NY Times Admits Saddam Had Nuke Plans

Discussion in 'Politics' started by leesw, Nov 6, 2006.

  1. leesw

    leesw
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=

    And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this:

    U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN...

    NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site — Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal — to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb'... Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums...


    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?

    What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.

    Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.

    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.

    Having read it, I can see that every stop has been pulled out to ensure that a reader will believe that posting these documents was a strategic blunder of the first order.

    But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that actually has the documents.

    I'm still kinda blown away by this paragraph:

    Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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.

    Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.

    And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to manual" on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year.

    In other news, it's good to see that the New York Times is firmly against publicizing sensitive and classified information. Unless, of course, they're the ones doing it.

    ONE LAST THOUGHT: So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but articles like this one give a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind of firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.

    They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.

    Yellowcake.

    But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so.

    More at http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=
     
  2. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Did you actually read the article in the New York Times?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-documents.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ei=5094&en=d6e60f288e881789&hp&ex=1162616400&partner=homepage

     
    #2 Baptist in Richmond, Nov 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2006
  3. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Do you know that plans that were probably sufficient to build a nuclear bomb were available on the internet? Its not so much the plans its having the material and facilities.
     
  4. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    We discussed this over in Current Events, here (linkie)

    As I noted in the other discussion, the vast majority of those plans were written before 1990, before the first Gulf War, before George Bush, Sr. put a stop to his nuclear programme.

    What you seem to have missed is that this government website, put up at the urging of conservatives hoping to glean information damaging to war opposers, posted how-to manuals on building nuclear weapons and making chemical weapons. This is a public access web-site - open to anybody including practising and wannabe terrorists.

    Do you understand the implications of this enormous booboo?
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    295
    Doesn't matter when they were written.

    The New york Times has reported that, in 2002, Saddam was within 1 yr of having an atomic bomb .

    I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to believe that, but is the NYT lying or just wrong?
     
  6. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it matters when you are trying to pass it off as startling, breaking news.

    How, seeing as he lacked access to uranium, labratories, centrifuge, missiles, etc? He had no necessary equipment. I think that the story meant in 1990 he was one year away, before it all got destroyed and sealed up. The post-invasion inspectors said that he had no nuclear programme.

    I think that sentence was badly written. Why are you so quick to accuse others of lying? Projection much?

    What do you think of the Bush adminstration posting this kind of information where anyone, including terrorists, could access it?
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    295
    So you believe the NYT just made a mistake or misworded their report somehow.

    I wonder why I'm not surprised.:laugh:
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, because I haven't heard any expert make a credible claim that Iraq was "one year away". They had no equipment, no materials and the inspectors, specialists in this sort of thing, said Iraq had no programme.

    Were you surprised that the Bush administration made instructions on building the bomb and making chemical weapons available to the world at random? Now that's a laugh riot!
     

Share This Page

Loading...