New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb. ...
But since Iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful reasons anyway no harm was done.
November surprise! NYT plans page-one Iraq WMD splash for tomorrow; Update: Article posted
Allahpundit
So says the teaser on Drudge. Well, on the bright side, at least they’re not making a pretense of being impartial anymore.
Only two possibilities here:
1. They have evidence that someone in the administration knew there were no WMDs.
2. They have evidence that Saddam was further along in his nuke program than we thought. ...
Update: This almost comes as a relief: SOURCES: NYT: U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN ...
On behalf of every conservative in the United States, let me ask one question:
Exactly how far along was Saddam’s nuclear research that Iran might possibly benefit from it?
Update: Okay, two questions:
Why is the IAEA worried about Iran using bombmaking information in their “peaceful nuclear energy program”? ...
... Update: Here’s the Times article. The left’s and right’s interests in this story are oddly aligned: the more significant the published nuclear documents are, the more serious the error is in having posted them — and the more they bolster Bush’s argument that Saddam was a serious threat to build a bomb. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays tomorrow. Both sides might just want to call it a wash and walk away, although Geraghty sure does seem excited. ...
... Ace summarizes the piece thusly: Iraq had advanced plans to build a bomb (but it was no threat to build a bomb!) and Bush is horrible because he let those plans be posted on line, which Iran may use to build a bomb (but we also don’t have to worry about them building a bomb, so don’t get any tricky ideas about bombing them!). ...
.. Update: Captain Ed wonders, if the nuclear documents on the website are authentic, does that mean the ones linking Saddam to Al Qaeda are authentic too?
*** Suddenly, the New York Times is worried about dangerous disclosures
Michelle Malkin
So, this is the big NYTimes story that was being hyped tonight: "U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide:" ...
...
The NYTimes blabbermouths are accusing the Bush administration of being careless with national security data?
Ouch. Stop. Sides. Splitting. ...
*** Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
Jim Geraghty
When I saw the headline on Drudge earlier tonight, that the New York Times had a big story coming out tomorrow that had something to do with Iraq and WMDs, I was ready for an October November Surprise.
Well, Drudge is giving us the scoop. And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this:
[...]
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.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it. ...
*** So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit
Ed Morrissey
Over the past year or so, I have provided CQ readers with a number of translations from key Iraqi Intelligence Service documents that have been translated by either the FMSO or by Joseph Shahda of the Free Republic website. I even engaged two interpreters to verify one particularly explosive memo last April, after Shahda published his own translation. That memo dealt with IIS plans to get volunteers for suicide missions to 'strike American interests".
One particular criticism that appeared with each new translation was that the documents were never proven genuine, although no one could explain the logic behind the US government hiding these documents in Iraqi Arabic among an avalanche of mundanity, only to shove it onto a shelf for years until Congress authorized their release to the Internet. Now we find another verification of their authenticity, this time from the New York Times, which reports today that the documents constitute a national-security threat: ...
... 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: ...
***
Also on the case:
*** Saddam was a year away from having nukes -- Bush to blame
Paul Mirengoff
The defining characteristic of partisan attacks on President Bush has been their unthinking and indiscriminate nature. For example, Bush is to blame for not halting the development of nukes by Iran and North Korea, but he's also to blame for toppling Saddam Hussein due in part to his concern that Saddam was interested in and capable of developing nukes. Critics point to Iran's rise as evidence that Bush misplaced his focus on Iraq but they don't consider how Saddam would have reacted to Iranian nuclear progress.
The New York Times now has carried unthinking Bush-bashing to a point beyond caricature. Today, as Tiger Hawk notes, it quotes with apparent approval "experts" who say that Saddam was as little as a year away from building an atom bomb. The Times does so in order to show that the Bush administration acted recklessly when it published captured Iraqi documents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those documents might be used by another country in furtherance of building WMD.
Did the Times just say that Saddam's Iraq was a year away from building a nuclear weapon? I guess so. Good thing Saddam's no longer in power. ...
*** A Chat About Iraq
Ed Morrissey
CQ reader Roger B says that the New York Times headline on its November surprise should really read, "BUSH DIDN'T LIE: Keller, Kerry, Moore, Dean Resign." I've bumped my post to just below this one so that readers can consider the effect that the revelation of the UN's inspector assessment of Saddam's nuclear program will have on the Iraq debate. Speaking of debate, I joined Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine and its Hit & Run blog and Judd Legum of Think Progress for a chat on that very topic last night, pre-NYT: asap: All right ... we're talking Iraq tonight. Apparently just like everyone else.
asap: Should a timeline be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, or should withdrawal be contingent on the accomplishment of certain specified goals?
Edward Morrissey: Withdrawal means one of two things: the mission is over and it was accomplished, or the mission is over and it failed. If we want to accomplish the mission, then we need the latter and not the former. If we want to admit defeat, then we need the former and not the latter. ...
|
