iraq, yet refuse to accept responsibility.
It's only a matter of time before anyone with a PH.D in biology will be able to build bio-weapons that will make nukes look like firecrackers. What is important for the time being is to slow progress on weapons development, an bring in effective world government that can make everyone feel easy.
(Oh no! I said 'world gov"!) Run!
Like it or not, humanity is leaving it's childhood behind. We need ways to govern on a mass scale, or face far worse problems then we currently have today.
Alright... I'm due back on planet Earth boys, so have a good afternoon.
john - I disagree with all your opinions.
An MSM report, claiming that 'senior scientists' say X and Y has absolutely no relevance. You can get anyone, whom you define as a 'senior scientist' to say X and Y, and the same number to reject X and Y.
My point remains - publishing this information is not relevant to anyone wishing to build such a bomb, because the techniques are not secret or patented or...
What is important about the articles is that they confirm that Saddam was building such a weapon, and was close to its completion in 2002. This confirms that Bush did not lie. Nor is he incompetent but, in my view, one of the most astue and competent leaders the Western world has seen in an era. I suggest you read Orson Scott Card, a Democrat's article in favor our Bush. Oct 29, Civilization Watch. 'The Only Issue this Election Day'.
No, he had enough troops and didn't 'torture' prisoners' - and what is going on in Iraq is predictable. What is equally predictable is how many in our modern generation, raised on sound bits and rapid-reaction electronics, expect the political world to act just like an electronic switch.
You can't move from a tribal dictatorship into an open democracy in a week, a month, a year. It can't be done - and for you to feel betrayed and angry because your time frame operates by electronics rather than real life, is naive.
No, I'm against world government. I'm in favour of a single TYPE of government in the world; namely, democracy. But, I'm totally opposed to ONE government ruling over the entire world. The reason for that is because a single centralist authority, by its nature, moves itself out of spatial and temporal contact with the realities of the world.
The diversity of biomes (ecological areas) on this planet is large; you have to adapt, economically and socially, to each biome. The nature of this adaptation has to be relevant to each area, rapid-response, with power in the hands of the local people who are affected by that environment. Decision-making power must rest in the hands of the local people. Not some far-off abstract individual who hasn't a clue. Each ecological area can be democratic, which means that its governance is for, by, and of the people. But, decision-making power must rest with the inhabitants.
For some issues, the inhabitants can elect representatives to deal with larger, non-local issues, such as defense, communications. But, that's not a world gov't.
So, your utopianism is, in my view, unrealistic and naive.
Anyone who want's to have an informed opinion on the threat posed by Saddam should read a book called Saddam's-Bomb -By Shyam Bhatia and Daniel McGrory
It was published in 2002 and details the extent to which Saddam went to develop nuclear weapons -and just how close he was to his goal when the bombing which occurred in the Gulf War destroyed his infrastructure.
Anyone who beleves Saddam would not have re-started his nuclear program as soon as sanctions ended is terminally naive, cluelessly uninformed or deluded.
Yeah, well, ... we all know how well you bozo's have called everything on Iraq all ready.
The'Times must think that the Democrats have enough strength to win majorities in both houses. Also, there must be something in the wings that would bring this info out sooner than later. Releasing the story prior to Tuesday defuses charges of Democrat conspiracy. But the damage to the Repubs reputation (and therefore to the voter base) has been done and the 'Times turnaround isn't going to undo much of that in time to effect results.
It's all about power ownership, not about facts or ethical behavior.
Martin
I disagree with your analysis. There are two sides to this story. The side the NYT is pushing is Bush has released on to the world wide web all this "how to make a bomb" material. They are trying to influence people who are concerned about national security to vote Democrat.
The other side of the story -the one that caught your attention- is that these memos certainly support the argument that Saddam was developing nuclear bombs.
They believe that most people - like the guy who posted between us- won't even think of the second side of the story because, as we all know, it's firmly ingrained in the national consciousness -at least among those who don't think- that Bush lied.
The Times doesn't really need to cover its ass. They control the news cycle and can pretty well do what they want knowing that the guy who posted before you will never catch on.
This would be the part where I write my two cents. Don't flame or insult anyone but unfortunately my comments aren't either a) ideological compatible and b) easily refuted or rebutted so they get deleted.
One SHOULD think this is horrible story against Bush's legacy, except leftists can't really ever talk about it. Ever...
You guys should take your proof to the FBI and CIA even Bush has come out and said they made a mistake about IRAQ.
The FBI states quite clearly that they have nothing connecting 911 with Osama. Even in the FBI's ten most wanted poster of him it doesn't mention 911. pist it was an inside job, lol wanna buy a bridge?
But don't worry Karl has the election in the bag it'll be close but the republicans will win both houses. then the people will take back their country and throw the warmomgers in Jail I'd prefer hanging but...
You just have to read the posts here to see why the kids of today have no respect for each other.
Heard one well informed pundit describe the cure for Iraq.
Says there will be three countries Shiiraq, SunnIraq and Kurdistan.
Turkey will be glad to have the Kurds as a buffer zone to ShiIraq. SunnIraq will be insisting on 75% of oil income, like the Sadam days with no logical thought of proportion to their 20% of population size.
There will be endless night raids between all three while American forces move over to secure Afghanistan.
It*s a bumpy road ahead. Other ways to iron out Iraq at DanielPipes.org.
w.w.danielpipes.org/comments/65123
For a Conservative majority. = TG
Heard one well informed pundit describe the cure for Iraq.
Says there will be three countries Shiiraq, SunnIraq and Kurdistan.
Turkey will be glad to have the Kurds as a buffer zone to ShiIraq. SunnIraq will be insisting on 75% of oil income, like the Sadam days with no logical thought of proportion to their 20% of population size.
There will be endless night raids between all three while American forces move over to secure Afghanistan.
It*s a bumpy road ahead. Other ways to iron out Iraq at DanielPipes.org.
w.w.danielpipes.org/comments/65123
For a Conservative majority. = TG