you're right, it would be silly if it happened. if you read the whole article, you'll see that the docs presented to the UN were redacted!. the articles posted on the times website are the complete, uncensored docs. and the experts who are authenticating the docs, are the same ones saying they're dangerous. Game on? Game Over!
Yes, the docs from 1995 and 1996 pertaining to research which "occurred years earlier" were redacted so that terrorists couldn't get hold of them, build nukes and kill Americans. Again, the inspectors found NO evidence of a nuclear weapons program. basso and the neocons...stuck on stupid and aiding the terrorists in their quest to kill Americans.
Indeed, but not with the result you had intended when posting this information to begin with. I'm not sure how you are still arguing that they were within a year of a nuke in 2002. As has been pointed out the only evidence of a nuke program comes from almost a decade earlier.
now that it has been established beyond dispute that iraq had dangerous nuclear weapons programs as late as 2002, and was just a year away from having a nuclear bomb, lets' see what else the authentication of these docs establish: Palestinian Jihad has been a part of the iraqi "insurgencey" since the beginning of the war (ED: i thought Saddam was secular? how coul dhe make common cause w/ holy warriors?) Osama and members of the Taliban had been in iraq and four days after 9/11 the iraqis were concerned US intel would discover it. in 2001 the IIS (Iraqi Intel Service) instructed it's agents to test mass grave sites 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. (ED: but CNN wants us to win!) Saddam's contacts with Osama in 1994-97 efforts to make ricin in 2002, which UNMOVIC was aware of, but never reported. continued development of chemical and biological weapons delivery mechanisms in 2002. so we have clear evidence of Saddam's ties to terroists, including Osama and the Taliban, and continued work on chem and bio weapons as late as 2002, AND they were a year away from developing a Nuke. simply incredible that the democratic kossacks just want to try and sweep this under the rug, while at the same time pretending iran, who is doing exactly the same thing, poses no threat.
So the US is evil? (from the article): "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."
EPIC meltdown! basso and his neocon cronies have been caught aiding terrorists and he's blown a gasket! basso and the neocons...stuck on stupid and aiding terrorists in their quest to kill Americans.
actually these only establish beyond dispute that Iraq had a dangerous nuke program back in the early 90's. This in no way shows that they had a program in 2002.
You should re-read what you quoted. There was no document that showed Iraq was a year way from the bomb. That's what experts thought - completely unrelated to what was found on the site. Nice try, though. It must difficult to keep grasping at something that doesn't exist.
no, the UN just couldn't be trusted. hardly surprising in light of the subsequent revelations of the Oil for Food scandal.
I missed this earlier but it seems you are mixing things up again...whic seems to be a result of the article being a bit nonspecific. For example, the article leads with this (where you got experts saying dangerous): So that is very old stuff (as far as origin, not in when we found out) and it is uncertain how they were attained. Then the article states that "among the English papers" are the ones submitted by Iraq to the UN (including 2002) before the recent war that the US and other nuke nations edited before showing. I don't see why in 2002 Iraq would give the UN papers about stuff they were doing in the 80's so I would assume the contents differ from the "how to" dangerous ones.
Well now you are confusing me. You said "redacted!" as if it was a bad thing that stemmed from Iraq's side. Now you are brushing it aside as expected (which it should have been). So why did you bring it up? My point still stands that you were confused as to the reports submitted in 2002. They (the papers written by Iraq officials for the UN) did not say Iraq was a year away.
Alternative NYTImes headline for tomorrow: 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.
not sure why the age of some of the docs is relevant. are you saying the iraqis knew how to build a weapon in 1991, but had somehow forgotten by 2003?
No, I'm saying that you highlighted "2002" and "nukes in one year". When that was pointed out as faulty you said "redacted!" When that was pointed out as a non-issue you are now saying they have been a year away for 20 years (the document was about programs before '91). Anyway, all I was originally pointing out was that the 2002 documents did not say Iraq was a year away from nukes as you first and have since said. You are all over the place, though, so now this is silly.
Basso is losing it the "experts" that the author is referring to are GW & Cheney's hacks. these are the same experts that helped the neocon cabal create the lie which got us into this mess.. the author had to mention it to show that even there were iraqi reports which proves that saddam had abandoned his WMD aspirations, "experts" were insisting Iraq was one year away which was a clearly a lie