Since it is the year 2006 and we are talking about these documents, they show that Iraq has an active WMD program in 2006 and is a year away and will have a bomb in 2007. Chilling.
i appreciate you continued attempts at obfuscation, but the core issue remains the same. if these docs are a danger now, one that could help a country such as iran build a bomb, imagine what their authors could have done w/ them in 2002, when many of them were written. if you accept the times' story, then you cannot also say bush lied about WMD. and if these docs are accepted as authentic, then so must the others that show saddam's connections to Osama and al queda. i repeat, you cannot have it both ways.
The same thing that they did with them in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998: NOTHING. they had no materials, no money, and no program.
basso this might clear up your confusion... Confusion over Times paragraph One paragraph in the Times article has caused some confusion online. "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," Broad wrote. "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." Many conservative bloggers are claiming "at the time" refers to 2002, instead of the early 1990s. "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," Captain Ed argues at Captain's Quarters. Jim Geraghty at National Review wrote that he was "blown away" by the paragraph. Geraghty wondered, "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," Geraghty wrote. But, as Joby Warrick reported for The Washington Post in January of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "spent seven years in the 1990s documenting and ultimately destroying all known vestiges of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, including its gas centrifuges." So far, the paper hasn't issued any correction for its awkwardly worded paragraph. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Counselor_to_President_uses_NYT_story_1103.html
Maybe you can get one of your neocon heroes to help you with the big words. The documents are from the '90's and refer to research which "occurred years earlier". As anybody willing to use their head and not blindly follow the neocons knows, inspectors found no evidence of a WMD program. Not even a reconstituted program...hey, wait a second! If the Iraqi nuclear program was ongoing as you mistakenly believe, why were your neocon heroes constantly referring to it as "reconstituted"? Oh, that's right, containment was working until Bush completely destabilized the region with his beloved war (another 56 tortured bodies found today, how proud you must be!) So, you believe it was absolutely imperative that nearly 3,000 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis die due to your beloved war because Saddam had these dangerous documents even though he had neither the infrastructure nor the financing to make use of them. Yet, you actively pushed to make these same documents to available to Iran and other terrrorists who have botht the infrastructure and the financing to make use of them in order to kill Americans. Poor, poor basso...stuck on stupid and aiding the terrorists in their quest to kill Americans.
Hoekstra responds to the times: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006267.htm [rquoter] "Yesterday's article by the New York Times highlights a number of important issues with respect to Iraq's WMD programs, as well as the importance of the documents that have been recovered in Iraq," said U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "I am pleased that the document release program continues to stimulate public discussion of these issues. "With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain. "That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press. "These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents. "Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqis obtained these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime. "Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."[/rquoter]
Wow, now Hoekstra's stuck on stupid as well. Wasn't he the one desperately trying to cost a good man his job by desperately hoping to pin the release of the NIE report on him a few weeks back? Now, he's handing over nuclear secrets to terrorists. basso, will you and your neocon buddies stoop to ANY level in order to aid the terrrorists in their quest to kill Americans? Speaking of the NIE kefluffle, how's that smear attempt working out for you and the rest of the neocons, basso. Haven't had much to say on that one lately. Busy wiping the egg off your face, perhaps?
You are awesome. I am obfuscating even though you are the one who keeps changing. I have never changed my position that you misread one paragraph. That was the only reason I posted. So, just because we like to make things clear, here is "basso world" timeline: Pre-'91 documents show how to build a nuke. 2001 - 9/11...ideas about going into Iraq. 2002 - Iraqi government hands over various documents to the UN including ones that say they are one year from nukes The US, as a nuke power reads over these documents first before showing the rest of the UN Jan 2003 - Presidential SOTU brings up Iraq and nukes but fails to mention Iraq's handed-over proof, instead talking about Niger, etc. Feb 2003 - Colin Powel goes before UN and again fails to mention Iraq admitting they were one year away. March 2006 the Bush admin puts papers online Recently NYT points out to Bush admin that the pre-'91 papers are dangerous. Anyway, the pre-'91 stuff does sound bad and it is pretty obvious to me that these were discovered after the war started. I guess it is a good thing that Iraq invaded Kuwait...otherwise it seems Saddam would have had his nuke. He was too much of a preservationist to use it, but he would have been an even bigger bully because of it.
This article is pure fantasy. What kind if evidence is this? Then he goes to say Yes I hope so to. There is no reason to expect that except in the mind of a conspiracy nut who wants the UN to be corrupt and complicit in a not real nuclear program in order to make Bush come off better. The reason some are simliar to the IAEA documents is that they are part of what Saddam turned over to them. As far as the other 'evidence' regarding the connection between Saddam terrorists, most appear to be single source comments, which have seemingly already been trumped by other sources and more thorough investigation. What is unbelievable is that you and others are so desperate to believe this that you will ignore reason, logic, and the acutal content and meaning of the documents in favor of your own made up or mistaken interpretation of them.
In an effort to try and understand where you are coming from on this, I will try and just put it in simple questions to understand why you think this is such a surefire case about Saddam and his Nuke program. 1. Do you understand that the informat was found in 2002, but wasn't pertaining to the year 2002? It was talking about the nuclear program from the 90's. Is that clear, or do you have a different take? 2. Do you understand that Iraq did not have a program at the time of the invasion? They had no equipment, nor material for to build a nuclear program? 3. Do you understand that the information comes largely from documents that Saddam himself turned in as part of his full disclosure, and he wasn't declaring to the world that he was a year away from having a nuke? 4. Do you understand that this doesn't change the status regarding the absence of WMD's prior to the invasion, nor does it add credibility to Bush's WMD claims in the lead up to the war? I am guessing that you disagree with at least some of these if not all of them. Would you please state as concisely as possible what information you have that trumps the replies earlier in this thread by Colt 45 and rimbaud?
HO HO HO! The libpigs' hindsight argument as it relates to WMD in Iraq is blown to pieces!! Great story. Hard to argue with the facts, libs, but I see that it's not slowing you down any. Nevermind the fact that Saddam never accounted for the previously-accounted for WMD that he was supposed to have destroyed. Anyone who argues for "taking Saddam at his word" and believing that they didn't have WMD is adopting the "Trust a Tyrant" strategy. Hardly a way to conduct foreign policy. Hardly a way to protect the American people. Once again, yet another reason why the libs have no military policy cred. They are anti-any-war and will go so far as to blindly trust genocidal dictators in order to build their case.
basso, I'm not the least bit surprised that Saddam's Iraq had plans to build a nuke. I'm sure they paid Pakistan or North Korea well for those plans. I'm sure he had scientists working to figure it out. And then his program was stopped, everything dismantled and destroyed, and his regime did what any other would have... they filed the plans away for future use, if such a possiblity were to arise. I still can find no reason to invade and occupy Iraq. Why? To attempt to find and destroy those plans? The ones put out for the world to see by your incompetent Administration? There was no threat. Someday, in the future, there might have been, but we had other things on our plate, and we had Saddam stuck in his little box while we took care of them. You know what? I would much rather have put the resources dumped into Iraq into Afghanistan, to rebuild that country, and help the democracy that was actually being formed there. I would have preferred to use those resources to not only keep the Taliban from coming back as a threat, which they certainly are as we type away, but to kill or capture those actually responsible for 9/11. Wake up. Smell the coffee. To use one of your pet phrases, don't get stuck on stupid. Iraq was a mistake. Due to your hero's incompetence, the mistake has become a disaster. Not only for Iraq, but for Afghanistan, as well. Honestly, I can't fathom where you're coming from. It's like you are lost in a vortex of your own creation. Our country has been in the grip of a fevered madness coming straight from the top. Somehow, you can't see it, and I just don't understand why. Trader_J is a running joke, but you are an intelligent man. Where does this blindness come from? Keep D&D Civil.
Nobody has advocated taking Saddam at his word. Please show me where anyone advocated that. The facts aren't being disputed by anyone here except by basso, and few other pro-war bloggers. Maybe we can add your name to the list.
it's really quite simple. Iraq was a totalitarian state, hostile to the US, and w/ demonstrated ties to terrorists, who were in turn hostile to the US. Iraq had WMD, was developing additional WMD capacity, including nuclear capability. it is inconceivable to me that iraq had no plans to merge the two: it's the nexus of terrorist support, WMD, and hostility to the US that made Iraq so dangerous. a nexus that exists, i might add, today in Iran, NK, possibly Syria, and certainly in much of Pakistan. the administration's manifest missteps in no way mitigate this fundamental truth: islamic fascists are trying to kill us, and the only way to combat them is to take the fight to their doorstep. the "we should have concentrated our resources on afghanistan" arguement is a facile, but deceptive one. Afghanistan is a vastly difficult country for a large gorund force to operate in (see Soviets, 1981)- most military strategists would tell you that small, discrete forces are much more effective, so while i think there may be room to argue there is more we could be doing in afghanistan, the "iraq is a drain on the real WOT front arguement" is false on it's face. i have to go know, and will try and finish this later, but finally there is Salman Pak. Iraq, IIS, known al queda connections, WMD, and add Salman Pak into the equation, and one could just as well ask, "how can you be so blase?"
basso, you do know that Salman Pak connection has been blown out of the water right? You are wrong to say there are known Al Qaeda/Iraq connections. It just isn't true. I don't understand why you steadfastly ignore facts like this.
Apparently the website did include sensitive information afterall. This article also makes it clear that the program was from before the first Gulf War, and not something ongoing at the time of the 2002 invasion.
Scared yet? Imagine for a moment that the POTUS and his top military brass/cabinet could know more than the public? Duh!
