1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Iraq Nuke Secrets out on the Web!

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Phi83, Nov 3, 2006.

  1. Phi83

    Phi83 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Link
    November 3, 2006
    U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer
    By WILLIAM J. BROAD

    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 had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

    But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

    Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

    Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

    The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

    “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.”

    The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the Web site. 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.

    The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who said that the nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the March 2003 invasion. With the public increasingly skeptical about the rationale and conduct of the war, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the documents — most of them in Arabic — would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr. Hussein had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the invasion. American search teams never found such evidence.

    The director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, had resisted setting up the Web site, which some intelligence officials felt implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of government analysts. But President Bush approved the site’s creation after Congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the documents’ release.

    In his statement last night, Mr. Negroponte’s spokesman, Chad Kolton, said, “While strict criteria had already been established to govern posted documents, the material currently on the Web site, as well as the procedures used to post new documents, will be carefully reviewed before the site becomes available again.”

    A spokesman for the National Security Council, Gordon D. Johndroe, said, “We’re confident the D.N.I. is taking the appropriate steps to maintain the balance between public information and national security.”

    The Web site, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal,” was a constantly expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents included everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from Mr. Hussein’s intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a legion of bloggers, translators and amateur historians.

    Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

    European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.

    The deletions, the diplomats said, had been done in consultation with the United States and other nuclear-weapons nations. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which ran the nuclear part of the inspections, told the Security Council in late 2002 that the deletions were “consistent with the principle that proliferation-sensitive information should not be released.”

    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.”

    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.

    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.”

    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.

    The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. Last November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts of Kansas, wrote to Mr. Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material. The sheer volume of the documents, they argued, had overwhelmed the intelligence community.

    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.

    On March 16, after the documents’ release was approved, Mr. Negroponte’s office issued a terse public announcement including a disclaimer that remained on the Web site: “The U.S. government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available.”

    On April 18, about a month after the first documents were made public, Mr. Hoekstra issued a news release acknowledging “minimal risks,” but saying the site “will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam’s links to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi people.” He added: “It will allow us to leverage the Internet to enable a mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites.”

    Yesterday, before the site was shut down, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, said the government had “developed a sound process to review the documents to ensure sensitive or dangerous information is not posted.” Later, he said the complaints about the site “didn’t sound like a big deal,” adding, “We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug.”

    The precise review process that led to the posting of the nuclear and chemical-weapons documents is unclear. But in testimony before Congress last spring, a senior official from Mr. Negroponte’s office, Daniel Butler, described a “triage” system used to sort out material that should remain classified. Even so, he said, the policy was to “be biased towards release if at all possible.” 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.

    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.

    In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.

    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.

    On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, “Summary of technical achievements of Iraq’s former nuclear program.” It runs to 51 pages, 18 focusing on the development of Iraq’s bomb design. Topics included physical theory, the atomic core and high-explosive experiments. By early October, diplomats and officials said, United Nations arms inspectors in New York and their counterparts in Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do.

    Last week in Vienna, Olli J. Heinonen, head of safeguards at the international atomic agency, expressed concern about the documents to the American ambassador, Gregory L. Schulte, diplomats said.

    Calls to Mr. Schulte’s spokesman yesterday were not returned.

    Scott Shane contributed reporting.
     
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    466
    Sweet!

    So republicans scream to have the documents released on another witchhunt for WMDs and to prove anti war critics wrong and end up possiblly giving terrorists the technical know how to build the bomb.

    heck of a job!
     
  3. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,629
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    Iraq was building a nuke? kinda undercuts the whole Bush lied about WMD line of arguement.
     
  4. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    466
    No, not really

    And if I remember correctly you one of the brave few calling for and touting the release of the documents. How does it feel to be aiding terrorists basso?
     
  5. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,629
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    [rquoter]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.[/rquoter]

    so a doc was posted that shows in 2002 iraq was a year away from a bomb? wow, just wow! and the times buries the lede!
     
  6. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,629
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    excuse me mark, are you suggesting that the documents were so dangerous that they could have helped iran build a bomb, but yet posed no threat when in the hands of Saddam? you can't have it both ways. this is exactly what those of us whosupported the war were saying, that the nexus of iraqi wmd and terroist support was too great a risk. all your arguements about lack of wmd, prewar intelligence, etc, have just blown up in your face.

    you and all yours have just been pwnd by the NY Times. game. set. match.
     
  7. lpbman

    lpbman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,867
    Likes Received:
    252

    MM k... So you're saying Saddam was dangerous because he could build a bomb... fine but you don't get to have it both ways either.
    How the F@#$ does this make us safer again? Isn't Iran processing nuclear materials as we speak, and we've got freakin instructions for nuclear trigger devices posted online...? Where is all that Iraqi Uranium?

    Good grief...
     
  8. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,629
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    you mean yellowcake? no, no, iraq would never try to buy yellowcake...
     
  9. lpbman

    lpbman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,867
    Likes Received:
    252
    No I mean if they had bomb making material where is it? Like, did they sneak it over to Syria or Iran... Because if the point of invading Iraq was to protect U.S. interests from a WMD attack, and we failed to secure nuclear material, that's a screw up that we need to address by way of finding the damn nuclear material.

    And again, watching Iran process nuclear material openly while we post bomb making secrets and whine to the U.N. is inexcusable.
     
  10. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,769
    Likes Received:
    10,381
    It is true that they wouldn't try and buy it in Niger as we have found out, thanks to Joseph Wilson.
     
  11. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    50,364
    Likes Received:
    23,242
    I don't know what game you think you're playing, basso, but I've seen no evidence of Saddam being close to building a bomb just before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and I do see yet another in a long list of incredible blunders by the Bush Administration. Here they are, responsible for publishing this most secret of sensitive information, how to build an atomic weapon... putting it out for publication on the internet, and for some bizarre reason, you're babbling that this represents some "victory" for Bush, and some sort of "defeat" for Democrats.

    Has it gotten that bad, basso? Apparently so.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  12. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    591
    And yet, for some reason, the Bush administration chose to use fake centrifuge claims and false uranium documents as justification of nuclear capability.

    Something does not make sense. Who are these "experts"?
     
  13. Colt45

    Colt45 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2000
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    734
    Telling that basso completely brushes aside the fact that by releasing these documents, the neocons have just given Iran and other terrorists the tools they need to kill Americans. VERY telling.

    From the article posted:

    "In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.

    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."

    Documents 7 and 8 years old pertaining to research which "occurred years earlier".

    Of course, the inspectors found no evidence of a WMD program and his contention that these documents would be equally dangerous in the hands of Saddam is laughable. Containment was working...until he and the man he worships destabilized the entire region with a failed war that he and the neocons desperately hope will continue forever.

    basso and the neocons...actively aiding terrorists in their quest to kill Americans.
     
  14. real_egal

    real_egal Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,378
    Likes Received:
    193
    Is this part of the "October Surprise"? If yes, the guy came up with this brilliant idea needs to be fired, because it simply looks too desperate. This election looks more and more like the ones in Taiwan. It would be normal for somewhere to taste democracy and figure out all the rules, not for a country with long history of free elections.
     
  15. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,629
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    Let me restate it for those of you stuck on iraq: 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.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    466
    Where are the bombs basso?

    [​IMG]
     
  17. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,045
    Likes Received:
    455
    You are misreading the passage. The documents were reports by Iraq to the UN. If you look in the next paragraph: "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" - so this was nothing new.

    The last sentence is separate and says that "experts say".

    Your reading would not make sense because it would basically mean that Iraq, which had been saying they had no active weapons program, wrote reports to the UN saying they were close to nukes. That would be silly.
     
  18. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    50,364
    Likes Received:
    23,242
    No, the Bush Administration has been stuck on Iraq. They blew it invading and occupying the country in the first place, ignoring their own generals' recommendations about troop levels needed to do it. Then they ignored the deal by the transition team to bring the Iraqi army and its weapons back to their barracks, for the astronomical sum of $25 bucks per man, proclaimed said army "didn't exist," and had their man Bremer tell the transition team, and their negotiations for the deal with the Iraqi army, to bugger off... something you've chosen to ignore. They continually kept far too few troops in Iraq, as they were keeping far to few troops in Afghanistan, and we've seen the result. Chaos and death in both countries.

    And you're still babbling about Saddam and WMDs?? It is you existing in a dream world, basso, but I won't presume to tell you which positions you can and cannot hold. Go for it. When you wake up from your self-delusion, let me know.



    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  19. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    466
    What was that about game, set and match?
     
  20. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    42,769
    Likes Received:
    10,381
    basso, please read the sections pointed out by Colt 45 and Rimbaud. The documents come from Iraq and are from the program prior to 1995. They are not talking about bombs being built at the time of the invasion.

    We all knew that they had earlier had a nuke program underway. It is another swing and a miss. Strike 11.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now