Two Quick Hits On Those Iraqi Nuclear Plans

The Times is partnering with the IAEA to blow up the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress - gee, feels like 2004!

I have more below, but here are two quick hits:

(1) One of the Times' experts is a partisan flip-flopper.  Here is the Times today:

The New York Times had examined dozens of the documents and asked a half dozen nuclear experts to evaluate some of them.

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.”

Here is the same Dr. Zimmerman in a different political environment delivering a Bush Lied oped in the WaPo and belittling the Iraqi nuclear program:

President Bush said that in the early 1990s Iraq "had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb." Not exactly.

Nuclear weapons experts serving as inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called the bomb "design" more of a parts list than a description of a buildable device. The five ways to enrich uranium really boiled down to two -- electromagnetic separation and gas centrifuges, neither working well. Iraq's crude experiments in the 1990s showed that it was a very long way from nuclear success.

(2) The Times is ignoring the fine work of their own James Risen - in the same book which revealed the NSA warrantless surveillance program Mr. Risen reported that Clinton's CIA provided vital nuclear designs to the Iranians in a sting gone sour:

In January 2006, James Risen, a New York Times reporter, alleged in his book State of War that in February 2000, a U.S. covert operation - code-named Operation Merlin - had backfired. It originally aimed to provide Iran with a flawed design for building a nuclear weapon, in order to delay the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Instead, the plan may have accelerated Iran's nuclear programme by providing useful information, once the flaws were identified.

An extensive book excerpt is in The Guardian.

MORE: Everyone who is anyone is at Memeorandum.

POIGNANT PANG OF PARTNERSHIP PAST:  Gregory Djerejian stood tall in 2004 when the Times teamed with the IAEA on the Al Qa Qa story.  Well, with any real candidate we should get him back for 2008.  Or he'll get us back.

 

Comments

[Sue]

Don't tell the moonbats at Kos what you just told us. They couldn't take it. Trust me!

::grin::

[roanoke]

Here is the first couple of lines from Thomas S. Blanton's online biography-

Thomas S. Blanton

Tom Blanton is director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington D.C., winner of the George Polk Award in April 2000 for “piercing self-serving veils of government secrecy,guiding journalists in search for the truth, and informing us all.”

Link

[roanoke]

Looks like he might have been grinding the axe for awhile if he is the same Thomas S. Blanton responsible for this book-

White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Computer Messages the Reagan/Bush White House Tried to Destroy
by Tom Blanton (Editor), Thomas S. Blanton
Cover Image

* Paperback
* ISBN: 1565842766
* Pub. Date: November 1995

[roanoke]

italics off.

[MayBee]

NYT's article:

Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a private group at George Washington University that tracks federal secrecy decisions, said the impetus for the Web site’s creation came from an array of sources — private conservative groups, Congressional Republicans and some figures in the Bush administration — who clung to the belief that close examination of the captured documents would show that Mr. Hussein’s government had clandestinely reconstituted an unconventional arms programs.

“There were hundreds of people who said, ‘There’s got to be gold in them thar hills,’ ” Mr. Blanton said.

---
More from his bio at firstamendmentcenter.org:

Blanton is a founding editorial board member of freedominfo.org, the virtual network of international freedom of information advocates, and the co-chair of OpenTheGovernment.org, among many other professional activities.

Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2006.
---

The republicans that wanted the documents available to the public were clinging to a belief, as opposed to defending the public's right to know.
Hilarious!

[anon]

I hope Tony Snow reads the blogs.

[dvorak]

Tim Russert told me Dick Cheney was wrong about Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

[mike in Houston]

OT: I've been looking at these notes from SOS's second blog, but can't figure out some of it. Please help if you can. Here are the notes:

my notes:

RO-VPN->HRC TLH s.c. beach JK XX XX & XX 2 what a friendly fritzy friendster 2 more 2 HRC2house close friends in high places fired b4? 202 hedge 834 hodge charleston 0275 rent's 843-XXX-XXXX tlanehudson@ 2 providers pwd inXX2fmf pronto 2 drink w/ special friend facebook

[roanoke]

Ray E. Kidder in letter to Bethe evidence in The Progressive case. His opinion here seems to be in conflict with the theme of the NYT article.

On the positive side, there are two advantages of declassifying the radiation implosion principle and the fact that this principle is used in H-bombs. The first is that the illusion of secrecy provides a false sense of security. If it were understood that the only real limitation on the spread of nuclear weapons is the availability of fissile materials, more emphasis would be placed on international control of these materials and nonproliferation would be helped rather than hurt.
Link

[Syl]

Nuclear weapons experts serving as inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called the bomb "design" more of a parts list than a description of a buildable device.

Was the U.N. lying then, or lying now?

[Bob]

OT... but I think we need to have a thread for this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189>The
Acorn Indictments

So, less than a week before the midterm elections, four workers from Acorn, the liberal activist group that has registered millions of voters, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City, Missouri, election board. But hey, who needs voter ID laws?

We wish this were an aberration, but allegations of fraud have tainted Acorn voter drives across the country. Acorn workers have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and investigations are still under way in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsylvania.

The good news for anyone who cares about voter integrity is that the Justice Department finally seems poised to connect these dots instead of dismissing such revelations as the work of a few yahoos. After the federal indictments were handed up in Kansas City this week, the U.S. Attorney's office said in a statement that "This national investigation is very much ongoing."

Maybe some of our trolls can tell us why they think it's the Republicans that are trying to steal elections!

[MayBee]

Mike in Houston- I'm not sure what SOS's second blog is. Where is it?

The hedge hodge stuff are LH's addresses, I believe.

[Patton]

You have to be doing some serious drugs or drinking tons of BDS koolaid to grasp and have the nerve to report that the WMD information in the hands of a hostile regime like Iraq would be a serious danger to the United States if it got into the hands of a hostile regime, ehh,......... like Iraq.

[Davis]

Americans realize that the Iraq WMD threat was as serious as the Administration claimed, even though the White House at times has done an inadequate job of explaining it. Democrats have no clear plan for Iraq. Republican candidates who stand with the President on Iraq will be reelected to majorities in both the Senate and the House. A few Republicans who have been wavering will lose their seats, but not enough to affect control.

[Neo]

We all know that Iraq had no nuclear program and had disposed of all materials related to previous attempts, so how could there be any documents that would help the Iranians ? I mean "Bush Lied" .. didn't he ?

Well, somebody is lying.

Besides, the Clinton Administration, in an obvious example of "smarter" foreign policy, had previous given some nuke plans to the Iranians, with some intentional flaws included. The Iranians had their Russian experts quickly identify and correct these flaws, of course. A true multilateral effort.

Now thanks to the help of the NYT the North Koreans, who flubbed their first attempt, now know that they can read about nuclear triggering devices that were most likely the reasons for their less than spectacular results.

[nittypig]

This "secret" information was known to Iraq in the late 80's. And it was put on the web 15 years later. Is there any chance that
-copies of these documents survived the invasion and did not end up in the hands of the US government?
-some of the individuals who had access to these documents are not in US custody?
-the Iraqi government, after it's program was shut down in the early 90's shared this information with other countries? Like say North Korea, with whom they had a pretty good collaboration on missile technology.

[Patton]

Does anyone seriously believe that if the Iraq liberation had not occurred and Saddam was still in power today; and lets say the Bush adminstration had published Libya's Nuclear bomb building plan ....THAT TODAY THE NYT WOULD BE EDITORIALIZING HOW BIG OF A DANGER IT WAS FOR LIBYA'S PLANS TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF A TYRANT MADMAN LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN WHO IS PURSUING WMD.

[Neo]

Bob:
ACORN has also been under investigation in Berks county PA for similar activities.

The dots seem to be appearing.

[JM Hanes]

Let me get this straight: the NY Times is blasting the Administration for publishing sensitive material?

[Neo]

JMH:
No, the NY Times is blasting the Administration for publishing "non-existent" sensitive material.

[Noe]

But of course, these "non-existent" sensitive materials went throught an extensive declassification procedure. "Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified".

[Pofarmer]

Acorn got busted in St. Louis a few weeks ago. They attributed it to a "disgruntled former employee." There must be a bunch of em.;0)

[JM Hanes]

I'm begining to see through a glass darkly here. Maybe Republicans should take this story and run with it as though the Times had planned an election surprise for the Democrats:

Bush/Cheney Vindicated on Danger Posed by Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Programs! IAEA confirms that in 2003, Saddam was two years closer to operational nukes than Kim Jong Il.

[Pofarmer]

Time for Texas Toast and the other lefties to move the goalposts, or, preferably change fields, maybe even switch games.

[Pofarmer]

Ya know, I've had the argument all along that the administration knows more than we do, and that's proper. Saying they are lying or whatever while not having access to all the information is disingenuous. Seems I was right. I don't expect any apologies, though.

[azredneck]

Bush/Rove duped us again!!! Didn't they??

[nittypig]

Just for fun, another of the quoted experts, Ray Kidder, was the star defense witness in United States vs the Progressive (1977?)- the first time the US ever used prior restraint to prevent publication. This was an article about how to build an H-bomb. The Times, of couse has Kidder saying:
"'some things in these documents would be helpful' to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and should have remained secret."

Kidder testifies that no weapon in the US arsenal worked in the same way as that described in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressive

Wikipedia claims "He is best known for his outspoken views on nuclear weapons policy issues, including nuclear testing, stockpile management, and arms control."

[Cecil Turner]

If it were understood that the only real limitation on the spread of nuclear weapons is the availability of fissile materials, more emphasis would be placed on international control of these materials and nonproliferation would be helped rather than hurt.

Dead on, balls accurate. And impossible for non-state actors (and remaining so for the immediately foreseeable future). In Clancy's Sum of All Fears, he gets around the obvious problem by having terrorists find an accidentally-jettisoned Israeli nuke and reworking the pit. I'm philosophically opposed to publishing the plans, but it really has no effect on the risk.

[Martin]

Before it gets too nutty in here (too late I'm sure) here's a post from REDSTATE back in the day by Smagar, a retired Army intelligence officer, explaining exactly why posting this stuff was stupid and the right wing blogosphere should back off:

http://smagar.redstate.com/story/2006/3/11/121911/616

[Florence Schmieg]

How could Iraq know how to make a nucler bomb in 1991 but not know how to make the same thing in 2003? Just asking.

[Martin]

Ok from the top- states knowing how to build a nuclear bomb is one thing (some states -Pakistan-sell the know-how)-building it another. Saddam wasn't close to building one.

e.g. a hobbyist can get the plans for a 747-good luck on the weekend construction project.

Now thanks to the USA, cheered on by bloggers but opposed by the intelligence chief, no one has to pay Pakistan for plans anymore!

[Cecil Turner]

How could Iraq know how to make a nucler bomb in 1991 but not know how to make the same thing in 2003?

They tell a compelling story: they had learned it earlier, but had forgotten it, and that when the website published, learned it as if it were new.

[Martin]

We invaded Iraq because Saddam KNEW how to build a nuclear bomb?

Whats depths of stupidity are you prepared to plumb?

[boris]

Whats depths of stupidity are you prepared to plumb?

Don't worry, nobody is trying to challange your record.

[Martin]

Those comebacks are funnier when you run spellcheck first. Otherwise-it's like a teacher's strike with bad grammar on the protest signs.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Iraq WAS close to building a nuclear weapon...in 1990. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait destroyed what chance Iraq did have for building their own nuclear device. Upon the semi conclusion of the first gulf war, the UNSC sanctions made it almost impossible for Iraq to acquire a nuclear device. They were still trying to build one during the sanctions era, but they were severly hampered by the inspectors. They continued to work on a bomb, but the inspections made the process incredibly slow. Starting, stopping, starting, stopping, hiding, moving, startig, stopping; this is basically what the Iraq nuke program was like after the inspections regime was created.

If the Internet was as big in the 80s as it is today Iraq would already have a nuke. They were a couple years away from having one in 1990, but with today's Internet they would have breezed around many of the obstacles that slowed them during the 80s.

Read Mahdi Obeidi's "The Bomb in my Garden". It's by far the best book on Iraq's nuclear program. Obeidi is the godfather of the Iraq Atomic Energy Project.

[SaveFarris]

We invaded Iraq because Saddam KNEW how to build a nuclear bomb?

We also KNEW, thanks to Joe Wilson's report to the CIA, that Iraq was shopping around looking to buy yellowcake.

Yellowcake + instructions = Bye Bye Speaker Pelosi.

[Sue]

We invaded Iraq because Saddam KNEW how to build a nuclear bomb?

Why is it threat for Iran or other rogue nations to have the knowledge but Iraq having the same knowledge was not a threat?

I understand why we wouldn't want the information on the internet. I get that. What I don't get it is if this stuff is so freaking dangerous, why was it not also dangerous for Saddam to have it?

[boris]

Otherwise ..

Actually it adds to the point. If the comment were formatted like this ... even better.

[Sue]

Those comebacks are funnier when you run spellcheck first. Otherwise-it's like a teacher's strike with bad grammar on the protest signs.

OMG! Another one!

[Martin]

Ok Savefarris-this information was so dangerous we had to invade Iraq but the fact that Bush posted it on the internet (in Arabic!) is no big deal?

[Sue]

Martin,

I think that is my point. You are trying to have it one way and one way only. I think it goes both ways.

[Martin]

Sue-that's why we had weapon inspectors in Iraq and a no fly zone etc. We were actually doing a damn good job of keeping him from weaponizing.

No we have destabilized the entire country, strengthened the terrorists, and handed out instructions in Arabic!

If Bush was a double agent actively trying to harm U.S. interests, I don't see what else he could do.

[Tara]

This is interesting. Ray Robinson has been analyzing the documents for Fox News and he says his inquiry to the IAEA about one of the documents may have triggered the Times article.

http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/11/nyt_article_on_.html

[Sue]

Sue-that's why we had weapon inspectors in Iraq and a no fly zone etc. We were actually doing a damn good job of keeping him from weaponizing.

For how much longer? The sanctions were falling apart. I don't want to rehash why we went to war with you, we obviously disagree on that point. What I don't understand, and you still haven't explained, is why Saddam having those same documents in his possession were not as much of a risk to the US and the world as Iran having them? Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear technology.

[arrowhead]

Bravo Boris!

[clarice]

Martin, Saddam was shooting at those planes; the UN sanctions program (thanks in large part to substantial OFF bribes and offers of lucrative petro concessions) was on a six month deathwatch and was about to be killed.

**

[quote]
The big "scoop" on today's front page will be deconstructed at length. Our own professor Geraghty has already done a fine job, and Ed Morrissey has added some further thought and analysis. The bottom line is that the Times has apparently embraced the position taken by Senators Santorum and Roberts, and Representative Hoekstra: that much valuable information was contained in captured Iraqi documents, and that the Intelligence Community was far too slow in translating and evaluating the documents, and that it would be a Very Good Thing to start posting the documents online so that they could be evaluated. Santorum and Hoekstra were up against determined resistance from DNI Negroponte and his people, and many in the White House were, let us say, very slow to respond. The president always said he supported the move, but somehow it never got done. After drafting legislation that would have compel led the executive branch to start declassifying and posting the documents, Santorum, Roberts and Hoekstra finally got the process going earlier this year.

I will discuss the whole thing with Angleton over the weekend, if the ouija board works, but this story is probably a leak from intelligence people trying to embarrass the Senators and the Congressman, protect the Intel Community's "right" to classify and declassify at its own will and on its own schedule. and make the president out to be an idiot (surprise!). But, just like Senator Kerry, it is the leakers (and, insofar as the Times shares their objectives, the Times itself) who have exposed their own consumate stupidity. For the story asserts that a) Iraq was on the verge of mastering nuclear weapons technology and b) that Iran is trying to build atomic bombs. Or, "Bush didn't lie."

And in case you were wondering, Santorum, Roberts and Hoekstra always insisted that nothing that could possibly compromise national security should be posted.

Furthermore--and here you have only to look at Ed Morrissey's excellent blog--by implication the Times has given enhanced credibility to the many other explosive contents of the Iraq documents, heretofore ignored by William Broad and other Times sleuths. Those include the close working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaida[/quote]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/print/

[Martin]

"Santorum, Roberts and Hoekstra always insisted that nothing that could possibly compromise national security should be posted"

And until they were all translated-how could this "possibility" be negated?

Except the point was to get the whole blogosphere a'crackin' on the translation and not wait for the stodgy agency, right?

[clarice]

It was one of the chief translators who caught what the agencies had overlooked in the documents (jveritas) that brought it to the agency's attention--unlike the NYT they had no interest in compromising national security.

There was no reason to keep this stuff (but for this one doc) under cover except to add to the Bush lied meme and at this point in time any reasonable person has to concede that the nomenklatura poses at least as great a danger to our security as the terrorists. (See Risen's story, for example.)

[Sue]

Except the point was to get the whole blogosphere a'crackin' on the translation and not wait for the stodgy agency, right?

Why was that necessary? Why the rush? Could it have been because people like you were saying Bush lied? Tell me again which meme you prefer? Bush lied? Or do you prefer the one where Bush told the truth about the threat posed by Saddam and screwed up by allowing Saddam's nuclear weapons documents to be posted on the internet? You want both and it isn't going to work that way.

[boris]

compromise national security

National security has not been compromised by this. Keeping Saddam's technology secret from Saddam is clearly not feasible. Knowing that the threat from Saddam was imminent and serious helps public awareness of the stakes.

Any help to Iran is pure speculation and extremely remote.

[roaoke]

martin-

Go read the NYT article-the stuff they are bitching about was in English-which since we are saying that the NYT is reporting this-hell-maybe you are right-they were in Arabic.

You know the NYT asks "half a dozen" nuclear experts for their opinion- and get exactly these two responses that are suppose to "Stop the Presses"-and "lead the news cycles" with four days left before an election-old habits die hard.

Anyhoo here are the "exactly two quotes they got-I guess the other four nuclear experts told them something they didn't want to hear,erh "report".

The New York Times had examined dozens of the documents and asked a half dozen nuclear experts to evaluate some of them.

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.

Peter Zimmerman the guy Tom skewers if you have bothered to read the post you are waxing logical on and Kidder who has been dealt with in the comments prior to your non-engaged ones.

Yes Martin- Saddam who wanted to be Tyrant of the Terrorist Tri-State area with nuclear capabilities was nothing to worry about.

And the US never removed half a ton of radioactive materials from Iraq.

It was all so innocent just like we are suppose to believe that Iran with more oil than just about anyone "needs" nuclear power plants.

Because you know nuclear power plants would be a cheaper way for them to meet their energy needs.

[clarice]

Yes, Boris..From jveritas the translator of most of these and the one who brought this to the govt's attention:
"The New York Times article to be published on November 3rd 2006 is about the US putting some captured Iraqi documents on the Foreign Military Intelligence Office (FMSO) website that talks about what the NYT and the IAEA call sensitive information from Iraq 1996 "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration FFCD presented to the UN and IAEA in 1996 and that talks about Iraq nuclear clandestine program. The IAEA and the New York Times claim that Iran may be using some of the technology in this FFCD which is a laughable idea as shown below.

That is from the IAEA website regardinf their report on Iraq FFCD presented to them by the Iraqis in 1996: “ 3. On 7 September 1996 in Baghdad Iraq delivered what it considered to be the definitive version of the "Full, Final, and Complete Declaration" (FFCD-F) of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear programme. The IAEA with the assistance of technical experts from Member States undertook a comprehensive review of the document.” Link: http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC41/Documents/gc41-20.html

So the FFCD was discussed with member states experts of the IAEA. There are 142 members in the IAEA including Iran. I am not saying that the IAEA discussed the Iraqi FFCD with Iranians but the FFCD was not such a secret document and the Iranians would have been able to access it in one way or another if it really provide them with any useful information.

What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

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 Degussa Vacuum furnaces were supplied to Iraq in the 1980’s by a German firm (Degussa AG based in Frankfurt Germany) and these furnaces later on became the subject of investigations of the German firm in the early 1990’s where the company claimed that they did not know that Iraq would have used them in its nuclear program.

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(link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders/214/other/news/iraqi_defector.html ). 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????

Link to the translated document on FR: 2001 Iraqi Document: Saddam Approved the Re-Use of Nuclear Equipment http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725141/posts

Moreover, there are documents dated 1999-2001 that talk about Saddam regime projects to re-build some of the nuclear program facilities like RWTS (Radioactive Waste Treatment Station) and Radio-Chemistry laboratories which were part of Iraq previous clandestine nuclear program. Link to the translated document on FR: Iraqi Documents: Projects to Rebuild Saddam Nuclear Facilities http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718125/posts .

Also this one

Iraqi Documents Show Plans for Prohibited Nuclear Projects http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709390/posts"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1731259/posts?page=409

[topsecretk9]

--Time for Texas Toast and the other lefties to move the goalposts, or, preferably change fields, maybe even switch games.

Posted by: Pofarmer | November 03, 2006 at 06:21 AM---

OH boy, Martins moving them...know siting a redstate post.

Seriously, go ahead and validate these documents - Saddams ties to OBL and Al Queda - by handwring their release.

Fine by me.

[topsecretk9]

What is important in this whole issue is that the New York Times has ridiculed these documents all along and never payed attention to them including the very important documents that show Saddam regime never stopped its programs related to WMD including nuclear programs. These documents were translated and posted here on FR.

And the left at large.

[roanoke]

Oh Martin -the No Fly Zone-

The UN, the Euros , the Liberals were having a conniption about how cruel that was.

There was pressure from all your "friends" to end that.

And sure sanctions were "working" Saddam wasn't scamming the hell out of everybody and buying votes from the Russians, the French and the Germans with the "Oil for Food" benign benovelance program.

Martin-do you know what countries sit on the UN Security CounciL? Notice anything?

[Martin]

Look I 'm not abiding the normal idiocy found here.

Linked above is a post by Smagar -army intelligence officer- on Redstate (Redstate!)-explaining before this document dump was done why it was so stupid.

The government just pulled down the whole website! Who knows what the hell else was in there? Except Al Qaeda.

Smagar has been completely vindicated. You ought to be thanking him instead of (by extension) calling him a fool.

[clarice]

You'll pardon me if I find the NYT's stated concern for keeping such secrets from public exposure, utterly risible.

And from laughing outloud at this "botched joke" of a story.

[roanoke]

Martin-

Look I 'm not abiding the normal idiocy found here.

I guess it would be illogical for me to "hope" this means that you are leaving.

Liberals do have trouble keeping their promises....

Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how: I apologize to no one.

[roanoke]

Martin also given your "idiocy" comment I feel liberated to be mean-

Iran wants to build a nuclear power plant-why don't you go chain yourself to something?

[Sue]

Martin,

Look I 'm not abiding the normal idiocy found here.

Where have we heard that tone before? Oh yeah. Senator Lurch.

Who knows what the hell else was in there?

You are starting to sound hysterical. Are you that concerned about what the hell else is in there? Afraid it will further destroy your Bush lied meme?

[roanoke]

Sue-

I think you might have "aquired" Martin from your foray last night in the Democratic Underground. Gad woman you are brave!

[TexasToast]

Why land sakes, I've been called out! (blush)

Questions:

How does the fact that there was a recipe for a nuke in this document trove verify or authenticate the validity of any other documents?

How does pointing out what exists in a government maintained website constitute a "dirty trick"?

[clarice]

Odd isn't it? Only a small handful of us were paying attention to what these documents said until the NYT Kerryed itself today.

[Sue]

I wore protection. I refuse to take responsibility for the strays that might have followed me back here. ::grin::

On a slightly different note, unless this story picks up legs, I don't think either side thinks it is a winner. The left and the right seem to be avoiding it.

[topsecretk9]

Sue

It really is hilarious how suddenly all these lefty blogger (see memorandum) care about these documents - and by proxy are admitting Saddam's NUC threat and ties to OBL. - that which they mocked as worthless for so long, took no interest in and I do believe never once worried about the national security risk. ALSO...the intel people that the left has aligned with and considers to be the end all apparently didn't even scan this doc and an independent does a better job than our intel. apparatus - no shock there- they've gotten virtually everything wrong.

There is one blog you'll really LOL at - on a field trip! ::wink::

[Sue]

Clarice,

And only a small handful will continue to pay attention. They are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in gotcha games and proving Bush lied. If that wasn't apparent before, it clearly is now.

[Sue]

Top,

I don't know if I can stomach going there. Not before lunch, anyway. And after lunch, I might be afraid I'd lose my lunch. ::grin::

[PeterUK]

"Bush posted it on the internet (in Arabic!)"

Bush is a blogger? And he can write Arabic,thems edgewkations wasn't wasted after all.

[Martin]

Well-when the Repubs lose Congress in a few days, it won't be hard to figure out why.

Admittedly though, most here won't grasp it.

[roanoke]

The NYT set it up as this great piece of journalsim-then only reporedt what 2 out of 6 experts opined. The quotes are not all that newsworthy.

I laughed outloud at Victor Davis Hanson's take on Kerry trying to establish leadership of the Fight Club Democrats and finding that not to many of the Old Guard wanted to follow-

As for Kerry — how quick the 24-hour metamorphosis from smugness to defiance to purported contriteness! At his earlier blame-the-wing-nuts-and-Rush-Limbaugh press conference, he thought he was a strutting, strong-jawed Napoleonic general leading his troops to rout the evil Bush-Cheney Prussians, and then, alone, suddenly turned around — and Mein Gott in Himmel!! — his Old Guard was heading for the hills.

This kind of reminds me of that-as clarice notes-the NYT might have just rendered itself-"Kerryed". Only MSNBC might accept the NYT's marching orders and lead all of their news cycles this weekend with the story-but then again they could get distracted by male prostitutes.

[roanoke]

Martin you're back!

Thanks for proving my hypothesis.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

They tell a compelling story: they had learned it earlier, but had forgotten it, and that when the website published, learned it as if it were new.

You mean "as if for the very first time" -- what do you know about that!

[topsecretk9]

Rush was pretty funny about this in his opening, and did a mock of Joe Wilson.

[JM Hanes]

TexasToast:

"How does pointing out what exists in a government maintained website constitute a 'dirty trick'?"

I'd call it a botched dirty trick, myself.

[clarice]

martin, it must be tough for geniuses like you and Kerry to be so misunderstood and your talents so underappreciated.

[roanoke]

Martin -

Fromthe NYT article-

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.

Link

Try reading the article.

[Cecil Turner]

On a slightly different note, unless this story picks up legs, I don't think either side thinks it is a winner. The left and the right seem to be avoiding it.

Substantively it's a winner for the right (no real impact on security, highlights Saddam's intentions and reinforces that bit of the Duelfer report that nobody ever reads). But it'll play better to the left, because almost nobody understands technical proliferation issues, so it depends on how it's presented. The MSM's megaphone is bigger, and leans left, so they win.

[Sue]

Admittedly though, most here won't grasp it.

If they lose, I'm pretty sure we'll grasp it. But I'm not sure why your side hasn't grasped they lost the last 3 elections to a man dumber than a stump. ::grin::

[clarice]

Boris, scroll thru this--your name is in the bright lights.
http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6518

[Sue]

that nobody ever reads

Or wants to hear about either.

[owl]

OT but thought I would start here because I volunteered as a Drudge Lil Helper on his hunt for Pelosi.

Starting my blog search for ANY of the current Dem leadership. Anyone see Nancy or Reid? Murtha, are you in here? How about the Durbin Turbin or even Jon's buddy Ted?

Come out....come out...wherever you are.

[Davis]

Iraq's WMD programs are in the past. Iran's are in the present. So who do we trust to deal with that problem? Not the permission-seeking Democrats, who won't take action until the UN says OK. Pres. Bush was right about Iraq, and he will do the right thing in Iran.

[clarice]

"Let’s just posit for the sake of argument that the Times’ huge exposé is news-breaking of the first order and is no way, shape or form a maladroit effort at electioneering. Let’s assume that the Times really does think that this information being posted on the web made the world a vastly more dangerous place.

If that’s the case, why did the Times wait until just last night to confront the government with this information even though the Times dates the concerns of experts to “recent weeks”? One would think the Times’ heartfelt patriotism would have compelled the paper to bring its concerns to the government immediately rather than hold off until four days before an election.

Giggle. Read the Times’ story closely and you’ll hear yet another death rattle from the lumbering carcass of the mainstream media"

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/45fb124c-b1ea-453d-b619-bfb61ee6a059

[Martin]

Why did the government wait to pull the website down Clarice?

Roanoke-you're right-apparently it was the nerve gas documents that were in Arabic, i.e. the ones easier for terrorists to produce:

"Government officials say all the documents in Arabic have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists.

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

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.

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."

[Sue]

Anyone remember the Al Qaqaa story the Times dropped right before the election in 04?

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/11/new-york-times-unleashes-al-qaqaa-ii.html>directorblue

In fact, the story was truly so unimportant that, after November 1st, 2004, the Times didn't bother to run a single article concerning Al-Qaqaa.

[JM Hanes]

Martin:

"Why did the government wait to pull the website down Clarice?"

Because Negroponte finally found an excuse for doing so?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Sue: You see, the United States was privately opposing another term for Mohammed al-Baradei. Therefore, he had every right to try and influence the election of the US President.

We're all just overreacting. The NY Times is just an intelligence drop site.

[Martin]

Oh this was an "excuse"?

[Martin]

Can you peole be honest with yourself for a second (it's hard-but it's just a second).

If there'd never been a website an someone had leaked these documents to the NYT which them published them-wouldn't you be screaming bloody treason?

[Sue]

Martin doesn't seem to get that the NYTs is telling us that Saddam was 12 months away from having a nuclear weapon. Whether that referred to the 90s or 02 is not the point. He still had the technology available to restart the program the minute we left. And we were leaving. The sanctions were falling apart. John McCain had a great article, at the beginning of the war, on just how close we were to losing all support for continued sanctions against Saddam.

[clarice]

Let's call this Al Caca II

[Martin]

Really Sue? The Isrealis bombed his reactor. Where did he rebuild it?

[anonymous]

If there'd never been a website an someone had leaked these documents to the NYT which them published them-wouldn't you be screaming bloody treason?

Martin, for you and the rest of the Kos-dwelling morons visiting this blog, a quick review:

* Duly elected and appointed government officials declassifying or publishing intelligence materials that they've been authorized to declassify or publish: ACCEPTABLE.
* The editorial board at the New York Times deciding they want to publish classified intelligence information: NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[Martin]

Dear anonymous idiot:

How about: Duly elected Republicans, at the insistence of right wing blogs, forcing appointed government officials to publishing unreviewed intelligence materials over their objections and providing valuable information to people who want to kill us.

Acceptable or unacceptable?

[clarice]

How about duly elected Republicans and bloggers demanding the righ to see what non-secret classified docs were found, docs which overwhelmingly justified and support the President's determination to invade, which the intel agencies did not want reviewed because they showed the Administration was right and because they demonstrated how lame the Langley operation was?

Has the public the right to know non secret information which CYA apparatchniki want to keep secret?

[Martin]

Libby thinks so!

[Martin]

Clarice-why did Bush give Tenet a medal of honor?

[clarice]

Was Libby charged with leaking classified info by anyone except David Corn and his lying lefty friends? If so, I missed it.

Why did Bush give Tenet a medal of honor? Beats me.

[Martin]

Oh come on-you don't even have the slightest guess?