New York Times justified invasion of Iraq!

[PixelPusher]

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

So the Bush Administration posts a "How to guide" on building a nuclear weapon on the internet. Brilliant.

Thank God for the New York Times.

[PixelPusher]

The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who said that the nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of do ents seized since the March 2003 invasion.

So NRO and redstate.com are running our national security policy now? Was Instapundit in on this too? Talk about an Army of Davids...

With the public increasingly skeptical about the rationale and conduct of the war, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the do ents — most of them in Arabic — would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr. Hussein had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the invasion. American search teams never found such evidence.

The director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, had resisted setting up the Web site, which some intelligence officials felt implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of government analysts. But President Bush approved the site’s creation after Congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the do ents’ release.

So much for the "National Security trump card" Republicans have been waving around.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So much for the "National Security trump card" Republicans have been waving around.

It's funny that Yoni is grasping onto this story when it really makes Bush and congressional Repubs look like a bunch of amateurs.

[PixelPusher]

It's funny that Yoni is grasping onto this story when it really makes Bush and congressional Repubs look like a bunch of amateurs.

Give Yoni a little credit; for once, he's not more concerned about the leak of the story.

[boutons_]

November 4, 2006

U.S. Analysts Had Flagged Atomic Data on Web Site

By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Two weeks before the government shut down a Web site holding an archive of Iraqi do ents captured during the war, scientists at an American weapons laboratory complained that papers on the site contained sensitive nuclear information, federal officials said yesterday. Two do ents were quickly removed.

The Bush administration set up the Web site last March at the urging of Congressional Republicans, who said giving public access to materials from the 48,000 boxes of do ents found in Iraq could increase the understanding of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein.

( aka, the incompetence of the WH continues at every turn )

But among the do ents posted were roughly a dozen that nuclear weapons experts said cons uted a basic guide to building an atom bomb. They were accounts of Mr. Hussein’s nuclear program, which United Nations inspectors dismantled after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

The site was shut down on Thursday night after The New York Times asked questions about the disclosure of nuclear information and complaints that experts had raised. Yesterday, federal officials said they were conducting a review to understand better how and when the warnings had originated and how the bureaucracy had responded.

The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, called the posting of the weapons information “a serious security breach,” and other Democrats called for an investigation. The Republican congressman who had led the campaign for the creation of the Web site, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, questioned whether the government had received any serious warnings about the site, and said he had always stressed the need to “take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive do ents.”

The complaints two weeks ago by the American weapons scientists, as outlined by federal officials yesterday, indicated for the first time that warnings about the site had come from the government’s arms experts, as well as from international weapons inspectors.

A senior federal official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California last month had protested some of the weapons papers on the site to the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy that runs the nation’s nuclear arms laboratories. The objections “never perked up to senior management,” the official said. “They stayed at the midlevels.”

Managers at the security administration passed the warning to their counterparts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversaw the Web site, the official said. As a result, a nuclear weapons expert said, the government pulled two nuclear papers from the Web site last month. He said the dangers of the do ents had been recognized at Livermore and in the wider community of government arms experts. “Those two do ents were on everybody’s list,” he said.

The first known protest about the site came last April, when United Nations weapons inspectors lodged an objection with the United States mission to the United Nations over a chemical weapons do ent, diplomats said. It was removed. After the site started posting nuclear do ents in September, concern arose among United Nations weapons inspectors in Vienna and New York.

Earlier this week, two European diplomats said that weapons experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that they should warn the United States government of the dangers of posting the do ents. They said that Olli J. Heinonen, head of safeguards at the agency, conveyed those concerns last week to the American ambassador to the agency, Gregory L. Schulte.

But Matthew Boland, Mr. Schulte’s spokesman, said yesterday that the ambassador had received no warnings. Asked about that, one of the two European diplomats raised questions about whether Mr. Heinonen had followed through. Even so, intelligence officials in Washington said they were exploring whether the government had received warnings from United Nations inspectors.

An official of National Nuclear Security Administration said his agency would review the do ents. To the best of his knowledge, he added, none of them had been reviewed by his agency, which is the government’s expert on nuclear secrets.

=============

The Repugs can't even attempt to disprove that they lied about WMD without ing it up.

Of course, everybody still knows the Repugs lied about WMD.

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya

[rascal]

Thankfully, (mostly to British and U. S. Intelligence) not easy at all. However, once obtained, Iraq would have had a nuclear weapon within a year.

Your an idiot if you believe they would have developed a nuclear weapon and would have targeted the US with it.

[boutons_]

"Your an idiot if"

wrong, there is no conditional clause, simply:

"Your an idiot"

[Yonivore]

Your an idiot if you believe they would have developed a nuclear weapon and would have targeted the US with it.

You're an idiot if you believe you know what the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein would or would not have done with a nuclear weapon.

[turambar85]

You're an idiot if you believe you know what the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein would or would not have done with a nuclear weapon.

Well, first question. Is/was Saddam a complete fool? If your answer if yes, then proceed to the next question. If your answer is no, then you have no reason to worry because he would not be any threat to America.

2nd question. Would Saddam, being mildly competant, desire to maintain power, or to lose power? If yes, proceed. If no, again, no worries here because he would pose no threat.

3rd question. Would nuking America leave Saddam alive, in power, or healthy? If yes, then you are a complete moron. If no, then why what does he accomplish by nuking America? Death?

So, I suppose that I can assume what Saddam would do. He would NOT nuke America. He would position himself in a way so that he might could attack other countries while preventing America from entering the fray due to alliances and world views, but he would NOT simply throw a nuke in our direction. That is bad for survival. We would see natural selection in action.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, since the Republicans just gave away all their nuclear plans by posting them on the web, I want to congratulate them for making the wolrd less safe.

Again.

[gtownspur]

Well, since the Republicans just gave away all their nuclear plans by posting them on the web, I want to congratulate them for making the wolrd less safe.

Again.

I guess you would have been content if the repugs would have just told you to trust their Sadaam su ions because they have this Tripl- Mai-Thai-suplex- Elbow drop-top secret memo Triple teflon coated material that only Rove posseses.

[George Gervin's Afro]

NOt only was this war unecessary the folks who d the war are incompetent as well.

[Yonivore]

Well, first question. Is/was Saddam a complete fool? If your answer if yes, then proceed to the next question. If your answer is no, then you have no reason to worry because he would not be any threat to America.

2nd question. Would Saddam, being mildly competant, desire to maintain power, or to lose power? If yes, proceed. If no, again, no worries here because he would pose no threat.

3rd question. Would nuking America leave Saddam alive, in power, or healthy? If yes, then you are a complete moron. If no, then why what does he accomplish by nuking America? Death?

So, I suppose that I can assume what Saddam would do. He would NOT nuke America. He would position himself in a way so that he might could attack other countries while preventing America from entering the fray due to alliances and world views, but he would NOT simply throw a nuke in our direction. That is bad for survival. We would see natural selection in action.

All your questions became moot in March of 2003. Try to keep up.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess you would have been content if the repugs would have just told you to trust their Sadaam su ions because they have this Tripl- Mai-Thai-suplex- Elbow drop-top secret memo Triple teflon coated material that only Rove posseses.

So you are in favor of releasing nuclear blueprints to every terraist on the planet for political purposes. Understood.

[gtownspur]

So you are in favor of releasing nuclear blueprints to every terraist on the planet for political purposes. Understood.

Sure, maybe they can all start their own backyard Nucleur Facility with the chemistry set they got for christmas.

[clambake]

Too bad we've lost this "justified" war.

Give bush some credit. He's made us the most loathsome country on earth and diminished the perceived power of God in one fell swoop. He's made programmed robot christain radicals believe it's destiny to destroy Islamic radicals.

I can't think of two groups that deserve each other more.

[turambar85]

All your questions became moot in March of 2003. Try to keep up.

My questions were directly in response to your claim that we wouldnt have known what Saddam would have done, which is also moot in after '03.

Why don't you keep up with the thread?

[gtownspur]

we would of had nucleur armed Iraq and Iran possibly.

That to me would be a legit concern.

[smeagol]

What a useless war. What a useless way to through away money.

[gtownspur]

What a useless war. What a useless way to through away money.

Ok.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're an idiot if you believe you know what the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein would or would not have done with a nuclear weapon.

and yet Dubya started a war over that "what if."

[Drachen]

we would of had nucleur armed Iraq and Iran possibly.

That to me would be a legit concern.

Iran?

[xrayzebra]

Well, first question. Is/was Saddam a complete fool?
2nd question. Would Saddam, being mildly competant, want to lose power?

3rd question.

Saddam was offered a chance to get out of
Iraq, alive and with his wealth. Even a country
was found that would offer him asylum. And
he ignored it. Now who is the fool. He was and
he would have used whatever to further his
goals.

[turambar85]

Saddam was offered a chance to get out of
Iraq, alive and with his wealth. Even a country
was found that would offer him asylum. And
he ignored it. Now who is the fool. He was and
he would have used whatever to further his
goals.

No, his only foolish act was "misunderestimating" the prowess of George Bush Jr.

He did not believe that we would seriously use what happened as a pretence for war. He has done horrible things in the past, and now he gets taken out because somebody else had attacked us??

Saddam thought that he could ride the storm, and maintain power. But leaving his country prematurely he would have looked weak, lost his only tool, fear, and perhaps lost his country too. The only chance he had was calling out bluff.

Maybe Saddam is a bad gambler, but he is no fool. His only goal is maintaining power, and nuking America, with Bush as president of all things, is a bad way of prolonging your life!

[clambake]

What happened to your love affair with "W"?