Some people need to burn their hand to understand that the fire is hot.

So the NYT point is that WE helped Iran? Wrong. They know how to build a nuke. But they help us prove that Sadaam was close to a nuke. THAT is the headline.

"But they help us prove that Sadaam was close to a nuke. THAT is the headline."

Actually, that seems to be old news. Notice these findings are based on what Iraq disclosed to the UN in the 90s and I believe represented work done up until Desert Storm.

After that, Iraq shut down its weapons programs and no evidence has been found to show that they were ever reinstated. So, from my understanding, they were a year from knowing how to construct a bomb if the program was started again. So, they were not a year away from having a bomb. If we had not invaded, they would not have the bomb today (granted we kept up international pressure on Hussein, which I think we would have).

This is stuff we knew about over a decade ago.

Ok leo, let’s gloss over the glaring fact that you’ve demonstrated once again your selective, politically expedient outrage by ignoring altogether the issue of leaking sensitive documents – an issue over which you've been a proud flag-waver for some time. Let’s ignore the very disturbing storyline here, that this administration - an administration that has used the highest courts in the land to shield itself from disclosure of non-sensitive documents under the guise of national security – has chosen to MAKE PUBLIC essential diagrams, charts, and equations for components utilized in the production of nuclear weapons without regard for the potentiality of exploitation. And you here condone without question these antics because it suits your political argument – even though the purported documents in questions relate to:

detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

OOPS!

Ummm, no shit. Thats why we invaded them. To bad the experts were wrong. Which means that it was not the case that "Saddam was one year away from a nuke." But Rather "in the 1990s and in 2002" "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.", but after we invaded we relized that he did in fact not have a nuclear program. Even experts are wrong occasionaly...

Funny how you lefties avoided this from the article
"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."

Saddam was a year away from a nuke in 2002? The UN, France, Russia, China, McDermott, and Hans Blix bought off with the oil-for-food scam.

Thank you President Bush for taking out this threat to the world.

Sorry lefties you can't rewrite history. You already told us all those documents were just so much fluff and proved nothing.

Now the NYTimes says those same documents prove Saddam was seeking nukes.

Looks like President Bush was right.

Yep, I echo orange's statements! Very well said!

I'd also point out that having blueprints for a bomb design does not equate to actually being able to build a bomb. Enriching enough uranium or plutonium for a critical mass of weapons grade material is not something you can do with a backyard chemistry set. It requires rather large (read: easily detected) reactors and other massive hardware. Iraq didn't have any of that following the Israeli attack that crippled Saddam's sole reactor at Osirak in 1981. The US subsequently obliterated what remained of that site in 1991.

So yeah, it appears Saddam's physicists and engineers knew a lot of the theory behind creating a bomb. There is nothing particularly earth-shattering about that - a lot of college professors at your local university could probably draw up design specs that could theorectically work (especially if you held a gun to their head!). But without the massive hardware to create fissionable material, you're dead in the water. Had Saddam tried to rebuild a reactor, we'd certainly know about it, and would easily bomb the hell out of it. Even if he'd tried to build it underground, there would be obvious surface signs of such a massive construction effort.

For those reasons, we know now that Saddam in fact did not attempt to rebuild a reactor. Saddam knew that he couldn't build a mom and pop pee-shooter factory without it getting bombed into oblivion.

In any case, I find it grimly amusing that the incompetent Bushies posted these design drafts on the internet. Had Clinton done that, Rush and the wingnut echo-chamber would have gotten worked up into a howling, froathing frenzy. I can just hear Rush's adipose-ladden bloviating now: "He actually gave the secrets to building nukes to the terrorists!! He posted it on a web site for all to see!! When NYC gets nuked, you can all thank Clinon - he actually WANTS American cities nuked because he hates America that much! Folks, has there ever been a more clear-cut case of treason?? blah blah blah"

Aarontime,

The sad fact about the "Rush" comment is that he would have a decent point. But of course we won't hear anything from fatboy. He doesn't care about winning the war, only winning elections.

It WAS dangerous material, otherwise they would not have taken down the website so fast.

Note how the righties here are trying to spin this into a justification for invading Iraq. Excuse me? it's not about Iraq, it's IRAN stupid(s). Not even Master Rove can spin "we gave nuclear technology to terrorists" into something positive.

Not that they won't try...

Yep Jim, we'll never know what clues those design drafts might have given a nation like Iran, which does have reactor facilities.

So, lets see if we can sum up the wingnuts' "reasoning" here: these design drafts were so dangerous as to justify invading another country, but apparently it is OK to post those very same drafts on the internet? WTF? Yep, that sure makes a lot of sense.

How did these bot flies come to be in charge of our once great country? So sad.

The lefties on here are priceless.

They are all for these countries building these bombs because the big, bad USA has one so they should too.

And if they have blueprints and try building them, well that doesn't mean they actually have them....yes, you are correct libs...depends what is is.

The difference is that people with actual gray matter in their brains want to make sure these guys DON'T build them.

The left, absolutely unhinged and crazy.

“Had Saddam tried to rebuild a reactor, we'd certainly know about it, and would easily bomb the hell out of it.”

Like Iran and North Korea? Guess that didn’t work either.

Aarontime,

The GOP is obsessed with winning elections and consolidating power. The same thing that Rushbo (rightfully) claims about the Dems.

But the righty spinners here don't see the evil within their own party. It's not logs in their eyes, it's sequoias.

The Dems have problems. Many problems. But at least we don't make wild claims of Saviorhood. We're led to beleive the GOP is all white knights on white horses. NOT!

And the spinner's here are just amazed as ordinary Americans are now turning their backs on these guys.

Come on, guys, giving nukes to terrorists? You think that's a winning plan? SHEESH!

Jim -

"Come on, guys, giving nukes to terrorists? You think that's a winning plan?"

Well, actually, it probably is a winning plan... for winning elections.

The Bushians use fear to win elections - what could be scarier than terrorists having nuke plans? I wouldn't be surprised if in '08, these very same bomb design drafts - that the Bushians gave out like candy - show up in some al-qaeda cave somewhere (surprise surprise!). The Bushians will then use that the scare people into voting for them.

Note to Bushians: next time, just email the bomb designs directly to Osama - OK?

Well, actually, it probably is a winning plan... for winning elections.

Except that the people are now catching on to their plan. They see how the GOP carefully (or incompetently, take your pick) help make terrorists stronger so that THEY can ride in on their horses and save the day.

But it couldn't last forever...eventually the people were bound to get wise.

It's going to get even worse for them, as we still have 2 more years of Bush, no matter what the Dems and the American people want. 2 More years of bumbling (or terrorist enabling, take your pick) to go for the GOP. And with the Dems in charge of the House, excpet 2 more years of news cycles exactly like they have been this October (and now, November.)

I used to think the GOP was destined to be the 49% party, but 33% seems increasingly more likely. We all know who the 33% are...

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!

Oh wait...Hussein was building a nuke???

...

...

nevermind.

Saddam Hussein was this close to a bomb: with no fissile materials, and centrifuges to enrich them. Oh, please.
However, allowing for that, how does this improve the situation in Iraq which is uppermost on the minds of people as we head in to these elections.
Like Vietnam, the Iraq war trumps even the meaningless super numbers that Bush supporters love to point to, in order to make people forget that our industrial base, pensions, and medical insurance are dissapearing right in front of us.
Everyone remembers the economic malaise that followed the Vietnam War. How can we avoid it here? Call on the Chinese for more credit?
Blame it on Clinton? Saddam? The MSM
What have we done to stop the Russians from selling nukes to the Iranians or the NK's from getting theirs. Bush has had 6 years to solve these problems with nothing to show his efforts. Face it folks. Blame game history isn't going to solve current problems. It may make Bush supporters feel better, but it isnt going to change political or economic reality.

Leo and all the other Bush-bots here,

Do you guys even know where the "one year away from a nuke" theory came from? Leo, you trumpet theses claims like they're accepted truth, but I'm willing to bet that you didn't even bother to look up the source.

And you do understand that these claims were dispute by nuclear experts immediately after they were made, right? The Scientists from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, for example, said this in their assessment of Iraq's nuclear program:

"It seems safe to assume that what has taken Brazil over a decade would have taken Iraq at least that long."

So Leo, go do some reading, and then let me know if you'd like to debate the substance of your claims.

Nice try, lefties, but in spite of NY Times spin attempts, what the documents in question show is that Saddam was working on WMD programs - including a nuke program - right up to the end of 2002, which is when he got in to our crosshairs and then started hiding and destroying things while bribing France, Russia and Germany to keep us off his back.

As we've been telling you since the beginning, Bush didn't lie - the intel was good; not 100% accurate, because it never can be, but it was good...Saddam had strong ties to terrorism and was working on obtaining WMDs, and that made him a growing (but not imminent!) threat which had to be dealt with...and dealt with he was.

I am sure many people will try and discredit this but i'll try.

The Late right honourable Robin Cook, resigned from the British Cabinet on moral grounds because he believed the evidence on Iraq's WMD was rubbish. His views are quite hard to discredit though as he was the foreign minister as well as being a former head of MI6, which is the British Intelligence services so he can't be accused of not knowing the full situation, he was for many years a key player in the British Government.
HE said " Number 10 *downing street) believed in the intelligence because they desperatley wanted it to be true."

Not only did Robin cook resign so did Clare Short another cabinet minister, although belatedly. If these people who are in the cabinet and have full access to all the info available don't accept teh WMDs do you not think there are issues there?

AS well as these resignations the likes of Gordon Brown, who could be the next PM, and the current Deputy PM (John Prescott) both came out against the war.

Also the Butler Enquiry said that when the government made its shift in policy of containing saddam to a policy "to enforce disarmament it was not based on any new development in the current intelligence picture on Iraq" (page 105 of teh Butler Report)

There is rather a lot of evidence suggesting that there were no WMDs before the invasion, a senior civil servant, Dr David Kelly also stated that the dossier about teh WMDs had been "sexed up". He ws an expert in WMDs etc. and sadly was named by the Government, which btw is illegal, and as a result commited suicide after slander after slander from the Gov.

Mark says,

-"what the documents in question show is that Saddam was working on WMD programs - including a nuke program - right up to the end of 2002"

Evidence, please. Show me what exactly in these documents proves that Saddam was getting any closer to his pre-1991 WMD capabilities.

And besides, you'll remember that, in trying to sell the invasion, the the Bush camp didn't say "Saddam is working on WMD programs". They said they had indisputible proof that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, and he either had a nuke or was close to having one. Every one of these claims was ridiculous in 2003, and so far, the evidence from Iraq has confirmed this.

Mark, as long as you're here, why don't you take a stab at my challenge to Leo? Tell me why you think the theory that Saddam was "one year from a nuke" in 1991 holds water.

I know Incompetent Cconservative Extremist (ICE)say they alone can protect us, but do you think it is wise for the Director of Homeland Security to post nuclear bomb building for dummies on the internet? Incompetent conservatives are a little edgy now, but just asking.

"Nice try, lefties, but in spite of NY Times spin attempts, what the documents in question show is that Saddam was working on WMD programs - including a nuke program - right up to the end of 2002"

Mark, it does not show this. It says the UN wrote reports in 1990s and again in 2002 (in the lead up to war) on Saddam's nuclear efforts prior to the first gulf war. It does not say Hussein was working on the program during the 90s and again in 2002, and in fact says there is no evidence that his program was active during that time.

You are either deliberately dishonest or need to work on your reading comprehension.

Mark's just grabbing at straws here. His argument is something like:

Saddam had a weapons program in 2002. Let's prove it by giving the disputed nuke technology to Iran.

Unfortunately, he completely missed the boat, as Tom pointed out. So we are left with:

Saddam wanted weapons in 1991, and the UN wrote about this in 2002. Therefore, let's prove it by giving the disputed nuke technology to Iran.

When are you righties going to get the point of this? It's not about justifications for Iraq in 2003. It's about George Bush and the congressional republicans, THIS FALL, gave out nuclear technology to terrorists.

I still haven't heard from a righty who thinks the website should be put back up.

Which of you righties thinks this?

We're waiting.

Anyone?

(crickets)

Thank you President Bush for keeping us safe. Thank you for taking saddam out. It was the right thing to do.

Yeah, right, Jim Oliver.

Iran ALREADY had the technology.

Are you going to be equally critical of Carter & Clinton selling the nuclear store to Kim Jong Il?

Man oh man, if the liberal hindsight glasses get polished any further, the lenses are going to fall out. Ill bet you guys picked the Steelers to win the superbowl last year too, five minutes after the game ended.

The entire world thought the man had WMD, if they didnt, why support even a U.N. search for them before the war?

Hysterical screaming of "NOW we know that Bush was wrong!" doesnt help the liberal cause; everyone on earth thought Saddam had the weapons, you cant use evidence after the fact to prove culpability before the evidence was found. Oh wait, youre liberals, I guess you can do that.

Aarontime, Jim Oliver, and the rest,

You guys are a riot. Your BDS continues to blind you. OK, I'll spell it out for you again, slooooooowly, so you can understand.

The standard, under the UN Resolutions, was to destroy all WMD munitions and related materials, or show proof that they had been destroyed. In accordance with the findings of UNSCOM, Iraq was in material breach of this requirement. All of the WMD amd related materials were not destroyed. The standard was not "WMD munitions produced after a certain date". All WMD munitions. We have found munitions that were supposed to be destroyed, that the left said never existed. We have found production facilities that were supposed to be destroyed. We have found chemical weapons precursors that were supposed to be destroyed. We have translated documents describing their clandestine WMD programs. None of these materials and documents were supposed to exist.

The standard, under the UN Resolutions, was to dismantle all WMD programs, or show proof that they had been destroyed. In accordance with the findings of UNSCOM, Iraq was in material breach of this requirement. Strains of biological weapons were found hidden in scientist's homes. Bio labs were recent experiments were being conducted have been discovered. We have found documents describing Iraqs plans to resume their chemical and biological weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted. None of these programs, materials, and documents were supposed to exist.

The standard, under the UN Resolutions, was to dismantle all nuclear weapons research programs, or show proof that they had been destroyed. In accordance with the findings of UNSCOM, Iraq was in material breach of this requirement. 500 tons of yellowcake were discovered in Iraq. Nuclear weapons development equipment has been found buried in nuclear scientist's gardens. Nuclear weapons documents have been recently been translated. None of these programs, materials, and documents were supposed to exist.

The standard, under the UN Resolutions, was to dismantle all missile programs beyond a certain range, or show proof that they had been destroyed. In accordance with the findings of UNSCOM, Iraq was in material breach of this requirement. We have found missiles which far exceeded the allowable range. We have found research facilities for even longer range missiles. We have found documentation for development of long range missiles. None of these programs, materials, and documents were supposed to exist.

Saddam had 12 long years to comply. He was biding his time, waiting for the UN and the world community to lose interest and lift the sanctions. Then his WMD programs would be back in business. The sanctions were not working, except to kill innocent Iraqis, because Saddam was skimming billions off the Oil-for-Food program and spending it on bribes and prohibited weapons systems. He was playing the appeasers in the world for fools. President Bush called his bluff. We prevented, forever, the ability of Saddam to continue his quest for WMD.

The recently posted nuclear weapons documents prove that Saddam never gave up his quest for nuclear weapons. Do you understand that even the plans for nuclear weapons were prohibited under the UN Resolutions? The dates really don't matter. He was still persuing them.

Do you get it now?

Also, you don't have to worry about Iran getting nuclear weapons plans from these documents. President Clinton already gave them the technology in a CIA scheme that was blotched. Instead of giving them flawed technological information. The scientist trusted with giving the Iranians the flawed plans noticed the flaw and helped the Iranians correct the mistake. So I guess you can place the blame on Iran's growing nuclear program on your buddy, BJ Clinton. Nice going, Bubba.

Here is what no loon has been able to explain to me...

If the data was so dangerous for Iran to possibly acquire?

Then why wasn't it dangerous for Saddam to still possess the data in 2002?

Especially considering he had scientist hiding centrifuge parts, equipment etc in the yards?

If it could help Iran how wasn't it helping Saddam defy agreements and possibly build a nuke?

Josh Keaton,

If you're going to criticize, at least get the right individual. It wasn't the Director of Homeland Security, it was the Director of National Intelligence, upon authorization and encouragement of Congress.

Besides, similar technical data has been on the internet for years. But unless you have a spare $1 billion or two laying around, a supply of enriched uranium, and a bunch of nuclear physicists, the plans won't do you much good.

Oh, and don't worry about the North Koreans or the Iranians getting the plans, President Clinton already took care of that.

The truth is Sadam was a weapon of mass destruction.
What is the difference from a weaposn program to the weapons themselves? Nothing. Had we left this savage in power he would have done exaclty what North Korea did when the pin head Clinton cut a deal and turned his back..

Savages like Sadam must be dealt with...

Iran must be next...

Once again, lefties, still a nice try - but, you lose: Saddam was trying to get WMDs and was sponsoring terrorism...the underlying reasons for liberating Iraq were, are and always will be true...

*Everybody Watch!* "Obsession" on Fox News this Weekend!

"Documentary Portrays Islamic Extremists’ Call to Arms Against the Free World"

Saturday at 8 p.m./1 a.m. ET, and
Sunday at 4 p.m./10 p.m. ET.

"Especially considering he had scientist hiding centrifuge parts, equipment etc in the yards?" by: theblksheepwasright

IIRC, the centrifuge parts were under the scientist's rose bushes.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BUSH for taking out Saddam Hussein and his evil, tyrannical regime!!!

OK righties, so I assume that you are, to a man, advocating that the website be put back up...RIGHT?

So which is...should the site be up or down, and why?

"Once again, lefties, still a nice try - but, you lose: Saddam was trying to get WMDs and was sponsoring terrorism...the underlying reasons for liberating Iraq were, are and always will be true..."

Mark, do you stand by your claim that this is proof that Saddam was working on WMD and nuke programs during the '90s and in 2002?

Hiding centrifuge parts in rose bushes. As Reagan said, and, I believe, would've said to Bush supporters "There you go, again."
Please!!
What documents do any Bush supporters out there know of that show fissile material enrichment equipment small enough to hide in rose bushes would be able to produce enough material for a bomb, or even a dirty bomb.
Perhaps, Matts mother the physicist might know.(I'm sorry for bringing somebodies mother into this, but I did not introduce her to Blogs for Bush. Matt did in "Airborne Laser SDI" where he recalled his mother saying that the way to take ballistic missiles is with a laser. Though introduced sarcasticly, here, perhaps she does know. I'm willing to read.)
Just like the election timed claims that we have an airborne SDI laser. We're just not prepared to use it anywhere, nor are we really sure that it works. But its a tidbit to throw the base instead of "We're so tied in up in Iraq, we can't stop NK or Iran from getting the bomb."
Nor, speaking of history, can Bush explain what he was doing while NK and Iran were getting the bomb right under his nose. Remember, Iran and NK, the other two legs of the axis of evil.
Russia and China, have, by the way, rebuffed our latest efforts to get a strong Iranian sanctions resolution through the security council. Boy, am I glad we defeated the communists, and gotten them on our side.
And, for the sake of the argument, let anyone who disagrees with Bush policies... (Believe it or not, even before one of the Presidents closest, or should I say, closeted advisors on spiritual matters that form the core of his base, came "out" (Come on, Matt and Mark, you've got to do a post on this one. Can't leave this one to the MSM.) there are many conservatives, that is, those who believe, as Goldwater did, that government must play as minimal a role in society as possible, and that you either raise taxes, or reduce spending, that Bush is no conservative. Bush had lost fiscal conservatives, long before he lost the social ones.)...In any case, let anyone who disagrees with Bush policies, concede for a moment Saddam was already in posession of a bomb before we invaded.
What you Bush supporters don't get is that this scenario still leaves us in the miserable state we are in right now, with the NK's and Iranians getting hold of bombs of their own while Bush sits by powerless to stop them. It changes nothing in our current situation. NOTHING!!!
If Bush supporters want to believe Bush is a wonderful guy who went into Iraq with good intentions, fine. But, remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and so is the road to post Saddam Iraq.
Oh, and by the way, you Bush supporters out there who believe so fervently that one aborted fetus is a crime against humanity, how many Iraqi civilians, and Americans must die because of Bush good intentions. You can complain about Saddam all you want, he's been gone since March 2003. Any civilians dead since the Mission Acconplished speech are our responsibilty. Dead Iraqis certainly number in the 10's of thousands. While not equal to Saddams count yet, is that the best you Bush supporters can do, compare us with the likes of Saddam to make yourself feel better about yourselves.
Then there's NK's Kim Jong Il, he starved 2 million people to death in the mid nineties so he could divert resources to his own active nuke program, which he even said he had... Ohhh... What could've been if Bush had more going for him than good intentions.
Please forgive the length of the post, and any errors in my rush to write it in the middle of the night.
Look forward to your responses.
Have a good day.

Oh, and by the way, the people who were most behind this war are now washing their hands of it... admitting they were wrong and admitting Bush botched a wrong policy.

Again, the site's not allowing me to post links, but you all can go to Drudgereport to find the Vanity Fair story quoting neo-cons, including Richard Pearle, who said he would not be for the war if he knew then what he knows now. You'll also find others very critical of the Bush administration handeling of this war, even going so far as to say it looks like we'll withdraw at some point without achieving "victory."

This is what I and many, many, many other people have been saying since before the war. That the threat was not big enough to invade this country, considering the aftermath could very well be worse than having Saddam in power. That you can't install a democracy through force. We were called traitors, cowards, idiots, just about anything you can think of for holding this view. Now it's been shown Saddam was not the threat he was made out to be and it's been shown that a post-Saddam Iraq is a chaotic bloodbath that's on the brink of civil war (if it's not already there). Now those who were most behind it are catching up... not many are doubting that this war has been a giant mistake. If you're looking for true dead-enders, you'll find them on this site.

Posted by: A-10 at November 3, 2006 09:03 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't the Director of Homeland Security, it was the Director of National Intelligence,

I stand corrected. That makes me feel much better. A Neocon Direcetor of National Intelligence; now that's an oxymoron!

Saddam was a year away from nukes! In 1991!!!

Wasn't that before the first Gulf War? Wasn't that before eight years of Clinton's strikes on Saddam's weapons factories which eliminated all of his WMDs, as all credible sources from Blix to, well, President Bush himself?

You guys are really desperate, defending putting plans to manufacture nukes (many pages in Arabic, no less) on the Web! All those who advocated doing this were involved in a traitorous act!

coulterfan,

"eight years of Clinton's strikes on Saddam's weapons factories which eliminated all of his WMDs"

You really crack me up.

On 3 Sep 96, Navy ships and Air Force B-52 bombers fired a total of 27 cruise missiles at "selected air defense targets" in southern Iraq for about a 45-minute period. Oops, no WMD facilities targeted.

On 19 Dec 98, additional cruise missile strikes, at a variety of targets, including WMD sites, were launched. But I though Saddam didn't produce any WMD after 1991. What was Clinton firing the cruise missiles at?

According to the Battle Damage Assessment, 11 WMD production facilites were targeted (Hello, saddam had more than 11 WMD sites), of the 11, 1 had serious damage, 5 had moderate damage, 4 had light damage. NONE were completely destroyed. Oops, I geuss that shoots your "eliminated all of his WMDs" theory out of the water.

That's the sum total of Clinton's "eight years of...strikes on Saddam's weapons factories" Two periods, one in 1996, and one in 1998. And the first strikes didn't even target WMD.

Why did he even launch the strikes? I thought the sanctions were being effective and Saddam was disarming willfully. Why would President Clinton say "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, poison gas, biological weapons, or the means to deliver them. He has used such weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again", if he did think Saddam was going to be a threat. Why would the UN send the Inspectors back in if the strikes completely destroyed Iraqs programs. Maybe because they thought he would reconstitute his programs or that the programs were totally destroyed.

Additionally, if these strikes, launched at the height of his impeachment hearings, "eliminated all of his WMDs", why were the UN Inspectors continuing to find WMD production facilities, WMD materials, and WMD munitions after 1998?

Do you know why the Director of National Intelligence, after the urging of Congress, put the documents on the Web (many pages in Arabic, no less)? Because with millions of documents, and relatively few translators, it would take decades to translate them all. The documents were made available, if you knew where to look, so others could assist in the translation of the documents.

A-10 -

134,000,000 PEOPLE!

Mark,

As usual, you have dropped in only just long enough to repeat your initial assertions, without giving any evidence to back up your claims.

And one more thing. When Clinton ordered air strikes against Iraq in 1998, he didn't go to Congress and get Authorization. President Bush did get Authorization in 2002.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the President Clinton did the right thing. But, so did President Bush. However, Clinton ordered air strikes and thought that would solve the problem. It didn't. Saddam kept up his evil ways.

You liberals are just showing your hypocracy when you don't condemn President Clinton from waging war on Iraq (that's what firing hundreds of cruise missiles into Iraq was) without Congressional authorization, yet you call President Bush "Hitler", and worse, for waging war on Iraq with COngressional authorization.

How many innocent Iraqis died because of those air strikes, that didn't solve the Iraq problem? Where is your condemnation for President for those deaths? Do you see your hypocracy? Or are you so blinded with hatred for President Bush that you don't see how foolish your position is?

or that the programs were totally destroyed. = or that the programs weren't totally destroyed.

other_nate,

Thanks for contributing soooooo much to the discussion. You can always be counted on to provide insightful solutions to the problems at hand.

Wow, no righty here has the guts to answer my question.

not bad for a socialist, no?

SHOULD THE WEB SITE BE PUT BACK UP?

"SHOULD THE WEB SITE BE PUT BACK UP?"

First, lets make a couple of things clear. All of the documents that were posted had their classification removed. Therefore, there was no "leak" of classified information.

Further, these were not documents detailing US intelligence operations, they are Iraqi documents captured by coalition forces. Revealing information about classified US intelligence operations is a specialty of the left and the left-leaning MSM.

If they can restrict the documents to those that don't aid our enemies or that don't disclose technical data that might be used against us, yes.

An additional caveat would be to restrict access. The site was hosted by Ft Leavenworth, so they could restrict it to members of the Armed Forces, or to those who have been cleared to assist in the translation.

So, Jim, do you thing the site should be put back up?

A-10,

A summary of the information can be disclosed, including any evidence that you think helps your case. But not the technical details that Bush & the GOP had posted.

When you say that it wasn't a "leak", that's hogwash. Simply because the Republicans make it officially declassified doesn't mean it's not dangerous or useful to terrorists. It's still a leak if it benefits the terrorists whether or not you declassify it.

This whole affair is more Katrina-esque than anything. I'm sure Bush & CO didn't want to give nuclear secrets to terrorists, they just choked, again.

You're assertion that Iran already had all the info is interesting, but there is no way you or I would know what information Iran has. Neither of us are qualified to evaluate the material that was disclosed as to it's danger...unless you are a nuclear specialist and had spent time reviewing the actual material. Are you, and did you?

The only thing we know for sure is that both US and UN intelligence agencies went completely apesh*t when they learned what Bush had done for political purposes. THAT is the issue here, how Bush (once again) put politics over security. And I find it striking that this doesn't bother you.

Jim Oliver,

"You're assertion that Iran already had all the info is interesting, but there is no way you or I would know what information Iran has."

I'm basing my statements on news reports about the 2000 CIA operation to give Iran falwed nuclear plans, approved personally by President Clinton. A Russian scientist who had defected to the US was used to transfer the flawed plans to Iran. But he noticed the flaws and told the Iranians how to correct them.

However, as I understand, (and no, I'm not a nuclear bomb expert), you design the bomb first, then obtain the fissile material. Since Iran is to the point of trying to obtain fissile materials, I would assume that they already have a bomb design and weren't counting on the Iraqi plans on the internet. But, I might be wrong.

No, I have not seen the plans that President Clinton gave the Iranians. Nor have I seen the Iraqi plans that were posted on the documents site. We're all taking the word of the news orgainzations that say they are what they say they are.

As for "both US and UN intelligence agencies went completely apesh*t when they learned what Bush had done for political purposes", you realize that the Director for National Intelligence (he's the guy who heads all US intelligence agencies) was the one who authorized the documents to be posted. They were posted on the request of The House and Senate Intelligence Committees, not at the request of President Bush. I think its hilarious that you would claim that US intelligence agencies went apesh*t when they are the ones who put the documents on the web site. But, as usual, you try to place the blame on the President.

"THAT is the issue here, how Bush (once again) put politics over security. And I find it striking that this doesn't bother you."

Since it wasn't President Bush who put the documents up, I guess your supposition that he did it for political reasons goes out the window.

And "once again"? Who's playing politics with national security. Who tried to block the renewal of the Patriot Act? Who leaked classified information about our intelligence programs? And I don't just mean the recent leaks. I'm taking about Senators with a "D" after their name who have disclosed classified intelligence information. Who has tried to stop the programs we are using to detect and stop terrorist attacks>? Programs that are legal and have been effective in stopping attacks.

Why is it that anytime the United States Government does something, its President Bush's fault. I know he's the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, but give me a break.

Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of US Armed Forces against Iraq. But they bear no responsibility. Bush lied. Its Bush's War. Bush is killing thousands.

Congress passes spending legislature. But they bear no responsibility for the growth of government spending. Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor. Record Government Spending.

Coongress presses the Director of National Intelligence to post the captured Iraqi documents. Now it's Bush's fault.

Then, of course, we don't even know if the posted documents have even been viewed by anyone with evil in their minds. So, we don't even know if our national security has been compromised. Since you can find nuclear weopons plans all over the internet (I Googled "nuclear bomb plans" and only got 4,670,000 results), the odds that these Iraqi plans helped anyone are slim to none.

Finally, I find your "Katrina-esque" comment interesting. Considering that the initial responsibility belonged to local and state authorities. Considering that the Mayor failed to implement the disaster plan for a hurricane. Considering that the Governor of Louisiana did not know what to do, and delayed asking the federal government for help. Considering that federal resources were on the scene (US Coast Guard) as soon as the storm passed. Considering that FEMA is not a first, second, or third response agency, but is a coordinating agency and a conduit for federal funds. Considering that the FEMA response was faster for Katrina than for the previous yaar's three hurricanes in Florida and no one went into a BDS rage over them (maybe because their were Republicans in charge at the state and local levels and they did their jobs). Considering that the MSM did everything in its power to create the impression that the federal dropped the ball, when the ball was actually dropped by state and local agencies. Considering that once the federal government took charge, over 40,000 National Guard and Federal troops were on the scene within a few days. Considering that even if the Governor had called for federal assistance on day one, it wouldn't have stopped the walls on the canals from failing.

Here are some questions and answers about Katrina:

Why did about 1,000 New Orleans residents die? Not because President Bush and the feds were slow to respond, but because the Mayor failed to implement his disaster plans, which called for the use of all available resources (like the hundreds of school buses that went unused) to get people out of New Orleans. Some would have died anyway, even if the Mayor had done his job. Some people would have not left their homes. But that would have been their decision. Unfortuantely, because of the Mayor's incompetence, they never got the chance to make that decision.

Why were people sent to the Super Dome and the Convention Center? Not because President Bush and the feds told them to go there, where they would be stranded, but because the local authorities told them to go there prior to Katrina making land and after the canal walls failed.

Why were people stranded at the Super Dome and the Convention Center without food and water? Not because President Bush and the feds didn't send in food and water, but because the local authorities who sent them there did not plan for their support.

But President Bush gets the entire blame for the NATURAL DISASTER.

Leftists blamed him for not signing the Kyoto Treaty (which by the way was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 95-0) which resulted in Global Warming which resulted in Hurricane Katrina. Follow all that? Neither do I. (Guess that Global Warming was also responsible for 2006 having one of the lightest hurricane seasons on record)

Leftists blame him for not building the canal walls to withstand the storm-surge from a Cat 5 Hurricane. But he had nothing to do with building them and the evidence points to corruption in New Orleans diverting funds for better storm-surge protection to political pet projects. And which party OWNS New Orleans' politics?

Leftists blame him for not acting faster to provide federal help. But they ignore the fact that the Governor must first ask for the help. Otherwise, the federal government would be usurping states rights and responsibilities. Besides the feds were there rescuing stranded citizens from rooftops, while the Mayor and Governor were trying to figure out who they could blame for what.

I find it striking that you can be so ill-informed, mis-guided, and delusional that you can actually operate a computer.

And witht hat Nuke he would have given it to Al Quada to hit either Israel or America..

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...this is why the two evils would have helped each other to harm America!

A-10,

It's not about me and my delusions. It's about Bush and the GOP. Your assertion that it was congress, not Bush, who put out the documents is largely correct. And you know it was ONLY GOP congressmen who did this. But Bush and Rove Approved it. There are now 4 Democrat Senators demanding an investigation, which indicates the Dems KNOW none of their own touched it.

So we have GOP congressmen (NOT Negroponte, as you suggest) conspiring to put sensitive documents, in Arabic, on the internet for every terrorist to see.

Negroponte is now looking at seeing WHO accessed this information. You can bet a cover-up is planned if any Pakistanis or Syrians or Iranians looked at it...THANK GOD Democrats will control at least 1 body of government so a full investigation can be conducted.

Let me ask you something: If Pelosi had done this would you be defending her so diligently? Might you just call her a terrorist?

But when Bush does THE SAME FRICKING THING you'd call him (and his GOP buddies) heroes all around. There were MILLIONS of pages of information put out there. You assert that NONE of them could possibly help the terrorists, because, uh, it would make you look bad is a sick joke.

The IS NO DEFENSE FOR GIVING NUCLEAR INFORMATION TO TERRORISTS, even if SOME of it may not be that useful. What part of this do you not get?

The SH*T looks like it's hitting the fan on this deal. Ol Bush and his GOP buddies got some serious nookyoolar-powered 'splaining to do on this one.

Statement from Rep Pete Hoekstra, Chairof the House Intelligence Committee:

“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 Iraqi[s had] 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.”

Nice to see the damage control starting.

no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday.

This is an A$$ cover. He's blaming Negroponte. In short he says "It's not my fault, nobody told me they were dangerous."

Pete's in full damage control here, blaming the Intelligence community, The Times, everybody but himself. Some Republican(s) put the documents out there and we are going to find out who.

On Monday.