November 03, 2006
NYT ~ Saddam's Scientists On Verge Of Building Atom Bomb in 2002
U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide
New York Times <<<<<....and for complete article
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 3, 2006
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
New York Times put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?
The New York Times tells how in 2002 Saddam Hussein's "scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away:"
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.
Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.
Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
National Review Online
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
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.
Having now 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.
(By the way, is it just me, or is the article entirely devoid of any indication that Iran actually accessed the documents? This threat that, "You idiot! Iran could access all the documents!" is entirely speculative. If the government servers hosting the web site have signs that Iranian web browsers accessed those pages, it's a different story; my guess is somebody already knows the answer to that question.)
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.
Wild Thing's comment.......
I used the article write up by Jim Geraghty on this it is so excellent, and as you can see only a small portion of the NY Times write up. Jim Geraghty did such a great job of it. If you wish to read the entire NYTimes article I have it availvable at the top with the first link.
Well they think this will humiliate Bush. The newest bit from Drudge is "NYT: U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN..."
But see ... the problem with the NYT thinking (beyond the obvious fact that they're traitors) is that it proves that Bush was RIGHT. The New York Times may think they are reporting another "gotcha" on Bush....but, this is THE gotcha that Bush has for all of the war in Iraq naysayers!!!
Bottom line is as simple as this, the DOCS are proof of Saddam having WMD and how he supported destruction and terrorism.
* Thank you to Sierrahome
Posted by Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 01:55 AM
Where was he going to get uranium?
Look at Iran. Notice they dont have a secret nuclear program. Uranium enrichment is not something you can hide easily: It needs a huge facility, imported technology and a large number of very specialised scientists.
Posted by: Suricou Raven at November 3, 2006 04:38 AM
Uranium enrichment is not something you can hide easily
But it is possible. And it is public knowledge than Saddam had large underground bunkers during the first Gulf War. Large enough to hide this type of research? Don't know. But based on his past behavior, I'm sure he would not just shrug and walk away. He would have pursued it like every other weapon he possessed.
What I would like to know is where he got the docs to build a nuke? Which country?
Posted by: raz0r at November 3, 2006 10:21 AM
If Suricou is right, and she might be, then Saddam Hussein had settled his accounts with the Iranians. It's a good thing we invaded when we did.
Posted by: Rhod at November 3, 2006 11:09 AM
You just have to like the "Bert Is Evil" parody website:
"Where was he going to get uranium?"
"What I would like to know is where he got the docs to build a nuke? Which country?"
Two likely culprits:
1. Russia. The New Russians are not deliberately evil like the old Sovs were, but they ARE broke. And one of the few economic strengths for them is weapon sales and nuclear technology. If the price is right, they will sell.
2. France. The French have made it clear for the last few decades they are happy to make deals as well, and they don't care who they do business with. They were happy to sell Israel weapons at great price, until the Arabs (1) put the squeeze on them and (2) offered more money. France then turned around and embargoed arms to Israel in 1976.
Posted by: Nick Byram at November 3, 2006 11:16 AM
Where would saddam get the Uranium? France, Russia, Niger and Yemen. Saddam successfully bought the UN in the oil for food scam. Like RazOr stated, don't forget the massive undergroung facilities Saddam had, any of which could process Uranium, and it's not that hard to conceal either. I worked in fuel enrichment in a non descript building that could have housed a cannery or any other medium sized business on a 250' x 250' footprint with a basement. Yellowcake can be hidden most anywhere, silos, bunkers or simply kept onboard a ship at harbor because it's stable. It takes space for the refining equipment and more space for the sheilding to keep the refined and enriched stuff from going critical. The Doc's could have come from any country, even the US. or Canada, most likely Russia, France or Pakistan. Wickipedia has a good article on Uranium.
Posted by: Jack at November 3, 2006 11:57 AM
If Saddam had been left in power, there would probably be a smoking radioactive hole in place of Manhattan. And of course Bush would be blamed for it. But at least the NY Times couldn't do the blaming, because their offices would be vaporized.
Posted by: Van Helsing at November 3, 2006 12:48 PM
In my earlier comment about where documents to make a nuclear bomb could have been obtained I'd forgotten about Operation Merlin. If Iran could get the documents so easy from this source why not Saddam? Think about the source, the leaders, administration security and think about our present dilemma in Iran. The US had been on the outs with Iran a lot longer than it has with Iraq.
Posted by: Jack at November 3, 2006 06:41 PM
Sorry, WT, this is a very serious subject, but I can't get past Jihadi Ernie behind Saddamite. Hilarious.
Posted by: Rhod at November 3, 2006 06:58 PM
I think the NYT must be undergoing some sort of catharsis or something (guilt???) I made a pdf of an article that was in the NYT magazine about the philosophy of Islam in view of having nuclear weapons.
I hope they NYT doesn't sue me, but in order to read it you would have to register on their web site, I just wanted to save you the hassle.
Posted by: gregor at November 3, 2006 07:54 PM
Nick Byram hahaha I have never seen that site before. Thank you for the link.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:14 PM
Suricou Raven I am not sure but there are several countries that come to mind. Like the ones mentioned in other comments here.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:18 PM
razOr not only that he had tons of time to move stuff, get rid of stuff all because of Blix too.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:19 PM
Rhod I agree it sure is good we went into Iraq.
OH and your other comment...heh heh....glad you like it. I didn't make the graphic but I did add the words to it. I just couldn't resist. giggle
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:20 PM
Jack thanks for sharing about this and your input too. Very interesting.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:22 PM
Van Helsing you are so right. I really believe that is what would have happened too.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:23 PM
Gregor, WOW thank you so much. I just read the whole thing. I really appreciate it!!!! I saw some things in that write up that were very, very interesting.
Interesting what he wrote about Iraq, and the timing of what is happening, and how we handled what we are doing there...... and those in power there now etc.
Posted by: Wild Thing at November 3, 2006 11:38 PM