NY Times Inadvertently Admits Iraq Was Nuclear Leader
Friday, November 3, 2006 at 03:26PM Bottom Line Up Front: New York Times admits Saddam was the "axis of evil" leader in nuclear weaponry development; U.S. intelligence wasn't quite so faulty after all.
The New York Times is reporting that sensitive information from the thousands of documents found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion has made its way onto the federal government web site at Ft. Leavenworth, KS, where the document archive is based. They are widely known as the “Iraqi Documents”. The site is down until further notice, pending the removal any sensitive material. In an apparently attempt to hurt Republicans on the war on terror issue in next week’s mid-term elections, the New York Times article, “U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer” , says that U.S. carelessness may have helped Iran develop it’s nuclear weaponry. Here are some excerpts:
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.
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.
Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, an arms design center, said “some things in these documents would be helpful” to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and should have remained secret.
A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”
Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.
Let’s review:
- Iraq had graphic, detailed documents so specific in nature that it could help nations like Iran or N. Korea in developing a nuke.
- “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.”
- Iraqi “failures” in developing a nuke also outlined how to get around such failures and successfully make a nuclear weapon.
- Iraqi documents could show Iran and other countries how to develop and use nuclear weaponry
- Iraq was proficient in chemical and germ weaponry.
Here’s the analysis: Essentially, pre-2003 Iraq had more developed nuclear know-how than Iran and North Korea. This sustains the international belief that Saddam Hussein was indeed capable of and engaging in the development of a nuclear program.
Now imagine the Middle East with Saddam in power, with North Korea testing nuclear bombs, with Iran proudly on its way to do the same, and an Iraq more developed and sophisticated than those two countries. If that were not enough, “experts” say that Saddam was only a year away from potentially building a nuclear bomb. No threat to America? Are North Korea and Iran threats to America? How about to the rest of the world? Are 2 defiant nuclear countries better or worse than 3? The reason Iran and North Korea have posed a threat over recent years was not because of an executed nuclear test (although N. Korea has now done so), but because of the POTENTIAL. Clearly Iraq had that same potential and seemed to be the leader fo the pack.
Pres. Bush was right, we know now more than ever, for invading Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein and referring to Iran/Iraq/North Korea as the “axis of evil.”
Although the intent of the New York Times article is obvious, this will make it tricky for the Times to misinterpret the rest of the thousands of documents already translated which show Saddam was developing a nuclear program, did have contacts with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and that he did have WMD which he hid and moved like a shell game when U.N. inspectors came to inspect. It looks like the U.S. didn't follow faulty intelligence after all.
Jveritas at Translating the Iraq Documents has this commentary:
On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program. In this document it states that Saddam personally approved his Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency to re-use nuclear equipments that include something called “Degussa Furnaces” that were used in the previous and prohibited Iraq nuclear program. These furnaces can be used to melt uranium and other nuclear related activities.
The New York Times had an article in 1998 titled “An Iraqi Defector Warns of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Research” where the Degussa furnaces were mentioned as part of “previous” Iraq nuclear program and the controversy surrounding the sale of these furnaces and the investigations later on. The irony is that this is not only a New York Times article but also it was written by JUDITH MILLER and JAMES RISEN once of the worst accusers (liars) that the Bush administration lied about Iraq WMD. Where are you Scott Shane????
Touche'!
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Michelle Malkin Stop the ACLU Gateway Pundit Captain's Quarters
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/755547
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (17)
http://4-watts-of-light.blogspot.com/
Last 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 guides to building a atom bomb.
Posting chemical weapon and nuclear weapon information on a Republican-controlled government website has to be one of the dumbest and most dangerous stunts any administration and political party has ever pulled in our democracy.
George W. Bush and his corrupt Republican enablers have been playing fast and loose with security since 2000. No oversight. No accountability. No responsibility.
And this is the party that claims to keep this country safe?
Please tell me what the Dems would have done to keep America safe. 9/11 is what happens on Dems watch. We've not been attacked since. And?? Yeah, I'd think Republicans have kept America safer than Dems, and no one can prove otherwise.
As U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra Chairman of the House Intelligence committee stated: "as of today the
dni has witheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed...That said, it is important to emphasise the the IAEA, CONTRARY TO ITS ASSERTIONS, NEVER RAISED ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS MATERIAL WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BEFORE GOING TO THE PRESS..." This raises the distinct possibility that some people in the IAEA, for political reasons are seeking to influence the elections by blowing smoke days before it is to take place. Why else run to the Times rather than the intelligence committee?
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/03/radiaoctive-more-on-the-nyt-iraqi-nuke-article/
In the article they put out so close to election ( hint hint), they tried to paint the Bush administration with providing ‘sensitive WMS’ documents to the world ( so terrorist could copy them) - and be aloud on public servers. Yet, it was all the Democratic Party’s fault because they had been claiming for years that there were no WMD documents or programs in Iraq at *all*, this war was a sham, and the republicans were morphing into Roman Caesars (Neo-conservatives). This program could have been kept relatively secret, but the Republicans had to do something to dispel the Democratic Party myth. That myth was gaining a life of its own. You see many of these documents existed before the U.N. and Hanz Blix were relieved of duty by Saddam and company. Blix and company stated there was no WMD documentation in Iraq. The period is pre-Iraq War 2003. Previously, after Saddam and Iraq invaded Kuwait they lost all international privilege to hold on to these weapon design documents. Therefore there were blatant cover-ups and lies by the leftists who many champion Saddam’s regime. This September, the New York Times received calls that this site was up and running. However, they kept it quite because it first, proved them as liars – for promoting the myth, and second it prove Bush was right. Then one of them had a brain-fart. Lets try to accuse Bush of allowing high-technology designs on public servers which doesn’t look good. The program may be legit; however there are plenty of approaches to recruiting translators without allowing these documents up on the Internet. Its purpose was to provide proof for the faithful that in fact there were contrabands of the highest sort in Iraq which Saddam didn’t turn over, therefore making it a legitimate cause to go in and retrieve them; and second many republicans believed the democrats were starting to make the general republicans constituents believe Saddam had nothing on him and the war was a farce. It was a political move by the NYT. Once you start anticipating what they put out and say, one will began to realize they do not put out things for nothing. They always have a motive. In my opinion, I thought it was a lame attempt and a lot scare tactics by the leftist media.
I am always in the hunt for a good conspiracy theory, so how's this:
The current administration played the NYT like an Arkasas Fiddle. Everyone on earth including Al Qeada that knows the NYT can't keep a secret, so they became the stooge by publishing the information at a most opportune moment for the GOP. Then, after publication of the front page article, "ZIP". The site is shut down.
Don't want the bad guys to get this highly classified information you see... (side note, most all of the information that was included on that site is available at any public library).
Clever indeed.
TONY:
Read the article man. This is only an effort by the government to make the war seem justified. These documents are fabricated. Comment by Tony Trupp — November 3, 2006
AMY:
Tony, are you suggesting George W. Bush went to Iraq BEFORE his presidency, wrote a bogus document in Arabic and planted it in Baghdad? Was that his way of justifying this war?
And are you saying that if this document is real that it justifies the war? The New York Times seems assured this is a real document, not fabricated.
Comment by Amy Proctor — November 3, 2006
For the moment it seems that yes, Saddam Hussein was a threat (maybe not an imminent threat, but a threat nonetheless) and oh by the way, we may have inadvertently given away nuclear secrets which we had hoped to prevent with this war in the first place. Both sides get to feel smug with the knowledge that they were “right.” Both sides will also vehemently deny any mistake on their part. In the meantime, the rest of us get to deal with this mess!
Americas are not as naive as the were in 2004. Get ready for impeachment.
I'm not trying to spin this....I can accept an Iraqi or military personnel calling Iraq a "mess" because they understand the complexities and various contributors, but most people, PARTICULARLY Democrats, have no idea what they're talking about so they stoop to calling a WAR a quagmire or other various names. I recently heard Bill O'Reilly slamming Iraqis saying, "How long does it take to get a police force up? They just don't want it as badly as we do." That's utter Bullsh__ and it makes me pretty mad to hear such ignorance.
Dear Stryker, if Bush says there were no WMD found in Iraq, he is wrong. He is referring, however, to the stockpiles he expected to find, but the troops have indeed found many missiles and ingredients, as well as the empty labs. The Baath Party officials buried small WMD in their backyards. I remember seeing the footage on CNN in June of 2003.
But I'm not too concerned about your opinion. You're swept up along with everyone else who doesn't know any better in the current of misinformation.
Get ready for impeachment? On what grounds?
"9/11 is what happens on Dems watch. We've not been attacked since"
wow I don't even know what to say. Let's just make believe some more shall we? Dems caused 9/11 and Katrina was certainly not an attack on this country, and even if it was it would be dems fault. It must be nice to be a shill... I'd just like to know one thing... do you think for yourself at all? ever?
Why on earth does one need to go onto the internet to see more Fox News??
Amy:
"But I'm not too concerned about your opinion"
And believe me I'm not too concerned about your opinion either, to put it as mildly as possible.
I am however very much concerned with Stryker's comment ("Americas are not as naive as the were in 2004") Americans are indeed just as naive as we were in 2004, when it all comes down to it. For every step forward we're taking two steps back. Look at how so many dems abandoned Kerry and let him be hung out to dry. In the MSM, only a very few, like Olbermann, actually stood up for him. And yet John Kerry could be considered the president, if you go by what the 2004 exit polls said. Of course exit polls don't mean anything, and that is beside the point. The point right now is that democrats are showing the same cowardace that they showed in previous years. They are still torn between the establishment and the people. Meanwhile Bush is silently flip-flopping on his "stay the course" policy and yet even to this day, a simple google news search for "flip flopper john kerry" yields more results than a similar search for Bush.
The real problem democrats face is this pathetic dumbed down sound bite culture surrounding politics, and all the people who just buy into it because they don't want to take the time to check out the sound behind the bite. People like Limbaugh and Hannity, Coulter and Malkin thrive on that ignorance, and when you push one of them back down into the sewers where they belong, another one, like Amy, pops back up to take their place. There is nothing democrats can do to fix THAT problem, and therefore there is little the democrats can do for us. It is a problem every single one of us has to accept responsibility for, and face it head on.
Amy the “mess” I was referring to was the fact that we may have inadvertently given away nuclear secrets and the partisan bickering that has followed in its wake. It’s interesting (and perhaps somewhat telling) that you think I was referring to the war, though.
My comment about 9/11 and Democrats was to illustrate the weakness of the Democratic position on terror. Let's agree on this: Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists are responsible for 9/11, not Bush, not Clinton.
No, I never think for myself. I wake up in the morning and am bottle fed on neo-con propaganda.
That said, there's no reason to answer the rest of your asinine comments.