Powered by TypePad

« Kate And Kerry, Sitting In A Tree | Main | Duke Case - Oh, THAT Affidavit... »

November 02, 2006



Did the NYT forget than in Jan their very own James Risen reported that in its worst blunder ever, the CIA in 2000 (Clinton) GAVE IRAN plans for a nuclear bomb.

If there are any logical thinkers left in the editorial offices of the Gray Lady they'd realize that they just tore the heart out of the anti-war movement.

As out own dear Boris notes here, if the plans were so advanced that they were useful to Iran, he was an imminent threat, n'cest pas?

Barney Frank

So Iran is going to try to piece one together using some docs from a guy who never built one rather than ask for Kim to fax or e-mail on over the plans to one that just went off. Sounds like a CIA threat analysis.


clarice- Clinton was not actually President during the parts of 1992-2000 when Iran was given the blueprints and Iraq was declared to be a threat working on WMDs.
Clinton was the President of Peace and Prosperity. Any conflict has retroactively been placed under Bush's watch.


WMD Smoking Gun. Thanks NY Times.


“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”

An utterly confounding statement to read in the NYT's. I'll repeat, this gives me perspective on why Adam Calame suddenly felt bad for printing the SWIFT program....he couldn't hold the moral high-ground had he not?


Isn't it funny how and when the NYTs gets interested in the documents that are being translated?



No kidding...and lefty bloggers will be interesting too!...can't wait for the tortured twisted pretzels on HOW IRRESPONSIBLE it was for the Admin. to give into pressure to release these to the public...documents they pooh poohed, mocked and at the same time tip toe around the origin..IRAQ and NUKES and then there is that cheerleading of "leaking" and so on.


Wasn't there a Tom Clancy novel that had a lot of detail about building a bomb? We should probably burn all of those. And if it is bad to put secrets online or in print, I guess we should shut down the NYT. they have done more damage to our security. Sheesh....


Jim Geraghty just nails it:

"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."

His whole post is great.


What is Risen, anyway, chopped liver? Their own guy told them we gave Iran the nuclear bomb plans.



The Sum of All Fears. At the end, Clancey makes a point of telling us that nothing is in his book that isn't available at your local library, etc. He changed some minor things, for his own piece of mind.

Cecil Turner

A casual read of the history of the Manhattan Project suggests the hard part about a nuke is getting suitable fissionable material, and anyone with the technical know-how to do that can almost certainly handle the engineering for a basic weapon. Probably shouldn't post the plans, but it really doesn't have much effect on the threat.

Wasn't there a Tom Clancy novel that had a lot of detail about building a bomb?

The Sum of All Fears. The afterword said something like "I changed some details in the design, not expecting it would have any real effect, but to assuage my own conscience." Good read.



You left out the best quote from your link:



The timing of the dangerous web postings has been
..in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves

So Iran hasn't really been a threat before because they didn't have this particular knowledge. But just a few weeks prior to the US Elections, the admin screwed up so much that Iran just might be a threat now.

Has the NYTs been reading this document website all along, or did someone call them and say, "Whoops! Look what I just posted!"


You know, Clarice, why does the NYT need a November surprise anyway? There is this really big, tsunami-sized Democrat "wave" coming in this election.

Don't they have absolute faith in their own polls?


This is the part of the NYT article that leaps out at me-

The Iraqi document is marked “Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),” meaning it was preparatory for the “Full, Final, Complete Disclosure” that Iraq made to United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three diagrams showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.

Let's get a perspective here-and not let the NYT drive the analysis-what level of credibility do they have anymore?

Seriously-it has been corroded.

Here we have a regime that actually had the supposed three nukes or diagrams there of, that was in the midst of Terrorism Epicenter looking to be pre-iminent in that arena competing against the likes of Iran, and Syria and winning by gassing Kurds, invading sovreign countries and playing bravado against any and all international forces,-uncomrimising and irrational. All this while having the same neighborhood and cultural interests of the inabling AQ Khan network. Saner actors decided that the risk was not worth it, did the ugly numbers calcuation and came to the sobering conclusion that it wasn't a bet America could afford to lose.

Saddam had this, and if we hadn't of stopped him what would the New York Times have to complain about like the tiresome theatre critics that they are?

One can only fathom...

So they-the NYT- weren't upset or didn't believe that Saddam was "capable" but now they get Apocalyptic about somebody having access to his "drawings" and "failures".

On November the Third.

The New York Times wants to be the Fat Lady that sings at the death of the Republican Party, and the gullible public might just do their bidding.

If there is an ounce of justice left this shoud be the denouement of The Gray Lady.


Again, from Keith's link above...

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.

Geraghty asks: "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.

Well, which is it NYTs? 1990 or 2002?


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.

The implication being than they wanted to “manufacture” dangers instead of looking for the proof of what they already had a good idea about.

Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents about chemical weapons, United Nations arms-control officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.

So Iraq had manuals for making tabun and sarin, tons of chemical agents, the equipment for processing it, chemical suits and factories but didn’t actually put it all together? I am not buying it.

The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who argued that the nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the March 2003 invasion.

Why aren’t ALL media outlets interested? Is this a reflection more on conservatives being more interested in history or proving liberal media bias? Also, those in the know will confirm that recovered boxes have absolutely not been adequately analyzed and I don’t know of anyone even pretending that they have been.

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.

Correct, a full blackout from the mainstream media who has acted curiously uninterested in the documents.

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.

Saddam was a year away in the 90’s or in 2002?

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.

So information about Iraq’s weapons programs, that wasn’t turned over to the proper authorities, was only discovered post invasion?

In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”

Obviously the Iraqis were farther along than everyone knew or this wouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Right????

Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist now at the war studies department of King’s College, London, called the posted material “very sensitive, much of it undoubtedly secret restricted data.”

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.

So the public has never been told of Saddam’s full nuclear capabilities? When were we going to find out? Wouldn’t that information change the way people view the war?

Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda. Reviewing the documents for release would add an unnecessary burden on busy intelligence analysts, they argued.

Talk about CYA. What’s more important, the truth or the reputation of our intelligence agencies?

Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.

But...but....I thought Iraq didn’t ever have or know how to make such things? In all seriousness, these manuals being passed to terrorists were one of the major reasons for removing Saddam.

At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms at the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in charge of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones.

If UNMOVIC knew what was going on then none of these findings should be a surprise. Apparently they didn’t.

In April, diplomats said, the commission’s acting chief weapons inspector, Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission to the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents tabun and sarin.

Soon, the document vanished from the Web site. On June 8, diplomats said, Mr. Perricos told the Security Council of how risky arms information had shown up on a public Web site and how his agency appreciated the American cooperation in resolving the matter. What else has been suppressed in the name of unknown international bureaucrats?


The Iraqi document is marked “Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),” meaning it was preparatory for the “Full, Final, Complete Disclosure” that Iraq made to United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three diagrams showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.

Am I wrong in assuming this document was not included int the UN disclosure?

Was this bomb core strictly hypothetical? No physical tests were being done, no materials gathered, nothing being built?
Are we to believe this was all being done on paper, and only on paper?


I do so hope that Gingrich is named point man to deal with this tomorrow.



I know some of what you posted was quoted material from a site I've already read. I can't tell if you have inserted your own points in there. In the future, maybe you could provide a link to the quoted material and put it in quotes or something? Thank you.

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.

$5.00 says the NYT will claim this stuff is from the OLD Saddam regime, BC (before Clinton) so, like the chemical weapons, unless there is proof he was ginning it up AC, there is no smoking gun. You know ... his nuke secrets were like contained or something.


Maybe the NYTs will tell us tomorrow why these documents could be helpful for Iran to build a nuclear weapon but were not dangerous in the hands of Saddam. I certainly can't figure it out on my own.


Paul, posting at Wizbang is writing Tony Snow's lead in for his next gaggle:

The talking point:

"Let's remember, if what the New York Times says is true, if President Bush hadn't invaded invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be power and have a nuclear weapon by now."

Simple. Concise. Deadly.


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.

Well, I know that history has a bit of a time warp for 1992-2000 in NYTsworld.
But in the real world, a regime that still has the plans from 1991 sitting around in 2003-- still has the plans!
If they could be helpful to Iran in 2006, they could have been helpful to Saddam in 2003. When they were written is of no consequence.


About Risen's story, Ledeen noted that to sell the Clinton administration on the goofy scheme to give the Iranis the plan, they had to show--what they publicly denied--that Iran had a nuclear plan underway.



...Has the NYTs been reading this document website all along, or did someone call them and say, "Whoops! Look what I just posted!"...

Um and why does the IAEA go to the NYT's?

IF this was such a concern of the IAEA...why didn't they A- protest the initial release therefore giving the Admin. the cover they needed in keeping these docs. out of the pubic like they wanted and B- GO TO the Admin. NOW instead of the NYT's to protest the website and so the Admin. could close it down -- if they are really concerned and care

Notice the NYT's says:

...Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials.



Obviously the NYTs put this story out there to hurt Bush and republicans. But they are going to have to explain how to me. I'm not getting it. They have just told us Saddam had plans that will help Iran build a nuclear weapon, without telling me how those plans wouldn't be used by Saddam.


I've read the Slimes piece.

They're making it look like the Republicans were so incompetent they posted this stuff at the site.

The intelligence services VETTED THE STUFF, not the Republicans in Congress.

The Slimes are saying that Saddam had nothing for us to worry about therefore what was the point of releasing any documents at all! Some of this stuff could be sensitive!!

What a bunch of friggin' hypocrites!


MayBee --

In the real world nobody would be second guessing the WMD issue at all. I think the NYT's argument is that Saddam wasn't going to give his old nuke research to Iran and he was too "contained" to exploit it himself.


--Posted by: Sue | November 02, 2006 at 08:42 PM--

Yep...that's a NAIL.

Maybee says

--But in the real world, a regime that still has the plans from 1991 sitting around in 2003-- still has the plans!--

Isn't that what denying inspectors is all about? /sarcasm off


Unless of course he was able to get yellowcake from Niger.


a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy,

The DoE is a joke in the intelligence community. They were given all the oversight for classification/declassification of anything to do with nuclear back in the day.

And they have a different philosophy about keeping secrets than the rest of the govt. To the DoE something is not a secret unless you make it so. To the rest of the community, something is a secret until you make sure it does no harm to release the info.

When you hear of all the secrets getting out of Livermore--THESE are the guys in charge. They are sloppy beyond belief.


Yes, wasn't it just last week that really secret nuclear information in DoE jurisdiction from Livermore (or was it Los Alamos) was found in the trailer of a meth dealer?

Charles Martin

I don't mean to be repetitive, but, let's just summarize here:

- the New York Times is concerned because the Administration posted the information about Saddam's WMDs...
- that Saddam didn't have and Bush is a liar...
- and that six months ago there was a fuss because the Administration declassify...
- and that having been declassified by the Administration, the NY Times...
- which just has run four or five of its own free-lance declassifications ...
- is now concerned because these documents, from Saddam's WMD program ...
- which Saddam didn't have, no body found a thing, and Bush is a liar...
- might have given some hints to Iran
- which has a peaceful nuclear program and certainly CERTAINLY isn't part of any Axis of Evil ...
- which, after all, Bush made up because he's a liar and just wants the oil for his oil company buddies
- and which couldn't have possibly found out any of that stuff before.

Does that sort of sum it up?

Does anyone remember the Cheech and Chong routine about the war movie and the kamikaze pilot?

Charles Martin

ah, hell.

Did that work?


The http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/>Captain is weighing in...

So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit

Capt Ed notes the NYT has just authenticated the docs--
"This is apparently the Times' November surprise, but it's a surprising one indeed. The Times has just authenticated the entire collection of memos, some of which give very detailed accounts of Iraqi ties to terrorist organizations. Just this past Monday, I posted a memo which showed that the Saddam regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On September 20th, I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden.

That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.

What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:

* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.

* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq

* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7

* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it

* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002

Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.

The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the Times figures this out for themselves."



--They have just told us Saddam had plans that will help Iran build a nuclear weapon, without telling me how those plans wouldn't be used by Saddam.--

I said this at ACE, but goes tot heart of why the NYT's and the biggies are hemorrhaging BUSINESS wise.

They are so invested in the election you'd think NYT's was on every ballot...I think they think if the DEMS win it validates their very existence...and hides the fact they are agending themselves out of a JOB --the bottomline, sales? They don't care!

In their effort to cover to Kerry they actually sacrificed sales ignoring the most markable image on their front pages -- the GI picture would sell papers...NYPOst did...that's why they have INCREASED circulation.


Sorry, I did post it elsewhere. Will just link next time.


Has anyone checked the moonbats? How are they receiving this news? I'm too tired to venture into their swamp.



I wasn't complaining (not much anyway ::grin::). I just wanted to be sure what was your points and what points belonged to someone else.


I remember during the the "box turtle Ben" dustup there were some translated Docs that lefty commenters at least were just down right mocking of...pluk? They were peacock feather dismissive of any importance.


Oh the other thing does anyone remember the Liberal arguments about why we didn't have to bother with the Strategic Defense Initiative?

This was all suppose to be impossible.

Here is what the Liberals and the theatre critc NYT have in common-for a long time now the Republicans have owned the longer vision and have been the party of ideas-particularly on what a government primarily owes its citizens and bases its legitimacy on-the ability to do what no individual can do for himself, the very reason nation states exist-to protect and insure the continuation of the society.

This is the pre-iminent duty the Democratic party wants to have the luxury of passing on time and time again.

They'd rather in the short term buy and bribe the public vote. Leaving defense for someone else to invest in ,they want the quick pay -off, and defense doesn't provide the instant gratification.

The press and Liberals have something in common they both are born from the land of no.

We have two leaders in Iran and North Korea who are working towards gaining nuclear capabilities while at the same time seeming little interested in reassuring the world that they are rational actors. Liberals in the Eighties gave a litany of excuses as to why it was not to be-claiming that a irrational actor could never become a leader of a state that could afford the resources and technology needed and relied heavily on the fact that someone of the suicidial ideological mindset could never come to power and MAD would be the only insurance needed to protect against the worst case scenario-a policy-nothing else was worth the investment.

Now in this current environment can the press ask any Democratic candidate what their position on National Ballistic Missile Defense would be? No because the Democratic answer would be laughable particularly when considering the recent historical context. The Democrats were always the party of excuses and criticisms when it came to missile defense.

The press doesn't want to ask the question the public most deserves to know in these times because it would reveal that the Democrats are unprepared.. The media's preferred agenda is to sand bag candidates to prove that they still have influence.



If there is a disagreement between DOE and DOD guess who wins?


Let me put this another way: You cannot simultaneously hold the position that Saddam did not have WMD programs and that he had advanced knowledge of nuclear weapons that would be of use to Iran. You cannot simultaneously believe Iran has a peaceful nuclear program and a need for advanced knowledge of nuclear weapons.

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/02/the-november-surprise/>Blue Crab Boulevard



Most "respected" leftists blogs?

It's all abuot Lamont.

DU on the otherhand didn't get the memo...that they were ONCE for sensitive information in the public domain...(the funny part...I am sure a internet digger could find about 30 or so DU subject posts making fun of the Gov't doc posting and documents themselves as worthless Bush ass saving attempts)

kpete (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-02-06 10:50 PM
Original message
NYT - BUSH Admin Put Dangerous NUKE SECRETS On Web!



Wish me luck. I'm going in. ::grin::

sammy small

This story may be the NYT's get-out-of-jail free card. I expect they have been feeling the heat from the government investigations over the NSA and Swift stories. This story should come in handy for their defense; the gov't publishes damaging information too. Why should they be held liable by an organization that can't police itself.


::grin:: And boy, am I glad I did...


we need our pundits on message...

* republican congress, in a desperate effort to prove WMD existance, posted unreviewed documents which detail a Nuke's construction
* This is after the same site posted detailed plans on how to make germ and chemical warefare
* Last week concerns about the document release were given to the American Ambassador in Vienna
* Nothing was done to remove the documents until the NY Times confronted them with it
* The documents date to 1991~1995
* These DO NOT Prove any active WMD Program
* These Docs did reveal to enemies, such as Iran and Sudan, just how to build a bomb
* This is a result of republican negligence and incompetence, in a desperate effort to prove their own rational for a failed war in Iraq
* The Republicans have made the world Less Safe by their desperate attempts to retain power

Just to be perfectly clear, the above is not KOS's personal post...


--Wish me luck. I'm going in. ::grin::--

Good fairy dust on you!


-- Why should they be held liable by an organization that can't police itself.

Posted by: sammy small | November 02, 2006 at 09:41 PM--

I don't think it plays that way...in order for that to be, the DEM raising also has to explain WHY SADDAM HAD DETAILED PLANS O'NUKE in a good way...AKA...not gonna happen with a Saddam verdict on Sunday,

Now will the right-wingers spin this (0 / 0) as proof that the war was justified?

We need to make sure tha the media and our candidates emphasize the "Bush incompetence" angle more than than the "Iraq was a possible threat" angle.

We can't let them do this!

Ahh...about 50 or so posts in, I find someone who sees the problems with publishing this article...sort of...the real problem hasn't hit them just yet...they are too busy calling republicans stupid, incompetent, all your choice words...


Don't you wish you could get their names and addressess and sell them stuff?



Isn't that incredible?

On the one hand, these same people freak and question the timing and arrest (ie. weirdly defend) men plotting to blowup airliners smuggling various bottles of liquid explosives, deny Saddam was anyone other then a Kite flying provider, insist Bush is provoking Iran and yet...

* republican congress, in a desperate effort to prove WMD existence, posted unreviewed documents which detail a Nuke's construction

What the crap is it? And BTW, Iran has stated their hate towards Israel...are leftists suggesting that's true?

I N S A N E!


TKS is like a little DYNAMO tonight:

...ONE LAST THOUGHT: So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but articles like this one give a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind of firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.

They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.


But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so.


Here the very same A. Bryan Siebert seems to be very in favor of "openess"-

A. Bryan Siebert, director of DOE's Office of Nuclear and National Security Information (formerly the Office of Declassification), began by observing that openness did not mean indiscriminate declassification, as some critics had charged. Rather, openness allowed DOE to be accountable to citizens and to build the public trust needed for DOE to carry out its missions. Siebert then reviewed the history of openness and declassification, beginning with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (which required periodic review of information and release of any information that no longer required classification to protect the national security) and ending with more recent practices that evolved in response to increased concerns about health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons production. Siebert noted that since the spying controversy, the pendulum had swung in the opposite direction, and asserted that the new focus on security measures such as polygraphs was having a chilling effect on lab personnel. As evidence, he observed that unclassified publications by lab scientists had decreased, and many lab employees were fearful about the impact of new security procedures that made it quite difficult to determine what information could be publicly discussed and what could not.

Siebert argued that openness supported important national objectives such as treaty verification, nonproliferation, and scientific research, and encouraged other countries to adopt similar policies. Moreover, he quoted former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Director Michael May, who warned that the open flow of ideas had been fundamental to keeping the United States in the lead in defense technology, compared to other nations that had more heavily emphasized secrecy. He concluded by insisting that openness was not dead, pointing out that declassification continued (although staffing levels had been flat for several years). What had changed, he argued, was the amount being declassified: Congressional requirements to re-review past declassification decisions had dramatically reduced the pace of declassification, and the general climate was not favorable to openness.


From:"Secrecy Versus Openness: Finding a Balance at the Department of Energy." Proceedings of a Workshop held November 29, 1999, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 2000.


Okay. I can't take anymore. I can't twist myself into that many pretzels. It has to hurt. Unless they are all yoga instructors or students. And even then, the aches are evident.



Are you going to put on "protection"?

There's luck and then there's taking the neccessary precautions...


Don't you wish you could get their names and addressess and sell them stuff?
I've started developing the theory that the Townhouse group are a group of clever grifters. Mostly newcomers to politics, they've in a short time found a way to enhance their financial fortunes by telling people what they want to hear and giving them a chance to feel a part of something (without, for the most part, being a part of the financial benefit of the something).
They can get people to donate to virtually anything- a plan, a PAC (that pays for googlebombing!), a book publishing company, books they've written. All the while not disclosing their sources of income or the reasons for the decisions they make (why Lamont?).

The people posting their are true believers. The people making money off from them are the modern Jim and Tammy Fae.


About all I got out of my visit into the fevered swamps of Daily Kos was the NYTs got what they were trying to get with their article. At least from the moonbats that hang there. We'll have to wait and see how the rest of the country sees it.

Night y'all.


You don't have to twist yourself at all. You need only assert something.

Look how easy it is to simply say, "This doesn't mean Iraq had an active nuclear program."
There. Done. You assert, people agree with you, and suddenly it really does mean Iraq didn't have a nuclear program.


Wasn't there a Rolfe Larsson, or some such (spelling of course) that used to be CIA, moved over to in charge of Intel for Department of Energy?

I seem to recall, some commenter proffered this was once Plame's boss.


Alan Foley who was named in the Vanity Fair article as Plame's boss was moved to security for I think Livermore. He has denied that he was her boss or ever heard of her until the story broke.


MayBee, I think you're right.

Why am I wasting my time here?


You are grasping at blades of grass as you slide off the cliff you helped build. Don't worry Ted "Jesus Camp" Haggard still loves you.


--Alan Foley who was named in the Vanity Fair article as Plame's boss was moved to security for I think Livermore. --

Clarice...he denied it...not that I believe his denial...but...

www.aarclibrary.org/publib/ jfk/wc/wcmemos/pdf/104-10011-10097.pdf

and I seem to recall I had a link that he was just named (03?, 04? TO CHIEF DOE INTELL HEAD)

Anyways...there are more than ONE boss in these orgs.


--You are grasping at blades of grass as you slide off the cliff you helped build. Don't worry Ted "Jesus Camp" Haggard still loves you.

Posted by: jack | November 02, 2006 at 10:37 PM--

And so are you, for obviously obsessing so much about what we say ::wink::


Oh fer crissakes. Jack must be Dwight or Lindy or Anonymous or whoever the hell they are sock puppeting for.

Haggard story will fall apart in flames when the lying "moral" prostitute is proven a total liar.

And let's see, Sweeney scandal in NY - lies by Dwight.

And oh yes, the Governor in Nevada - THAT prostitute happens to be lying as well. Or else she does not show up well on videotape.

So the left is relying on gay prostitutes, straight prostitutes, sources close to the case, NYT rehashing national security secrets, and Jon Carry trying to joke about stupidity while stupidly insulting our military that drop a smart bomb on him.




with all those examples...I think that party might not be beyond faking WMD --OR NOT -- if it suited them ;;wink::


I think what bothers the left the most is all those Acorn workers taken off the streets.


Lookit kiddies, it doesn't matter if Iran gets Saddams plans, Iran already has Clinton's plans.


Don't worry Ted "Jesus Camp" Haggard still loves you.

Who's that?

(I honestly don't know.)




Apparently, we are painted with a brush...they on the other hand elect, reward, give money to their coveted bunch.


What many Dems don't understand is that it didn't matter whether Saddam actually had the bomb, so this debate is pointless. What matters is he at least had the beginnings of the bomb, with capable instructions, scientists, rumors of trying to aquire nuclear material and a history of playing cute with the inspectors. If Saddam didn't have all the ingredients in place yet, is there anyone around who doesn't think that he wouldn't had pretty good odds of aquiring them in this nuke-by-numbers age, especially as the sanctions further eroded over the years?

Bush went after him while we still could, not AFTER we knew he had the bomb. In fact it's called STRATEGY. The Dems should try it sometime.



this is just one in many a left cryptic comment:

Of course, this tale , conflicts with Susskind's account in "One Percent
Solution" where Rolfe Mowatt-Larson,
a former Army Ranger COS station in
Moscow & Beijing: most recently DOE's
chief of security, was Plame's boss.
They also ignore the Hansen & DGI
revelations of her status.

Posted by: NARCISO | September 06, 2006 at 09:27 PM

I only took note, because it was a name I'd never seen mentioned...and then an interesting note..the DOE were the chief agency that dealt with aluminum tubes (Hubris...see Hubris)


Well I'm sorry I missed this last night, but it certainly was fun to wake up to.

Now my first response is "boy once again, Karl Rove gets the liberals to do the heavy lifting. But this one takes it to a new level. This reminds me of the classic prank, were you lite a bag of dog shit on the steps of your neighbor, and ring the bell - then you wait behind the "Bush" to watch them step in it.... what fun! And Rove has become so good at it, it now takes them a few days to even catch on. It's like he's psyched them out or something. Now I do love and respect Karl, but when does this become sadistic, and not really fun anymore... I mean I'm happy and everything, but I'm finding a little space in my heart that's saying "this isn't fair". The Democratic leadership, being run by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and our most prolific moron Kerry, is really no match for Rove. I just don't think the Health Care System can cope with all the moonbats after Nov.7th when they fail again. Well I guess they can still go to Canada.

Oh and jack, I'm glad your happy for us... it shows such courage to be the lone troll, and to make such a bold statement like that.

Hopefully before the days out, Kos can tell you what to think and say, and then we can go back to discussing the fact that BUSH DID NOT LIE!

Sara (Squiggler)

Negroponte is in Iraq this morning.



Wouldn't they be screaming about the peoples right to know and how no one had showed them evidence that Iraq was a threat.


Don't these papers show the American public why were are at war with regimes pursuing WMD??

After the NYT keeps saying Saddam was no threat, then proclaims that at any time Saddam could have built a nuclear bomb with help from Korea, Iran, Al Queda, Libya, pakistan, etc. etc.

Maybe not an 'imminent threat' (Edwards, Rockefeller, Kerry), but certainly a 'growing and gathering danger.(Bush, Cheney, Powell)'


So the New York Times position is this:

1). Its OK for us to publish classified but not for the countries elected representatives to decide to provide information to the people on the pre-war threat from Iraq.

2). And forget everything we ever said about Iraq not being a threat, because if we admit that providing this information to hostile regimes causes a threat to the country, well then so does having the information in the hands of a madman like Saddam Hussein.


I reposted a translation of an IIS memo written four days after 9/11 that worried the US would discover Iraq's ties to Osama bin Laden.

Never saw that in the Times.


the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war

That was the whole point of getting the documents released. To counter the leftie spin with information. Looks like it's working.


Haggard story will fall apart in flames when the lying "moral" prostitute is proven a total liar.

But the acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true, but did not specify which ones.

"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station.

Charles Martin

Why am I wasting my time here?

We're cute.

Charles Martin

Now I do love and respect Karl, but when does this become sadistic, and not really fun anymore[?]

Not yet.


Hearing the MSM.

They have absolutely no idea whatsoever what makes evangelicals tick. Quite humorous.

Florence Schmieg

If Iraq had the knowledge to make a bomb in 1991 they had the knowledge to make one in 2003 too.

Gary Maxwell

I thought the WMD talk was all lies? Which is it? He was building a nuke or a benign and much beloved ruler who flew some kites on occasion. Maybe someone like Cleo can explain, cuz I am confused.

Gary Maxwell

I found none other than Glenn Reynolds saying much the same thing as I just did, 5 minutes after I posted. I would think the Democrats better hope the voters are as stupid as John Kerry thinks the troops are, otherwise they are looking stupid, foolish, craven or heck maybe all three.

The quote:

Kind of undercuts that whole "Bush lied about WMD" thing. Reader Eric Anondson emails: "It surely must have been a Rovian plot to somehow get the Times to admit that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program on the verge of an atomic bomb by as early as 2003... and right before an election where the Iraq War is listed as the top election concern among likely voters." (Actually, it was 1991, I believe, but this does underscore why WMD fears were reasonable, especially as Saddam was trying to restart things).<

Gary Maxwell

off off off and off.


Hmmm...Haggard Prostitute fails lie detector......


Haggard admits to some "indescretions" - apparently drug use.....The prostitute is using an alias, Jones is not his real name.
Nuances folks, nuances.


Ray Robison adds in *where* the missing Iraqi nuclear scientists are, I do a look at that.

Iraqi, Syrian, Iranian and ex-Russian scientists working in northeastern Syria.

I think Iran has been *distracting* us from the *real* nuclear program... in Syria.

Wiped for the day, done all I could.

Alan Foley who was named in the Vanity Fair article as Plame's boss was moved to security for I think Livermore. He has denied that he was her boss or ever heard of her until the story broke.
Argonne, actually. It wasn't totally clear to me what his CIA position was, but if he reported directly to the Deputy Director for Operations then security director at Argonne is at best a lateral move.

Looks to me like Val & Joe in VF managed to tarnish his reputation by insinuating that he was some sort of VIPS fellow traveler, and it cost him his job... (Not that I know enough about him to be defending him or anything. After all, given the general level of CIA competence I have to assume that he is incompetent until I have further data. That is pretty much the default assumption for CIA employees, sadly.)


re Haggard (and the other october surprises):

scam operation

whois information indicates this is a political operation designed to suppress the conservative vote.

This is the company that owns the faithandfamilyvalues.org website


Foley denied he was Plame's boss probably because the other Foley was assasinated in Jordan. He was working for USAID or CIA. Foley probably wanted to deny them the satisfaction. So, 'they' may have been saying they know who Plame was by killing Foley in Jordan. Later, it is admitted Plame did go there. Also, Foley was a Peace Corps Volunteer like Plame's husband and there may have been a message there too. There was alot going on with Plame and Peace Corps Volunteers, retired, and, obviously now, CIA. There was also another Peace Corps Volunteer working for Mercy Corps (provisional authority) that was assasinated in Iraq or Afghanistan, first civilian casualty. The Plame reasoning follows here too and the murders were CIA being 'bad agents' and the problems were seen as those targets and the message not too clear considering CIA agents were the problem at the time; unless the assasins wanted to send a message to leave the CIA agents alone: Alot like the 'Vanity Fair' admission by Plame that led to 10 murders of operations officers in Iraq the next day by the Iraqi police. So, being an assassin, it follows a pattern that relates the two murders. The thinking with Foley was that he was going to be followed and killed in a bazarre, meeting and exchanging information in this way is common and it was a surprise it was done when he got to his car.

DOE and nuclear security is old news. The real focus is on WMD: Bio weapons.

willy boy

hello i havnt read any of this. but i know how to build a bomb and i am planning to blow up my school. then after im done ive got heaps of guns and im gonna kill everyone that i hate.

yea im gonna get payback.
sara mcvay is going to die first. im gonna kill that fucking slut!!!
next im going to kill scott rainey then patrick riedacher. and one person i WONT kill is Nathan rocks. :)


u ARE ONE SICK MOTHERFUCKER wth serious issues that need adressing by a psychistrist. u need a kicking u cunt god will get payback on u by hopefully detonating the bomb that u are making while assembling it and blowing you to smithereens.Hope you die of cancer in the head you evil bastard.

Newcastle friends

Take care of it and keep it on the road!
Newcastle friends
[url=http://www.youtube.com/newcastlefriends]Newcastle friends[/url]

World of Warcraft Gold

My friends treat me very well. They know I need World of Warcraft Gold, they give me.

The comments to this entry are closed.