November 03, 2006

NY Times Justifies 2003 Invasion of Iraq

This is a NY Times November bombshell as designed by the North Koreans.

The breaking article seems to be an attempt to attack the Bush Administration for releasing potentially classified information (yes, the ironymeter is pegged), but what they actually prove is that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was indeed a significant threat.

Not only were they close to developing their own nuclear bomb (at one point the Iraqis "were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"), they also had that nucelar weapon building knowledge available to proliferate to other rogue states.

The Times may have set out to attack Bush, but instead, they have justified the rationale for the 2003 invasion.

Thanks, Pinch.

Update: Josh Manchester notes that this article seems to be an attempt by the NY Timesto pull an "Al-Qaqaa" once more before an national election.

Further Update: As Glenn Reynolds notes:

Judging from some of the delighted emails I'm getting, I need to warn people not to get too carried away -- this doesn't say that Saddam would have had a bomb in 2004. But it does say that he had all the knowledge needed to have a bomb in short order. And as we know he was looking to reconstitute his program once sanctions were ended -- and that sanctions were breaking down in 2003 -- that's pretty significant. However, perhaps even more significant, given that we knew most of the above already, is that the NYT apparently regards the documents that bloggers have been translating for months as reliable, which means that reports of Iraqi intelligence's relations with Osama bin Laden, and "friendly" Western press agencies, are presumably also reliable.

And as these documents are "presumably also reliable," then much of the research into these documents done by a former Defense Intelligence Agency contractor by the name of Ray Robinson is certainly worth a second or even a third look. Robinson compiled some of his research for the Fox News Saddam Dossier, and has much more in the archives of his personal site.

Robinson thinks he may have even triggered this by contacting the IAEA two weeks ago.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2006 12:53 PM | TrackBack

Damn, all of those jihadis in Karachi and Riyadh and Damascus who are otherwise borderline illiterate-

but shockingly well trained in advanced nuclear physics AND in possession of enormous amounts of enriched uranium are going to build a bomb now!

We're doomed! Monkeyboy is right!!

Posted by: TMF at November 3, 2006 08:43 AM

FYI, that "moron" comment was directed at the Times, not anyone here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2006 08:44 AM

Guess the NY Times will be reporting all the other documents too-

The ones showing Saddam planned on "attacking US interests", and that Saddam and his cronies set up multiple high level discussions with Al Qaeda, and had ties to the Taliban.....etc etc etc

I guess the DUMBASSocrat talking points are kinda in the shitter now, huh?

Quick, shift the goalposts (again) idiots!

Posted by: TMF at November 3, 2006 08:46 AM

A couple of key points missed in the summary:

First, the documents mainly describe Iraq's nuclear situation in the early 1990s, not at the time of the war. Remember that progressives are not saying that Iraq was never a threat; rather, they say that the threat had been contained since Gulf War 1. The work of weapons inspectors and these documents seem to bear that out.

Second, the article points out that, "The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians." It is these conservative who spurred the publication of what the article describes as a "cookbook" for making nuclear weapons.

We don't want nuts like Hussein to have nukes. Why would conservatives want to spread the danger around to vast numbers of other nuts who have Internet access?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at November 3, 2006 09:15 AM

So, a minor political gain for the Republicans is worth providing al Qaeda with an instruction manual on how to construct a nuclear bomb to you guys?

Good luck next week...

Posted by: monkyboy at November 3, 2006 11:37 AM

Well, there are two possibilities, and you can't mix & match... either:
- The info in these documents is so common and/or so useless without access to enriched uranium, high-speed firing circuits, etc. that it was just as useless to Hussein in 1990 as it is to Iran today & therefore not an indicator of Iraq's being a legitimate nuclear threat in 2003, or
- The info _is_ incredibly valuable & dangerous, and posting it on the Internet in the first place was so unbelieveably stupid that Rick Santorum, Pat Roberts, and Bush should all be shot for treason immediately.

Choose your poison.

Posted by: legion at November 3, 2006 12:24 PM

And once again that Oh-so-bright, non-pundit, Monkeyboy, rides in on a Great Dane to punish us with his wit and wisdom.

Figure it out dimwit - The NYT just validated every single document that has been translated. Now IF (big if) you had brains enough to follow that story, you would realize that those documents point to everything you and yours said was a lie about Iraq: WMDs (documents relating to the storage of weapons, relating to hiding of documents, relating to cooperation with Syria, documents relating to hiding portions of the programs until the sanctions ended...etc.), AlQuaeda (documents regarding meetings between Iraqi government officials and Al Quaeda), and terrorist activities (documents about terrorist training camps in Iraq).

Was it dumb to put the plans for a nuke up? Well yes. But - I'll wait until we have an expert look at those documents and tell us someone who knows nothing about nuclear physics and nuclear weapon building could actually use them to build a weapon.

But in the meantime I demand an apology from every dimwit that has repeated the DNC mantra "Bush Lied." Why? Because the famous, treasonous NYT just showed that he did not. LOL. The joke is on you.

Posted by: Specter at November 3, 2006 12:27 PM

If it was released, then its no longer classified. Kinda by definition...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 3, 2006 01:46 PM

Hehe, nice spin.

The fringe right puts up a trove of captured Iraqi documents and what do they show?

How to make a nuke...conviently translated into arabic...

Another bullseye for the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Posted by: monkyboy at November 3, 2006 02:25 PM

I'm pretty sure you meant "rogue" states. :-)

It's a shame, I understand the NY Times was once a very well respected newspaper. They are certainly doing a good imitation of a bunch of partisan hacks lately.

Posted by: jvon at November 3, 2006 03:39 PM

Well, the gang's all here, let's burp the f*** out of some tupperware.

Posted by: Pinko Punko at November 3, 2006 04:21 PM

The only morons here are the ones who believe that Saddam's nuclear program was so advanced that we needed to go to war over it some 12 years after it was shut down. The only morons here are the people who pushed for the release of these documents. The absolute insanity of someone thinking they're making the world safe by distributing this information is astounding. This is a jump the shark moment for the right-wing blogosphere. Believe it.

Posted by: Fred at November 3, 2006 04:46 PM

Hey Pinko, what are you doing here? I got lost on my way to Gateway Pundit, and I'm almost out of apple slices and yogurt bars.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at November 3, 2006 05:17 PM

Freddo the Moron,

Thanks for your miniscule input to the discussion. It's surprising to know that your vocabulary has grown to such proportions. Taking remedial courses again?

I suppose you know what the doucments said? They indicated that there were still active NBC programs going on. They delineated what stuff would be hidden where, who was doing the hiding, how they had faked out the inspectors (even in the late 90s - yes Freddy-boy - the late 90's. BTW - that's not 12 years ago as you state as fact - much less). Why don't you do some studying before throwing accusations around? It might (big might) make you sound a little credible.

Posted by: Specter at November 3, 2006 05:18 PM

(at one point the Iraqis "were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"),...

Before the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Bob. Not in March, 2003.

Posted by: Kathy at November 3, 2006 05:20 PM

Oh - and BTW MonkeyShine and Freddo,

Did you stop to think about the fact that these documents came from Hussein's government? Even if you could somehow ignore the fact that there is evidence (documents) that indicate that Hussein had big plans in the nuclear department, you certainly can't ignore the fact that he HAD THE PLANS. So - according to you it was wrong that they got posted on a web site (which I would agree with), but it is Okey-dokey that Hussein had them. Right? Didya stop to think that maybe, just maybe he could have given them to someone else, sold them to the highest bidder, handed thme to Hamas or Hezbollah? Bet not - cuz you don't stop to think. You just post away....

Posted by: Specter at November 3, 2006 05:30 PM


Contrary to your opinion, some of the very same documents that the NYT referred to, and have now seemingly validated, refer to how the Iraqi regime was moving stuff around, and how they were hiding things from inspectors in the late 90s. Including their nuclear program. Was it huge? We don't know - yet. But you just can't make blanket statements about "It was before the first Gulf War." Read and study.

Posted by: Specter at November 3, 2006 05:34 PM

Bill Clinton did not doubt Saddam had such a program. I remember Clinton discussing it shortly before the invasion.

One thing I thought interesting was that after the invasion of Iraq, Kaddafi gave up his nuclear program. It was also unknown he had such a program or that so many Iraqi scientists were involved in it. It seems that with the Pakistani scientist Kahn selling his knowledge and people like Saddam sending people to university in the west to acquire weapons technology there was a concerted effort to make these weapons. I don't know why people would find that idea surprising.

Posted by: Terrye at November 3, 2006 05:40 PM

Even if we kinda float right over that interpretation of nukes, and Iraq, and invading, and whatnot, one would have to say that posting nuclear plans on the Web, in Arabic, probably wasn't the smartest thing to do.

I mean, I think all reasonable folks can agree here.

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at November 3, 2006 06:00 PM

The NYT has only claimed -- not shown -- that the documents released so far contain any kind of "manual" on how to build a bomb.

Or rather, they are reporting that the IAEA is suddenly making this claim after having expressed no concerns about the documents before.

According to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (see, the DNI has only released about 40% of the docs, keeping the rest due to security concerns. He asserts that the IAEA is piping up now in order to influence the election.

What the released documents apparently show is that Hussein had accumulated a lot of know how on building a bomb, and was actively hiding it from the US/UN until it was safe to resume work, or to pass on to other parties.

Posted by: Scott at November 3, 2006 06:33 PM

What's surprising (well, not really) is that the same people who just yesterday were hyperventilating over the NYT publishing some powerpoint slide that shows Iraq is a fiasco are now trying to spin the fact that Bush & Co. put online a manual showing how to construct a nuclear device as some sort of victory...

Posted by: monkyboy at November 3, 2006 06:35 PM

Lets say for a moment that these documents did prove Sadam was building nukes and working with Bin Laden. I would think that the president would have been waving the hard copies on national press confrence. Or mayhaps have Colin Powel wave them around in the UN to make up for the bottle of fake anthrax.

So the logical question is why didn't they. One answer would be gross incompetence, which is believable. The other is that the Bush Admin was only using the WMD issue as a marketing tool to get the nation to go along with the insane idea of Democratizing the Mid East by force and there was no real effort to locate WMD. This too is believable because of the halhearted attempts capture Bin Laden. Remember, after all, that not to long after 9/11 Bush said that he didn't spend much time thinking about Bin Laden.

So the current administration are either incompetent or crooks, take your pick

Posted by: Not Dick but Richard at November 3, 2006 06:46 PM

Take a look. Other news outlets are covering uo the story...

I am so fed up with the MSM....

Posted by: kelleyb at November 3, 2006 07:13 PM

And where did they get that documentation from, monky? From Iraq, a country we invaded in time to prevent them from building a nuke.

Thanks, morons.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 3, 2006 07:20 PM

And where did they get that documentation from, monky?

Iran perhaps? Clinton ordered the CIA to intentionally give Iran the plans to an atomic bomb.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 3, 2006 10:11 PM

The most under reported success of Gulf War II was that Kaddafi gave up his nuclear dreams and allowed inspectors into Libya. I guess he will be watching tomorrow when Saddam's verdict is announced.

Posted by: Tom TB at November 4, 2006 10:31 AM

This is a bit hard to follow...the spin is so severe, I'm in need of someone really attempting to suggest that the overarching issue to be considered that there are directions on how to build a bomb...?????

This is patently devoid of logic. In order to BUILD nuclear weaponry under current scientific and technological need materials so difficult to come by and assemble...that it is nearly impossible for most COUNTRIES. Nation-states. (dirty bombs still is very difficult)

Walking through the logic (very the subversives can follow), the leftists were FOR YEARS.... SCOFFING at Saddam's ABILITY TO OBTAIN AND WEAPONIZE the needed uranium and heavy water plants. (yellowcake...Valerie Plame...remember that whole issue???)

Does anyone seriously believe that Iran, Iraq, North Korea...have to depend upon reading INTERNET SITES to build a foundation for their weaponizing nuclear reactions? Is THAT really the argument? How utterly inane?!!!

The left has gone over the edge. Baghdad Bob would look straight into the camera and say with all seriousness that no tanks were rolling by.

The subsersive left looks right at us and tells us that they can't see their own BS. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he used them, ...several times...he had intentions of building what lifeform above an eggplant is this not axiomatic?

This particular leftist "Baghdad Bob" a gig that is now fully cooked, so let's put a fork in it on this issue. Admit the obvious...the man (Saddam) hated the West, especially the US (more than our own leftists do) and would have built any weapon he could to threaten Israel and us.

Since the left has long ago turned its back on Israel...the real issue for them is...are Israelis lives worth fighting for? Since THAT answer for them is hell no...and would have been in 1939 as lie, no distortion, no duplicity, no subversiveness is too big.

The left doesn't simply want to cut and run from Iraq...they are rooting for the destruction of Israel. They are countenancing the "drive the Jews into the sea" behavior of the Islamofascists.

All the rest is subterfuge...and they have gone over the edge.

Posted by: cf bleachers at November 4, 2006 11:34 AM

Shorter CF Bleachers:

"Why not post nuclear secrets on the Web in Arabic? After all, Saddam once had WMDs, and the left hates Israel."

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at November 4, 2006 12:46 PM

Bonus Shorter CF Bleachers:

20 PRINT U$ "...proving that the left has gone over the edge."
REM bwahahaha
30 GOTO 10

Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs at November 4, 2006 01:01 PM