SubscribeIraq Was One Year From Nuclear Bomb In 2002
A seemingly inadvertent admission from the "Paper Of Treason," the New York Times:
U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide
November 3, 2006
By WILLIAM J. BROADLast 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.
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.”
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.
The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs…
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 documents seized since the March 2003 invasion. 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 documents — 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 Web site, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal,” was a constantly expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents included everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from Mr. Hussein’s intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a legion of bloggers, translators and amateur historians.
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had 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.
European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms…
Wholied?
But note how the New York Times isn’t even fazed by their own admission.
They are so busy crowing about closing down a site that was actually providing hard information about Saddam’s WMD program, they missed the elephant in the living room.
Saddam was a year or less away from having a nuclear bomb when the United States invaded Iraq.
But The Times didn’t even think that warranted a headline.
15 Responses to “Iraq Was One Year From Nuclear Bomb In 2002”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 am
Bush lied, because Saddam obviously had documents and nuke WMD in Iraq.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:59 am
Ah, a nother opportunity to propogate the LIE that there were no WMDs in Iraq. (”Degraded” chemical weapons still kill.)
Notice how the NYT is careful to say the papers date from “pre-1991″ nuclear research, to make sure that we don’t forget Saddam was pure as the wind driven snow when Bush illegally removed him from power.
Just the usual cr*p from the “all the treason that’s fit to print” paper.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:38 am
The NYT has since edited out “and in 2002,” of course.
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:29 am
Get ready for the news to spin this as: Iraq (Saddam Hussein)may have had the technical know how to build WMDs but restrained himself, just having the technical means does not prove intent. If he did intend to build WMD’s the UN sanctions and inspection were working.
As you can see they have already started the blame President Bush and the Republicans their the ones making the world unsafe by placing this information on web.
The knowledge of Saddam Hussein being one year away from the development of a nuclear bomb will fall to the wayside, “as” have the (500+) five hundred plus Nerve Agent Weapons that have been discovered in Iraq.
The Democrats and the Liberals that control their party will continue to push the Bush Lied dogma.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
They’re spinning this to say that now Iran will be able to get a nuke.
But let’s be honest here, if they were worried about Iran, they’d be worried that Iran has scientists working in North Korea for just that purpose.
And what, now the New York Times is worried about leaks? Are you kidding me?
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:12 am
“Bush lied” is too prevalent at this point to ever be changed, no matter how irrefutable the evidence to the contrary might be. There is a large section of America that hates him so much that they will not allow themselves to hear anything about him that isn’t hateful. Of course, there is also a large section of the media that feels the same way, and this fuels more resentment here and abroad. Recklessness and thoughtlessness on their behalf has weakened this country far more than anything a president could ever have done.
But I’m proud to be a supporter of a president who has the guts to fight back, and to take the fight to those who want to erase the America I love. Iraq isn’t pretty, no war ever is. But doing nothing got us 9/11. Bush is doing something, and in time it will work better for us I think. Maybe papers like the Times know this deep down too, and they are trying their best to make Iraq a failure before it can be a plus to the president they so despise.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Uhhh…
NYTimes confirms Saddam’s WMDs
Saddam’s WMDs
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Liberal blogs are trying to figure out how to bury the NYTimes WMD story (dailykos for one). Caught on the evidence on this one. Bush lied, NOT.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Liberal blogs are trying to figure out how to bury the NYTimes WMD story (dailykos for one). Caught on the evidence on this one. Bush lied, NOT.
I’m sure the panic in the air at liberal outposts was palpable. Rational Americans - the ones that aren’t out there with the “Bush lied” signs - will look at the NYT story and realize a truth that horrifies liberals:
Bush told the truth.
Which blows 99.99% of their campaing platform out of the water.
Couple this with
John Kerry’sJon Cary’s recent comments about our troops, and the “October surprises” aren’t going the way the Dems planned.So no wonder they’re searching under ever pebble looking for one grain of sand around which to spin a story that doesn’t make them look like the lying, America-hating, anti-religious, troop-despising, Islamist-appeasing miscreants that they really are.
Just read the headlines between now and Monday, and watch with morbid fascination as they try and smear every conservative and/or Republican they can get their slimy hands on.
I cannot wait until Nov. 8.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Personally I just can’t get over the incredible hypocracy to use a story that proves the President didn’t lie to start a new ‘talking point’ about risking national security and leaks - from a paper that has been leaking national security issues almost since the war began.
Typical libs - their boat is sinking and so what do they do? They shoot the gun straight up in the air to capture attention. One of these days, I just wish it would come back down straight into their brain, so we wouldn’t have to listen to them ever again.
I can’t believe anyone listens to and believes this drivel anymore. Maybe they are right, that Americans are stupid. But wait - they haven’t won in years, so I guess not.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:27 pm
I voted for Bush the first time when Gore’s landlord practices hit the news. I voted for Bush the second time because there was no doubt that Saddam’s WMDs did exist and he did take definitive action based on real, verified intelligence. Just wish he had used stronger measures.
I still think he’s a bit of goober, but he has already been proven right and history will do so again. Proud I voted for him.
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Holding fast to their dysfunctional logic, the NYSlimes, the looney leftists and the rest of their adoring media will spin this as proof that Bush lied.
Their version of the truth will “prove” Saddam Hussein never had WMD’s but merely a detailed plan….and plans don’t harm anyone.
And finally, they will try to drive home the point that we wasted our resources going after “the plan” when the real and only threat was a few cave dwellers in Afghanistan.
What’s so very alarming is that a great percentage of Americans will believe in that leftist logic and continue to blame President Bush.
I’ve never wavered in my belief that there were WMD’s in Iraq.
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Up until Hitler invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939, “blitzkrieg” was only a “plan”. The attack on Pearl Harbor was only a “plan” until the early morning hours of Dec 7, 1941. Using civilian airliners as guided missiles was only a “plan” until Sept 11, 2001.
The liberal moonbats and the MSM can claim the “plan” scenario all they want but Saddam wanted WMD’s and would have obtained them (or already had them) and used them had the US not intervened.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why the left is so consumed with this BDS? Can these people be so possessed by hatred for Dubya (and conservatives in general I suppose) that their own sensibilities are just simply distorted and continue to ignore facts and very self-evident situations? How sad it must be to bear that burden of disgust and hatred through everyday life.
When Clinton was POTUS, I definitely did not agree with everything he did but in matters of national interest, I supported his decisions because he was the legally elected President, regardless of whether I voted for him or not, (it was nay by the way).
I love my country and I will support it by all necessary means, end of story. IMHO, the far left seems incapable of that. I hope someday, they prove me wrong.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Slightly off topic but very important article from the Wall Street Journal…if this isn’t noticed I’ll post it tomorrow in the usual Friday posting….
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Maliki’s Withdrawal Card
July 9, 2008; Page A14
A year ago, the conventional Beltway wisdom had it that Iraq was a failed state. Today, the same wisdom holds that it is less chaotic but still fragile, dependent entirely on a U.S. presence to survive. But judging by recent comments from Nouri al-Maliki, even this view may be out of date.
Addressing Arab ambassadors in Abu Dhabi on Monday, the Iraqi prime minister made headlines by saying his government was “looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty.” Mr. Maliki has also been playing hardball with the Bush Administration in concluding a status-of-forces agreement by the end of the year, when the current U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. presence in Iraq expires.
Mr. Maliki’s comments are an assertion of confidence in his country’s stability – and not without cause. Fully nine of Iraq’s 18 provinces are now under domestic security control. Al Qaeda is being smoked out of its last urban refuge in Mosul. The Iraqi army has performed with increasing skill and confidence against Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which has also been ousted from its urban strongholds. Iraq will take in some $70 billion in oil revenue this year. T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oil magnate, told us yesterday that Iraq could double its current production, to five million barrels a day, in coming years.
More important, Iraq seems to have been able to consolidate the security gains achieved by the surge, even as the last of the surge brigades deployed in 2007 are now returning to the U.S. That makes further reductions in U.S. force levels look increasingly plausible, a further validation of President Bush’s “return on success” strategy.
Mr. Maliki’s comments were also designed for domestic Iraqi political consumption – another sign of that country’s robust democratic debate. With elections scheduled for the autumn, Mr. Maliki wants to show he’s nobody’s pawn, especially not America’s. The Sadrists continue to play the nationalist card, even as they are themselves pawns of Iran. The rise of Iraqi nationalism is inevitable and largely welcome as a unifying national force. Remember all of those who said an Iraqi Shiite government would merely be a tool of Iran?
The Prime Minister is also making it clear to his Arab neighbors that his government is not about to collapse. Apparently, they believe him: Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have announced plans to break the Arab diplomatic embargo of Iraq and return their ambassadors to Baghdad; the UAE has also forgiven $7 billion of Iraqi debt. Perhaps Saudi Arabia and Egypt will follow.
The significant question now is the pace and extent of any U.S. withdrawal, and the nature of any long-term U.S. military presence. Despite Mr. Maliki’s comments, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was quick to add that the call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was “conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security,” according to the Associated Press. In other words, Mr. Maliki is not endorsing the Barack Obama agenda of immediate U.S. withdrawal starting on January 20.
Our view is that Iraq and Mr. Maliki would benefit from striking a security agreement this year while Mr. Bush is still in office. Despite Iraq’s impressive security gains, Iran can still do plenty of mischief through its “special group” surrogates. The U.S. can help deter Iranian trouble, especially with Iraq elections scheduled for this year and next.
Inside Iraq, a significant long-term U.S. presence would also increase the confidence of Iraq’s various factions to make political compromises. And outside, it would improve regional stability by giving the U.S. a presence in the heart of the Middle East that would deter foreign adventurism. This is the kind of strategic benefit that the next Administration should try to consolidate in Iraq after the hard-earned progress of the last year.
Our sense is that, with the exception of the Sadrists, all of Iraq’s main political factions want the U.S. to remain in some significant force. Iraq is now a democracy, however, and perhaps as their confidence grows the Maliki government and Iraq public opinion will think differently. But that kind of withdrawal timetable should be mutual – and not imposed by a new U.S. President acting as if the Iraq he’ll inherit in 2009 is the same as the Iraq of 2006. That would mean U.S. forces could be withdrawn with honor, and in victory.
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....pa_mostpop
July 10th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
So just to clarify, Saddam was a year away from perfecting a nuke and he had 550 metric tons of yellow cake.
Wonder why this isn’t front page news?