[Macrobat]

For those of you still chanting the "Bush Lied" mantra, the NYT lets the cat out of the bag with this story in today's issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/wo...gewanted=print

To narrow it down for you, here is the germaine bit:

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.”

It's rather carelessly written, but the interpretation is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that.

And in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.

I don't like to put too much stock in the New York Times, but to me that looks suspiciously like the "smoking gun" everyone said didn't exist.

[Krusty]

You make a mighty strange interpretation from the article you cited. And seem to misunderstand most of what you quoted:

Paragraph 1:"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." at the time is clearly referring to the time of the first Gulf war in 1990 ... NOT 2002.

Paul D. Zimmerman quote in paraphrase. "The information was very sensitive and probably restricted". OK, how does that imply that Iraq was actually using it in 2002. Both pre-war and post-war inspections found nothing to imply anything was actually being done in the late 90s or in 2002/2003. Iraq's informational capacity (the knowledge it had) in 2002 may have been great but its technical ability to actually create the weapons was non-existent by March 2003

Ray E. Kidder quote: "some things in these documents would be helpful". Some things in a physics text book would be helpful too. Some papers written by nuclear scientist that are freely available to anyone who has a library card are pretty helpful as well.

And the coup-de-grace, the last sentence in your quote: "a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car

Nothing in the article you cited implies that Iraq had anything active on the nuclear front in 2002. It states that they had a lot of helpful information and that they may have been a year away ... at the time of FIRST war.

The interpretation that " in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that." is not what this article is saying at all. Here's another germane part of the article (2nd paragraph) that clues us in to what this article is all about:
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.

The title of the article: "U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer" is yet another clue about what this article is about. The article is about some of the secret, pre-1991 Iraqi nuclear research being posted on the internet by the US government ... perhaps inadvertently providing information that could help another rogue state build a weapon. It is patently, completely, NOT saying, implying, or even giving a wink to the notion that Iraq was a year away from nukes in 2002.

[BlueSky]

Can I get back to that mantra now? My chakras are in deficit.

[hyteckit]

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.

So our own government willing to give out plans on building nuclear bombs to our enemies?

[Volanges]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It's rather carelessly written, but the interpretation is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that.

And in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.

I don't like to put too much stock in the New York Times, but to me that looks suspiciously like the "smoking gun" everyone said didn't exist.

The only thing careless in the article is your reading skill level. Nice try though -- you're a True Believer.™ And thanks for having such disastorous foregin policy that liberals will sweep the mid-terms.

[Macrobat]

Keep dreaming.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Keep dreaming.

Learn to read; Not fantasize™

[marden]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

For those of you still chanting the "Bush Lied" mantra, the NYT lets the cat out of the bag with this story in today's issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/wo...gewanted=print

To narrow it down for you, here is the germaine bit:



It's rather carelessly written, but the interpretation is that in 2002, Iraq was within a year or so of possessing a nuclear weapon. That, despite 11 years of UN sanctions and inspections to prevent just that.

And in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.

I don't like to put too much stock in the New York Times, but to me that looks suspiciously like the "smoking gun" everyone said didn't exist.

EXCELLENT!

Great post, Macrobat!

[nath]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I don't like to put too much stock in the New York Times, but to me that looks suspiciously like the "smoking gun" everyone said didn't exist.

I think it's probably a Bad Thing for Republicans to try and improve their electoral chances by releasing detailed guidance on how to create nuclear and chemical weapons onto the internet.

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.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials

“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.”

More here: Republicans post nuke cookbook on line | The Register

Looks like they're thinking of you aberdeen!

It was Hoekstra's, Roberts's, and apparently the President's, hope that by disseminating documents recovered from Iraq, some right-wing amateur researcher might eventually find a flaky shred of evidence suggesting that Saddam's regime had been involved in banned weapons production