Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Doubter, Nov 3, 2006.

  1. Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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.
    excerpt NYT front page


    The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.


    I’m sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?

    What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been “no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now we’re being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.


    I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a “Boy, did Bush screw up” meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the “there was no threat in Iraq” meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh… al-Qaeda.

    The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.

    The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn’t dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesn’t work. It can’t be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it’s in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.

    National Review
  2. Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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.

    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. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.

    What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:

    * 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq 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.

    * The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq

    * Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7

    * UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it

    * The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002

    Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.

    The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the Times figures this out for themselves.

    Ed Morrissey
  3. Too little, too late. The Bush administration is unraveling before our very eyes. Whatever legitimate reasoning they had going into Iraq is long gone. It's gone as a result of such poor planning and execution of a war plan it boggles the mind to think the president is still giving credit and support to his administrative hacks that have fucked this up beyond imagination.
  4. Yeah, great...Saddam "almost" had a bomb. Korea does have a bomb, blows it up, and what do we do? Can't do anything when all our resources are stuck in the middle of a civil war that we can't win.

    I want equal "axis of evil" treatment for all them.

  5. __________________________________________________

    So you think we should pull out of Iraq, reinstate Sadaam, give him back his plans and yellow cake and say well at least he was put off 3 or 4 years from developing a bomb.

    When he does then we can argue that he probably wouldn't use or share it. Or we could blame Bush for pulling out now and not finishing the job. But another decision time would face us for sure.
  6. _______________________________________________

    Hey, I thought everyone wanted a diplomatic solution to these problems. Give them some more technology and an autographed football and maybe they'll stop.

    There are simply complications to war, civil unrest and fighting in Iraq, or a massive refugee and starvation problem in NK so if you are going to take action you have to hang in there until you get things under control.

    You know, it works that way in my businesses too and that is why they are successful. Period.
  7. No! I think we should pull out of Iraq, program co-ordinates into a couple of our own nukes and light the place up. It would serve as a good example to the rest of the savages in the muslim world. It'll never happen because we have no balls. Study your koran, you're gonna need it
  8. _________________________________________________

    I couldn't agree more but realistically if we pull out the second step would never be taken so we are back to where we were four years ago. I prefer Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, and Joel in them at least we win.
  9. I doubt anyone is suggesting that we give Saddam or any other a@ho45 any tools for bomb making. We can't really correct past mistakes very easily, all we can try to do is get some differing opinions on a new strategic and tactical approach to getting the heck out (of Iraq) some point in time...I hate the fact that our elected leaders use the "cut and run" nonsense, as if that's the only alternative to "stay the course" - we, as a Country are much smarter than that, don't you think.?

  10. Good Grief.

    Those articles from NYTimes were written by Judy Miller who it turned out was getting her information straight from the Pentagon and Ahmed Chalibi. It was all completely and utter disinformation. It was a total snow job....All part of the information warfare conducted by the Bush Administration against the American public to sufficiently rile them into supporting a bogus war.

    I'm amazed how at this late date otherwise smart people can still be so misinformed about these events as to seriously make a post like this. Simply stunning.

    One of countless articles describing this:

    #10     Nov 3, 2006