Reply With Quote
1991
This is a NY Times November bombs as designed by the North Koreans.
The breaking article seems to be an attempt to attack the Bush Administration for releasing potentially classified information (yes, the ironymeter is pegged), but what they actually prove is that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was indeed a significant threat.
Not only were they close to developing their own nuclear bomb (at one point the Iraqis "were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"), they also had that nucelar weapon building knowledge available to proliferate to other rogue states.
The Times may have set out to attack Bush, but instead, they have justified the rationale for the 2003 invasion.
Thanks, Pinch, this is a pretty significant revelation.
However, perhaps even more significant is that the NYTimes apparently regards the do ents 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.
And as these do ents are "presumably also reliable," then much of the research into these do ents done by a former Defense Intelligence Agency contractor by the name of Ray Robinson is certainly worth a second or even a third look. Robinson compiled some of his research for the Fox News Saddam Dossier, and has much more in the archives of his personal site.
Robinson thinks he may have even triggered this by contacting the IAEA two weeks ago.
1991
Yoni's still grasping, defending his boy, one the tiest, most ignorant, most inexperienced, most incompetent assholes ever to be called president.
Where were all these nuclear bomb making materials in April/May 2003?
Exactly, they didn't exist.
No Yoni has now stated that the NY TImes can be trusted as a reliable source..Everyone needs to remember so we can remind him everytime we hear him complaion about the same NY Times
Only when they quote reliable sources.
1991
I don't think Yoni actually read the article.
No, I did. But, I don't think the New York Times realizes they countered years of saying Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq with their own story.
no they (the do ents) don't really.
If Iran, said to be only a short distance from creating its own weapon, could benefit from information that Saddam's Iraq possessed, that necessarily means Saddam's regime was far along the road to seeking a nuclear weapon. Otherwise Iran could not benefit from Saddam's technological base, were it nonexistent or underdeveloped as a threat. You can't get money from an empty till. So either Iraqi nuclear technology existed to the point where it cons utes the threat the NYTimes decries or it did not much exist and therefore is no threat. One of the two can be true, but not both. The NYTimes continues:
Posting very sensitive, undoubtedly secret restricted data is treason, isn't it? And very irresponsible. The NYTimes should know.
Frankly, I'm rather disappointed in the Times for warning me, this late in the game, of the terrible dangers that lurked in Saddam's archives. Recipes for unthinkable weapons that could have been given to just anyone, something Saddam surely wouldn't do unlike the Bush administration which evidently would. They should have warned us sooner, such as during the days when Abu Nidal was in residence in Baghdad, and all those men of good will who are now cutting off the heads of Iraqis by the gross were in charge of those very do ents whose shadow menaces the world. But they really didn't exist then, did they? And even if they did they were in safe hands. Because if they did, then taking down Saddam was a responsible thing to do. But they exist now and releasing those newly existing secrets is a terribly irresponsible thing to do. It was the dream of alchemists to turn lead into gold and they failed. The NYTimes has succeeded.
Maybe President Bush and his cabinet are imperfect people or even bad people...a premise with which I obviously disagree. But, it doesn't logically follow from that premise, if it were true, that the NYTimes and all that its ideology represents is good. The terrible possibility exists that Bush may be incompetent and yet the political alternatives worse. People who face amputation from diabetes may not like losing a leg, but often they prefer it to losing their lives. One is bad. The other is worse.
But personally I think the whole debate surrounding Iraq's WMDs is glorified misdirection. America did and does face a threat from terrorist-supporting nations of which Saddam's Iraq was one. Before it was taken down. The AQ Khan network, Iran and North Korea were all part of the threat. That America did not find an actual, ticking nuclear weapon in Iraq doesn't particularly mean anything in an era where design work, production and testing can be divided among anti-American allies. Even refrigerators are made that way today. The gleeful assertion that Saddam didn't "have" WMDs has slowly deligitimized any effort to rid the world of the malignant threat that is growing before its eyes. This campaign has made it politically impossible to act against any nation even if it is in as advanced -- oops -- as re ed a state of development as was Saddam's Iraq. That the threat did not exist was a lie and the greatest danger of all lies, including this one, is that it comes to be accepted as the truth.
Yeah, I read the article.
Oh, and another thing, it was Congress and not the President that posted the do ents on the web in the first place.
So they were a year away fifteen years ago.
The defining characteristic of partisan attacks on President Bush has been their unthinking and indiscriminate nature.
In today's 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, today, carried that unthinking Bush-bashing to a point beyond caricature and hoisted themselves on their own pi . The NYTimes 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 (even though it was Congress who ordered the do ents posted) when it published captured Iraqi do ents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those do ents might be used by another country in furtherance of building WMD.
But, wait! 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.
The New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least attribution. Not to mention President Bush.
And fourteen...and thirteen...and twelve...etc...
The point is they maintained their knowledge base, much of their equipment, and contacts -- and that would have allowed them to produce a nuclear weapon within a year, particularly if the sanctions were ever lifted with, in case you had forgotten, were decaying under violations by France, Germany, Russia, and Iraq.
nineteen
ninety
one
Yes the Times justified Bush's invasion of Iraq.
George H. W. Bush.
Bravo.
o, the information to allow them to build a nuclear weapon was among the do ents recovered post-invasion in 2003.
You're really not very bright, are you?
o, his country and WMD capability were blown to after 1991. It takes more than sheets of paper to make a bomb. You're really not very bright are you?
Like scientists...which he had; and equipment...which he had; and uranium...which, according to British Intelligence, he was seeking in large quan ies.
If sanctions had crumbled, he could have developed a nuclear weapon within a year. And, that's a fact, Jack.
What uranium sanction was being dropped?
which year?
If the Iraqis had these do ents back in 1991, probably every country in the world had them 10 years ago, in part due to our Pakistani friends. Certainly they have them by now, due to BushCo's desperation in putting all these do ents on the web hoping for anything WMD.
C'mon, if you can't even admit that France, Russia, Germany, and the U.N. were poking serious holes in the sanctions regimen through their OFF kickback schemes and delivery of military hardware, under the table, then, really, what's the point in even engaging you in a debate?
What uranium sanction was being dropped?
The illicit contacts with French and Russian businessmen who were willing to take OFF kickbacks in exchange for looking the other way, in and of themselves, consi ute a hole in the sanctions that could be exploited as a, what did you call it, "drop in the uranium sanction."
You really are challenged by deductive reasoning and complex thought processes.
The NYT is nothing but a left-wing, liberal rag that I won't even bother reading.
How easy do you think it is to get uranium?
You really are challenged by reality.
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.
You really are challenged by reality.
Thank goodness. We could have been dead for 14 years already.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
