You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Shocker: NYT To Confirm Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program?
2006-11-03
This is too good to be true. From National Review Online:

Drudge has the scoop. And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this:

U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN...

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...

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.

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.
oh please...let it be so
Posted by:cajunbelle

#12  DepotGuy: that's what they're spinning on the subject over at crapdot. Down to the Rummy part.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2006-11-03 17:52  

#11  I hope someone had the good sense to make the critical "red wire/green wire" transpositions before putting it on the server.

So, you mullahs want to make a bomb, eh? Be my guest.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2006-11-03 14:13  

#10  "Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb'..."

Does the date of the documents origin have any relevance? 80's...90's??? Just askin...I'm trying to anticipate the spin here. Something like; Yeah it was a WMD program...but you know...like from the old days...Rumsfield prolly sold it to em.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-11-03 11:17  

#9  Not before the elections.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-11-03 10:04  

#8  Many have correctly complained since before the war that the admin's articulation of the Iraq issue insufficiently emphasized the clear POTENTIAL WMD threat, and allowed the natural focus on purported existing stockpiles to become a very misleading reductionist version of the pre-emption rationale. Many of us agonized as the Prez and others failed to follow up on their good phrase about a "gathering threat" with an explicit elaboration of what that meant - nukes.

As with much else that is part of the notably stupid "debate" these days, an unserious approach to the public affairs dimension has left a landscape so devoid of understanding or logic that the NYT geniuses can even imagine (perhaps incorrectly, as y'all point out) that this is a "hit" on the admin.

On a related historic note: I was well distracted from the topic at the time, but does anyone remember that one of Clinton's dumbest appointees, a female SecEnergy, declassified and posted historic nuke design info on the theory that this display of openness would somehow mollify hostile nuke-seeking parties, or some such idiotic idea? I recall being literally unable to believe what I had been told about this. THAT was an unimaginably irresponsible and indefensible stunt - somehow I doubt the NYT objected, if they even noticed it.
Posted by: Verlaine   2006-11-03 09:18  

#7  i would think the russians where of more help too the iranian bomb than the US gov web site
Posted by: sinse   2006-11-03 08:14  

#6  Why is National Intelligence Director John Negraponte in Iraq today?
Posted by: Jules   2006-11-03 08:14  

#5  Mind you, the NYT can publish all the classified information it wants, but God forbid anything supporting the reasons for removing Saddam ever make the light of day.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-11-03 07:53  

#4  What a bunch of nimrods. But don't worry, as soon as someone starts to ask that question they will start screaming "Foley"!, "Foley"!
Posted by: Anginens Ulique2459   2006-11-03 07:35  

#3  I woke to this being reported on NBC at 4:30 (yuck!) this morning. Definitely being spun as a government screw up -- that a nuclear weapons documents site wasn't secured, and that the website was approved by George W. Bush personally, the assumption being that he compromised security while seeking efficiency. No mention that these were captured Iraqi documents released to the public eye. So I lay there in agony, hoping that this was deliberate trap, full of the kind of almost-correct information that results in serious work accidents...

Thank you so very much for posting this so quickly, cajunbelle. Now I can face the day with equinimaty.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-11-03 05:53  

#2  No surprise here - as for IRAN, more and more pundits are coming to believe that Iran is already a nuclear power ala [Chicom-controlled] NORTH KOREA, i.e. possesses nuclear bombs or a stockpile of tactical devices. Unlike NK, Tehran's bombs are controlled only by itself, not the Commies.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-11-03 01:30  

#1  Times just nuanced themselves right into a corner. Bwhahahahahaha
Posted by: djohn66   2006-11-03 00:50  

00:00