The New York Times's November surprise: Iraq was building nukes!
The Left wants to be able to have their yellowcake and eat it too
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Featured Stories | National Security — Comments (143) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The New York Times took a break Friday from its usual pastime -- making classified information a part of the public record -- to accuse someone else of doing the same, and, in a final attempt to smear the Bush administration before Tuesday’s midterm election, grabbed the hand of her allies on the Left, and managed to take a giant leap backward.
The scoop was supposed to be another pre-election “outing” of administration blunders in the War on Terror by the mainstream media (a la the “missing Iraqi weapons” stories which happened to be held until right before the 2004 election). And the story was indeed a big one – but probably not in the way that the newspaper intended.
In recent years, US government established an online archive in an effort to enlist the public’s aid in the translation of, and reduction of data from, the vast store of Iraqi intelligence and governmental documents recovered since the March 2003 invasion. According to the Times, this effort led not to an increase in America’s understanding of that country’s supposedly nonexistent WMD programs or terrorist ties, but rather became a potential boon to Iran, who officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear may have gained knowledge of how to develop nuclear arms through the addition of Iraq’s published experience with the systems.
The documents in question reportedly contained extremely detailed information “on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs” – in other words, according to experts, “the documents…constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.”
The “thrust of the story,” to quote a former anchor, was that the Bush administration, without a second thought about the possible consequences, had deposited all of this information on the internet for anybody to access who wished to.
Anxious to drive the point home, the article added that the government site, known as the “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal,” had also made public Iraqi documents “about chemical weapons,” including “information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by causing respiratory failure.”
Apparently lost to the New York Times in this gushing about how the dangerously incompetent Bush administration made WMD technology available to Iran (thus making America exponentially less safe – although nowhere in the article does it say that Iran has definitively accessed these documents) was the most obvious detail of their story: that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had the capability for – and was actively seeking – not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons, as well.
The staple of the Liberal platform for the past four-plus years has been almost uniform: Bush lied us into a war in Iraq. Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction, nor was he seeking any; Iraq was not a threat to America’s security in any way, shape, or form.
This report blows that entire argument, and its corresponding mindset, completely out of the water.
Read on.
One cannot help but to almost feel sorry for the Left’s forced longsuffering at the hands of their own ineptitude. In a last-ditch attempt to discredit the GOP on national security, a viable accusation of failure in that area finally appeared to have been found: that President Bush endangered the nation, and enabled Iran, by publishing Iraqi documents on the internet that divulged how to make and use WMDs. While it probably will not hold up over time, the allegations alone should at least have been sufficient to get the Democrats through Tuesday’s election; after that, developments could have been dealt with as they came.
However, the Left’s biggest problem with accepting this accusation is that it means the complete and utter obliteration of their beloved mantra of the past four years –“Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.”
Perhaps the most damning statement in the Times’ article was the following:
“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.”(emphasis added)
The ineptitude of the media when so single-mindedly pursuing a predetermined target is almost staggering. Not only had the article already, in the name of showing the incompetence of the Bush administration (and, by extension in this election season, of the Republican Party as a whole) to maintain America’s national security, admitted that Saddam’s government had been actively pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but in that one brief paragraph they pulled the rest of the “Bush lied” and “Iraq was no threat” house of cards completely to the ground, with the contention that in 2002 – on the very eve of the Iraq invasion – Saddam was less than one year away from building an atomic bomb. America seems to have made it there just in time.
The contortion of logic necessary to believe both mantras – that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but that, due to Republican incompetence, publication of Iraqi documents gave Iran the ability to create and employ WMDs of their own – requires an intellect more "dizzying" than Vizzini’s.
Lost in this single-minded pursuit of a noose with which to hang Republicans on an issue that is one of their greatest strengths – and at this time when strength on it is so desperately needed – is real news, from a different front in the War on Terror: the Western front.
The latest development in the August terror case from Britain, in which twenty-five would-be suicide bombers were arrested (thanks in large part to allied surveillance – likely warrantless – of their communications) before they could execute their plan to blow up multiple airliners bound for the United States, was largely ignored by the mainstream media.
Allowed to be lost in the shuffle – or, rather, in the scramble to bounce Republicans from office, and to condemn President Bush yet again – was the fact that further interrogation of the suspects revealed their actual goal, which was not, as had first been thought, to detonate the planes over the Atlantic Ocean.
The terrorists’ ultimate goal, according to Mark Mershon, head of the FBI's New York field office, was to wait until the airliners had reached North America – and then "to blow them up over U.S. cities to maximize casualties."
According to the Winston-Salem Journal, representatives of MI5, the British intelligence service, had briefed the FBI on the liquid-explosives case in recent weeks. “It would make your hair stand up to be in the room to hear that presentation,” said Mershon.
While neither honorable nor respectable, it is not surprising that the mainstream media – New York Times included – has chosen to ignore that story completely. However, at a time when threats to our very lives are so real, it is nothing short of a disgrace that facts (and the warnings they entail) would be swept under the rug, and instead replaced by stories which, whether accurate or not, hope to advance the election-year narrative.
Unfortunately for the Left, this attempt not only fell short, but managed to shoot them squarely in both feet – for, not only does their utter disregard of actual national security-related developments reinforce even further the public’s perception of the Left on that all-important issue (as well, on the side, as reinforcing opinion of the mainstream media’s objectivity), but the motto of the Liberal movement, the mantra which had all but given them reason to live for the past four-plus years – “Bush lied: there were no weapons of mass destruction” – was cast aside and flushed in a mere instant – all in favor of yet another, run-of-the-mill attempt at an election-year hit piece.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Let A Thousand Bureaucrats Bloom — Comments (15) »
The New York Times's November surprise: Iraq was building nukes! 143 Comments (0 topical, 143 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The quote that Jon provided was in a document from the FMSO site. And, it is not all that I had posted on, because there is more to the story than the flailings of folks going off of what they _HEAR_ and not from what they have actually _READ_. :)
Wanna _READ_ about yellow cake in Iraq? I've posted on that as well, from what _I HAVE READ_ myself:
Yellow Cake with French Frosting
http://fix4rso.com/2006/09/21/yellow-cake-with-french-frosting/
... hmmm ... funny how ones own research is worth more on its own merit.
Some day, we'll all look back on this and laugh. Hopefully.
Wait a minute! The only way we can look back on this and laugh is if the Conservatives are correct in their approach and execution. If the Liberals get their way, NO ONE IS GONNA BE LAUGHING!!!
We are all infidels. So, you may THINK you can have a group hug with an Islamofacist, but, I think that hug is gonna be short lived, flippin' dolts!
I suppose documents would count as weapons of mass destruction if, you know, enough people got nasty, infected paper cuts from them.
No member of the antiwar movement gets to make jokes about WMDs here. These victims have been pissed on enough times by your faction already; we will NOT tolerate your cavalier dismissal of established pre-Gulf War atrocities because they legitimatize post-Gulf War concerns over WMDs.
Apologize. Now.
Moe
PS: Do not even think that you can get to argue with me on this.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc40lUpql10
[Maybe I'll turn you back on after I'm somewhere that I can see the video. Then again, maybe I won't, either. - Moe Lane]
You've been here less than ten minutes and you're pushing your luck.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'm not sure what's being asked of me. I could make a conditional apology -- if I offended the families of any of the victims of Saddam's attacks pre-Gulf War 1, I would apologize profusely to them. There's no question that these atrocities took place, and if my words somehow made light of these attacks, that would be a terrible thing.
But I frankly don't see how my words could be construed that way at all. If somewhat sarcastic/cynical comments about the presence of absence of WMDs as it relates to Saddam's regime post-Gulf War 1 are verboten -- then I wouldn't want to argue with you anyway.
And precisely these words.
"I apologize for making light of victims of Iraqi genocide by making an ill-considered and objectionable joke about the nature of Hussein's WMD program: it was offensive, wrong and unworthy of this site. I further promise to never make this sort of joke again on this website."
"Signed,"
"doxasticpirate"
If this isn't your next post, it's your last one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...this is the soft option. If you were a newbie you wouldn't even get this much.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
You're holding me to a blatantly unreasonable standard. I'm clearly not making light of the victims of Iraqi genocide. I'm making light of the state of Iraq's WMD program, circa 2001, as you note. (Actually, I didn't even do that: I made a joke about the idea that these particular documents constitute WMDs -- but we can leave that aside.) The two issues are clearly separable, and if you conflate the two and ask me to apologize for one thing by way of making a comment about the other, then the level of argumentation here is clearly not worth defending my posting privaleges.
I got in trouble before for arguing in these threads, so I will make a promise to only post in the more philosophical threads. Arguing about current events is clearly pointless here. But if you insist on prying a feigned apology out of me on grounds of misunderstanding what I was saying, you ain't gonna get it.
Finally, argument by tu quouqe: as I'm sure you well know, I'm not the only one who makes these kinds of jokes. Not that I'm trying to change the subject, mind you, I'm just questioning this kind of standard.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Clearly we're supposed to laugh at the same jokes, because Karl Rove programmed us in the same way he programmed Bush.
Whatever.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
"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."
"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."
Don't tread on me.
"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."
Apparently, the Times writer either unintentionally or intentionally muddied the waters here with some imprecise writing. Does "at this time" refer to the time at which the Iraqi reports were written "the 1990s and 2002" or sometime before the Persian Gulf war?
The Times article does say that the original Iraqi documents were more detailed than those provided to the United Nations. If the Iraqis were a year away from building an atom bomb during the 1990s (AFTER the Gulf War), they would want to hide this fact from the United Nations, and provide only watered-down, redacted documents to the UN in order to avoid suspicion, while continuing to develop the weapons out of sight from the inspectors.
It is important to answer the question of WHEN the incriminating documents were written (pre-1991 or post-1991 or 2002), which cannot be ascertained from the Times article as worded--either interpretation is possible. There are probably lots of bloggers out there who have looked at the actual documents, and could certify the dates one way or the other.
If they date from 2002, this would blow the BushLied meme out of the water.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
If you guys are looking to criticize the Times for making up a non-story, that's reasonable.
But these documents don't suggest, in any way, that the Iraqi government actively looking to build a nuke near the time of 2002.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It's a mish mash of errant thought at times. I think the author mis-shuffled the index cards before putting into print.
Don't tread on me.
He meant the original author, not you, Jeff.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Is there some other use for yellowcake than for nuclear purposes that I'm forgetting?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
That remains far from a certainty. Regardless the fact that they were inquiring about it is far from the same as actually acquiring which is far from being able to use it to process the appropriate fissionables into weapons grade material.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You've made it clear that having an instruction manual on how to build a nuke isn't enough for you. Apparently, trying to acquire the raw materials isn't enough for you either.
What would Iraq have had to have done before you said 'enough is enough, we have to deal with these maniacs NOW'? Detonate an atom bomb in Manhattan?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
So because I question that there is much evidence to suggest that Iraq was actively and capably trying to build nuclear weapons that means that I needed to wait until Manhattan was nuked before making a decision?
That is pretty excessive. And, honestly, beside the point. My opposition to the War in Iraq has far more to do with Afghanistan than with Iraq itself. However that is an entirely different discussion.
By your reasoning you believe we should invade Iran now since they are clearly attempting to build an infrastructure that would be capable of building nuclear weapons. Is this true?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
No, we should wait until Iran ignores 17 UN security council resolutions demanding that they disarm "Or Else". Then maybe we should get a large coalition of countries to invade Iran.
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
It's a simply yes or not type question. Responding with hyperbole simply suggests that you are uncomfortable with your own position.
Note: I realize you are not the original poster but I'm guessing you guys are fellow travelers on this matter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
in Iran and Iraq. We MAY get to a point where we need to us a military solution to Iranian nuclear weapons programs, but we aren't there yet. And if we DO get to that point, we and a large number of our allies will join to take care of the problem (like we did in Iraq).
But will you at least go on record before such event occurs that you believe Iran does have a nuclear weapons program?*
* I realize that a Democrat being on record acknowledging anything doesn't actually mean they believe what they state in public, but I like to document such things anyway.
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Bee suggested that having the plans was enough to warrant an invasion. Iran is well passed that point. Is Iran a less dangerous nation than a Hussein led Iraq?
I believe it is reasonable to assume that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme of some sort.
Not sure why some of you throw in the cheap ad hominem. What purpose does it serve?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But diplomatic tactics have not yet been exhausted. There is hope that Iran will change its ways. It happened in Lybia and may happen there too.
I am not "some", I am one. And I assume the ad hominem you reference is related to my request that you state your position on Iran's nuclear program. I could infer from your posts that you believed they have one, but you hadn't explicity stated it. That is now resolved.
The * was to point out that most members of your party had previously stated they believed Iraq had WMD and should be stopped. After Hussein was stopped they seem to have forgotten their pre-war stance (Leiberman is the only one I can think of who hasn't flipped). I do understand that a Democrat reserves the right to flip positions on any issue and completely deny a previous on the record remark.
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
What evidence do you have that Iran has detailed plans on how to build a nuke?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
OK. Maybe they're just guessing.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
LOL @ "we should get a large coalition of countries to invade Iran"
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Putting aside the wisdom (or lack thereof) of invading Iran, I just don't see us doing much coalition building in the foreseeable future, at least not where the mission is a preemptive strike.
We've built large coalitions to use military means to invade Iraq twice, and Afghanistan once. Why do you think we couldn't do it again if there Iran was deemed by the UN to be an imminent threat? Even FRANCE isn't stupid enough to leave Iran running wild in the world with nukes and threats to use them.
But I really don't think it'll come to that. Iran is mostly posturing to gain power and drive up oil prices. This will level off IF we stick to the sanctions (and possibly other actions) on North Korea and threaten same to Iran.
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I am interested in know what your answer would be.
If you hadnt noticed, you didnt really answer and I think a lot of us are interested in knowing exactly what it would take for someone on the left to be for this.
Honestly, my guess is that for most (not you perhaps) it would simply take a democrat in the white house to be the deciding factor. this hypothesis is based on the fact that they were all "for doing something before they were against it."
Do you have an example nation you would like me to respond to? Iran? Iraq? North Korea? A theoretical country?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
That work thing got in the way. I'll talk about Iraq. I'll preface that I obviously have the benefit of hindsight so that can certainly affect my comments although I will try to minimize that.
Let's say its lates 2002. Post-9/11. The country is up in arms. Obviously I choose to go into Afghanistan. That is a must make decision. However I must contend with the risk of terrorist attacks from other regions.
So I do the following. I follow the Bush Administrations plan of playing hardball with our erstwhile allies such as Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabi, Yemen, etc. That was a good strategy. Let them do some real dirty work that we aren't always at liberty to do.
I then send a envoy to Iraq, either backchannel or by normal means. I tell Hussein that it's put up or shut up time. He either comes aboard or faces the wrath of the most powerful force that has ever walked the Earth. I give him 1 week to choose. If he decides to play ball, great. I can now focus my attention on Afghanistan and put all available resources towards eliminate the Taliban and getting Bin Laden. If he says no then I begin the public relations campaign to oust Hussein. I begin by publicly stating that an attempt at peace with Iraq was made in an attempt to combine forces to eradicate world wide terrorism but that we were rebuked. I play that card for at least a year while the Afghanistan situation begins to settle. I realize that Iraq is a paper tiger that has virtually no capability at inflicting damage towards her neighbors. Time is on my side. I beat the Iraq is a terrorist state drum relentlessly, all the while spending my military and economic resources on stabilizing Afghanistan.
My the end of 2003, beginning of 2004 I start building a coalition to defeat the terrorist state of Iraq. I do every form of horse trading I can muster to build a coalition against Hussein.
At that point I make a decision on whether to invade or not.
This is the general outline of what I would have done given what I knew at the time. Had I know there was no legitimate WMD threat I would have basically ignored Hussein and completely focused on Afghanistan.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...before I get to reply but I appreciate the answer.
OK ,a quick reply, be prepared to be beat up a bit from others because it sounds eerily close to what Bush did, except that you give Sadaam almost an extra year to hide stuff.
I do want to reply but it might not be till tuesday when this will probably be a moot point and we will be on to other more exciting stuff.
:-)
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
that in many ways it seems similar to the Bush Doctrine. But I never said that the Bush Doctrine was far off the reservation. I do think it was the wrong choice but foreign policy is not something that shifts wildly.
People like to argue about foreign policy at the edges but that isn't the way it works. And, when asked, I would rather provide a somewhat rational policy stance over creating a complete counter to the existing policy for political purposes.
So, yes, my suggestion is similar to the Bush Doctrine. But the differences are far greater than may appear at first glance.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
We should destroy its nuclear capability, military infrastucture and every government building larger than a post office using tactical nukes as necessary. We should then hang one of the "Now Serving" signs in the UN and see who takes the next ticket.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
if, albeit, terrifying.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It's really interesting that you find him terrifying, but the possibility of a nuclear weapon detonating in D.C. or New York doesn't seem like all that big a deal to you.
Terrifying is seeing your loved ones have to jump off a 100 story burning office building. Terrifying is not George Bush, not Donald Rumsfeld, and Not John Ashcroft.
I look forward to the day when your side gets that straight, and shudder when I think what it will take.
If LA goes up in a mushroom cloud tomorrow, the first words out of these peoples mouths will be blame for Bush. There is literally nothing that can happen which will ever change their minds. They have already laid the ground to justify further terror attacks on the US as being to our "loss of moral standing".
If LA goes up in a mushroom cloud tomorrow, it will be the Chinese at the other end. They have the delivery technology and the city killer warheads. Beyond that much of the freighter traffic into the West Coast comes from China, they need not even bother with missiles for those cities. And they know that they will be in a face off with the US by midcentury, they very well could take the "why wait until the last moment" attitude.
China has Islamic minorities aand problems with them, the uS is doing the Chinese a big favor by being in the Middle East and the 'Stans'; China points at that and tells the Muslims that its the US they have to worry about, and moves more Han into those territories. Meanwhile the US military is being damaged and stretched, and closely studied by the Russians, Chinese, and Indians.
given I live in Hoboken NJ the thought of a nuclear strike in Manhattan is one of the greatest fears that I have regarding terrorism. But you can go ahead and keep thinking that I don't think nuking a US city is a big deal.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Joking about nuking American cities is apparently A-Ok here.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
current state and long standing reputation and don't whine about some phony offense to your sensibilities. Get back to your incessant apologizing for the moral and spiritual turpitude of the Left. It is at what you excel.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Do you really think that attempting to play gotcha games is going to elevate your status around here?
If you dislike the moderation here, just leave. In fact...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
You MAY think it is a big deal, but it seems you would rather debate how many meals the detainees at Guantanamo should receive, instead of offering a solution to the problem of terrorism.
In case you're wondering, here are some things that haven't worked, complements of the Clinton administration:
1) Ignoring the issue
2) Reaching out and feeling their pain
3) Loathing the military
I would rather fight and not be perfect than debate waterboarding and the Geneva Convention at cocktail parties, thank you. Thank God others feel the same way.
Nothing like assigning beliefs to other people. Gee can I assign the belief in Wiccanism to you?
You said I wouldn't care whether American cities would get nuked or not. Ignoring the gross callousness of that comment, I pointed out I live next to the city with the biggest crosshairs in the country. And instead of saying, well maybe you do care, you choose to pull out a bag of strawmen.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I stand by the statements above, and eagerly await your solution to the problem of terrorism. Actually, if anyone on the left can provide even the basic, broad outline of a plan, and you can find it, copy it, and paste it here, that would work.
"Bush is Hitler" or "Haul Ass Now" do not count, just to make it plain.
And hopefully you get my point.
So I'm supposed to cure cancer. Ok. Well here goes.
To begin with terrorism isn't a belief or a way of life. It is a strategy. As such you can never DEFEAT terrorism. However what you can strive to do is reduce the risk of people reverting to terrorism. Pedantic as this may seem, it also is lost on many people on both sides of the aisle.
So we are not dealing with terrorism but rather Muslim radicals who use terrorism to achieve political objectives. So what we need to do is try and deter these radicals from using terrorism to achieve their goals..
So how do you deter people from using terrorism as a form of revolt? The first step is to realize that they do not view us the same way we view ourselves. We are not the noble purveyors of freedom and justice in their eyes. We are a foreign hegemony that dictates edicts to their lands. They view our attempts to "Westernize" them as trying to steal their culture. So we should be ever mindful of our actions in the region because they will not view our actions the same way we do.
We need to show them that our way of life is superior, not tell them that it is. This will NEVER work.
I honestly think that our foreign policy in the region is inherently arrogant. And I speak to our foreign policy in that region for the past 50 years, Republican and Democrat alike. Instead of looking at them as equals on the world we viewed them as a virtual colony.
I think it is time that we create a new paradigm in which we no longer dictate to the Middle East how things should be but rather look to cooperate with them to create a more dynamic region. Of course that would require us relinquishing some power. And we would need to redefine how we treat the countries in the region.
Would this be easy? No way. Would it eliminate terrorism? Not a chance. But it could go a long way towards achieving both.
You may eviscerate to suit your purposes.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I will buy paragraphs 1 and 2, but disagree that we have any interest in "Westernizing" them. Unless of course, you're talking about freedom of speech, rights for women, and other stuff like that. Maybe the people of the middle east are interested in Westernizing themselves.
Anyway, we differ, and the way we differ is that if a country poses a threat to the US, and wants to elevate itself by attacking us, I believe we should deal with the problem decisively and permanently.
leaving only those who are willing to live peacefully. RIP or LIP, take your pick.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
say:
"The first step is to realize that they do not view us the same way we view ourselves. We are not the noble purveyors of freedom and justice in their eyes. We are a foreign hegemony that dictates edicts to their lands."
If they is the whole population then we will have to break the whole's will like we did in Germany and japan. But Afghanistan and Iraq shows that the whole they want no part of the the Taliban and Saddam or the killing of innocents by the Baathist-al Qaida coalition. They want freedom. They voted for governments and have armies fighting with us for their freedom against the bad minority "theys."
you still don't get it
you still blame America first
When will you and your party ever get it?
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
You will infer anything you would like out of my comments...
you still don't get it
you still blame America first
Where did I blame America for anything? Why is it that even making an observation that, far from critical, simply identifies simple truths, blaming America?
Did we or did we not invade Iraq?
Do you think the majority of Muslims view America as liberators or invaders in Iraq? If you think the former then we are operating on such polar views of how the world exists there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
the Taliban and Saddam taken off their necks and were do see us as liberators, and in fact, many refer to Bush as THE LIBERATOR.
Your word games are not amusing. We INVADED necessarily to remove regimes that attacked us or were violating ceasefires achieved by American blood, and, as is what America is want to do, we liberated rather re-enslaved the population.
Invasion and liberation are not mutually exclusive.
And you, as a lawyer, know that, so I'm not amused.
Unless you are a very young lawyer, in which case, I will be gentle as i dispense wisdom usually unavailable and which is oft not learned until after many years of living.
take notes
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I respect you. But you are playing a game of semantics and moralism.
I did not speak to the moral justification of our actions in Iraq. I pointed out how the Arab population VIEWED our actions. You want to call that blame Americaism, go for it. I realize when I can't change people's world views.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
As usual, you entirely evaded my question. I'm trying to pin you down regarding exactly what it would have taken for you to justify invading Iraq. So far all you've given is negative examples; I provided an (admittedly extreme) example to try to get you to at least say there does in fact exist a scenario in which you would agree that Iraq needed to be overthrown. Or maybe I'm misreading you, and not even a nuke detonated in Manhattan would be enough to justify an Iraq invasion in your mind?
I guess I'll just have to presume that unless you can give me a scenario in which you would agree that invading Iraq would be justified, that there doesn't exist one for you, and you're nit-picking all the evidence for the invasion just to be contrary.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I understand if you call my reading comprehension into question, but I think that the article may have just been poorly written/edited. While some of the documents were written in the 1990s and in 2002, I think they refer to Saddam's pre-Gulf War I nuclear program and not something he may have had going in 2002. In the second paragraph of the article, the Times calls the documents posted on the internet "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war." Just a thought.
I can't agree with this line of reasoning, it's as much a contortion of logic as the one your accusing the left of.
If I'm to understand your arguement it's that the existance of these documents proves Saddam had a WMD program and that this undermines the lefts point that no WMD were found in Iraq correct?
I just can't see how. I think everyone (including the left) accepts that in the '80s and early '90s Saddam had an active WMD program including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. I think those same people will also agree that Saddam actively used many of these own weapons on his own people. None of these things are indispute by the left (if they are please link me a story showing this!) and would be acknowledged by ever single congressmen who voted to authorize the war.
But, the reason we went to war was not because he had a weapons program in the '80s and early 90s. We went to war because he was supposed to have a secret active weapons program in 2002 creating new weapons. There is no evidence of that in these documents. These documents are from reports submitted to the UN and Saddam's archives that pre-date the first gulf war.
These documents cover things that a majority of americans (regardless of political leanings) accept as true. That Saddam once had a weapons program. Even after he gave up his weapons in the 90s - which it seems pretty clear at this point he did, or hid them VERY well - he still had documents relating to weapons research as well as scientists in his country familar with these subjects. But, we didn't goto war to get recover paperwork, we were supposed to be going to war to recover weapons.
The issue at hand is that the information in these documents from his research and development in the early '90s was still potentially very valuable to states who were trying to develop weapons today and should never have been made public. They only weapons program they confirm the existance of is the early '90s programs everyone (including Saddam) admits Iraq had.
The tricky part of all these documents, quotes and hearsay we here about in the date of said items. This was the case back in 2002-2003 as well. Info on Saddam that spanned some 10-15 years was used interchangeably. Often, the juicier stuff was old news.
Don't tread on me.
The Times, and the left,, want to have things both ways. They want to argue that Iraq was not a danger, AND they want to argue that if other people learn what Iraq knew WMD-wise, these other people WOULD be a danger.
One of these propositions must be false. Either it was no big deal that Iraq had this level of nuclear know-how, in which case its no big deal if anyone else has it. (In which case the Times story is just another in a long line of hatchet jobs.)
Or it really was a big deal that Iraq had this level of nuclear knowledge. In that case its plausible to argue that this information should not be widely released. (Although it was released by the intelligence services, not Congress or the WH.) If that is true then you have to accept that Iraq was on the threshold of going nuclear, which the Times itself asserts. In which case, taking out Iraq in 2003 helped us avoid it going nuclear in the way North Korea did.
And before you say it, Iraq and North Korea were both under sanctions and supposedly subject to inspections, as long as they did not throw the inspectors out.
The Times, and the left,, want to have things both ways. They want to argue that Iraq was not a danger, AND they want to argue that if other people learn what Iraq knew WMD-wise, these other people WOULD be a danger.
I read Jeff's writeup that this someone confirmed he was a year away from a bomb in 2002. He wasn't, he was back in the early 90s. The lefts point in this case I which I would agree with is that this information in the hands of a country with an active nuclear weapons program (eg. some radioactive material, centifuges, etc ) could help speed their program along since it included technical details they might not otherwise have. Without such a program and equipment Saddam was much farther then just one year from a bomb.
While I agree it was a big deal that Saddam had this level of knowedge. We went to war because he was supposed to have actual useable weapons, or at least an active program to build such weapons. Not the leftover blueprints for part a weapon and paperwork from a known but inactive program.
Jon says,
"If that is true then you have to accept that Iraq was on the threshold of going nuclear".
No, we don't. There is absolutely zero evidence that Saddam was any closer to having a nuke in 2003 than he was in 1991. Zero. And the assertion that he was just a few years from having one in 1991 was questionable at best, and laughable at worst.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Saddam was any closer to having a nuke in 2003 than he was in 1991. Zero. And the assertion that he was just a few years from having one in 1991 was questionable at best, and laughable at worst.
So, what, you thought the 1981 Israeli attack on Osirak was the end of Saddam's nuclear program?
I don't think so.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
That's the neatest job of Dowdifying a quote I've seen in a while.
If we accept what the Times says, and clearly they want us to, then Iraq was within a year of going nuclear.
I get that from reading their article which says 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.
For the purposes of our discussion here it is only neccessary to note the contradictions in what the Times is saying. The question of which assertion by the Times is false is one we need not answer right now.
What's dowdifying? Whatever it is, it sounds bad.
"If we accept what the Times says, and clearly they want us to, then Iraq was within a year of going nuclear."
Right. In 1991. NOT in 2003, which is what Jeff seems to have assumed from the article. I'll ask you, Jon, since no one else can seem to explain, where does the article claim - when has ANYONE claimed - that Saddam was a year from a nuke in 2002/2003? And feel free to show me some evidence, ANY evidence, that Saddam was any closer to having a nuke in 2003 than he was in 1991.
The process of becoming a brain dead, left wing, man hating spinster who writes fiction for the New York Times.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
where does the article claim - when has ANYONE claimed - that Saddam was a year from a nuke in 2002/2003?
You ask this, after I directly quoted you where the article says that Iraq was one year from going nuclear. They had the know how, all they needed was the fissionable material. There are a great many reports going back over the last ten years saying exactly that.
Bush went into Iraq to stop a dictator who was hellbent on getting WMD any way he could. In 1980-1990's that was an active WMD program. Post Desert Shield/Desert Storm it was bamboozling the ineffective UN buffoons into giving him a clean bill of health so he could go back to his active WMD program. He had just about succeeded in that, which means that circa 2002, since he still had all the research work and equipment, he was 2-3 years away from making a bomb. And once he had the bomb, losing the two world trade centers was going to look like a mosquito bite compared to what he was going to do. I'm just disappointed we didn't shoot the [censored] when we found him.
He still had the equipment to build a nuclear weapon? Why didn't we find it then?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Maybe because we spent months mucking around at the UN, announcing our intentions to attack him, taking our sweet time building up forces in the region, that the Iraqi Baathists had time to DO something about it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Maybe that's it. I have no idea. No real evidence to support this claim but anything is possible I guess.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
There's no evidence except that all the leading intelligence services of the world seemed to agree that the Iraqi Baathists had something there.
Or was the Poet calling for thousands of inspectors in spite of believing there was nothing to find?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Just because everyone thinks something doesn't make it so.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
These are the agencies and organizations who job it is to know things, and upon whom we all rely to make foreign policy decisions.
If you don't believe them, then you don't know anything, and then you're too ignorant to have an opinion.
Unless you're saying that CNN can know things the CIA does not.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The CIA seems to have accumulated quite a bit of cruft.
Cruft: old or improperly written code which needs to be fixed, but tends to stick around
Can you describe what evidence would cause you to conclude that a President sworn to defend us must act to pre-empt a threat to us or deserve impeachment?
Or are you in the mushroom cloud camp that rejects pre-emption utterly?
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I would want the President to be honest and say that the only WMDs that we should be truly concerned with are nuclear weapons.
Secondly I would like real evidence, and not just inferential evidence, that someone both is nearly capable of creating these weapons and has the intent to use such weapons against the United States.
Hope this helps.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
See hole in NYC courtesy of non-wmd cavedwellers.
See mass dead Kurds from attempted genocide with non-nuke wmds.
See anthrax dead from epistles and imagine exponentials from missiles (or other delivery system-missiles rhymed rather nicely wouldn't you agree).
Let's face it misnamed as hawk dove. The evidence you require is anything a Democrat President says justifies pre-emption and nothing that a republican president says.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Are you suggesting that the Kurds didn't have to worry about chemical WMD?
Or is this just a way to justify ignoring the small stockpiles of chemical artillary shells that the US has recovered in Iraq?
Sorry, but biologicals and chemicals are easier to produce and deliver. They are also VERY devastating in highly populated areas. Frankly, I think it's more likely that AQ will aquire and use a chemical weapon than a nuke.
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
So how many people have died from chemical attacks in the past 30 years? How many have died from machete attacks?
Compared to what are biological and chemical weapons easier to produce?
I don't think you know much about the lethality of chemical and biological weapons against dispersed targets INCLUDING cities.
I have no idea why you brought up the Kurds? Are you comparing the United States to Saddam controlled Kurdish areas of Iraq?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
And both are much easier to produce than nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons are incredibly easy to produce(most are very similar to pesticides or are simple compounds). On the cost basis just how much do you think an army of Mechanized Infantry costs ?
Thank god we don't have hard data on the use of bioligicals against cities. The last time it was tried we got the black death.
and they've been used by terrorists. Biologicals are a BIT more difficult, but are certainly easier to produce than NUKES (which was obviously my comparison since I was responding to your claim that we should only worry about nukes).
As to numbers, the Washinton Post report on Saddam's conviction stated that he's also currently on trial for killing as many as 100,000 Kurds using poison gas among other things. (You really have no idea why I brought them up? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?) He also used chemical weapons against the Iranian army. I have no idea how many Iranians were killed with them, but wouldn't be surprised if the number is also in 6 figures.
A few years back, there was a terrorist cult leader who's people developed and used chemical weapons in Japan. It killed 15 people and injured 5000.
In case you've forgotten, there were a few people who receive anthrax laced (biological WMD) letters in the US a couple of years ago. Fortunately, the person who sent them included a warning explaining what was in them so the people who came in contact were able to get treatment.
These are only the incidents I know about. They are probably others.
So, how many have been killed by Nukes in the last 30 years? How many people were actually even sickened by a nuclear attack in the last 30 years?
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Chemical weapons should not be compared to nukes.
As you said they are vastly easier to produce than nukes. But their efficacy is a fraction of a nuclear weapon. They are more comparable to conventional weapons that can kill easily as many people and are far easier to transport.
This is my point. We can't stop people from making chemical weapons. But the reality is that they aren't appreciably more dangerous than normal conventional weapons, especially when we are talking about non-militarized delivery systems.
They are a bogeyman that scare people but aren't terribly more effective than traditional weapons.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
and watch me shut down the 30 busiest airports in the western world for 6 months to a year. Do that with convential weapons.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Chemicals and biologicals aren't particularly difficult to disperse. An old crop duster would do just fine if the pilot isn't worried about living. A remote controlled aircraft with a sprayer will work almost as well if you care about the pilot(Saddam had these).
*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
No, wrong Neil. Go do some reading about what the leaders and intelligance services were actually saying in the run-up to the war, and come back when you have some evidence. I'll give you a pointer: start with russia.
Why then, did Russia vote in favor of UNSCR 1441, which declared the regime to be in material breach of its disarmament obligations?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
You have dodged my question. Your assertion was that ALL the leading intelligence services of the world seemed to agree that the Iraqi Baathists had "something there". I'm asking you for quotes or documents from those intelligence services, the leaders of their countries, etc., that supports your position. Tell me what Putin thought, for example.
And yes, we know how Russia voted at the UN. And France and Germany and Britain. Tell me, or show me, how the political wranglings at the UN indicated any kind of concensus in the intelligence community.
You're a neophyte here so its all new and wonderful to you to engage this tired subject and argue it to death. We talked it to death months or years ago. Hence most adults here are just not interested in beating to death a horse already on its last legs. Go back to DK if you want to fight!
Nice, thank you. You have confirmed my suspicions. I ask for some evidence and the response is basically, "let's not talk about it".
if you find the poster's answer to be insufficient, unsupported or undocumented you are permitted to look it up yourself. If you find evidence to the contrary you are free to post it for the world to see and show the poster to be wrong. However, in fairness if you find evidence supporting the poster's contention you really ought to post that also. This is an equal opportunity site.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Russia voted for UNSCR 1441. That's evidence they believed Baathist Iraq to be concealing a weapons program.
What's your evidence to the contrary?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
[...because this is otherwise going to be a highly meaningless activity for you.]
[OTOH, the time that you're spending doing this is time that you're not spending manning a phone for Tuesday's elections, and every little bit helps, no? - Moe Lane]
Germany wasn't convinced that Hitler's Mein Kampf
rendered him unacceptable to be their leader.
France wasn't convinced Faith in God was needed when they had their little revolution. And they weren't convinced that they needed to assimilate the imported Allah worshipers to replace the babies that weren't produced by their godless navelgazing secular appeaser monkeys.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
during the 5 months or so (November 2002 to March 2003) that we spent trying to make the case to the UN, get inspectors in there, get them safely out again, mass the troops in Kuwait, etc. Some bloggers have suggested that the WMD were shipped to Syria, or possibly hidden in the Baqaa Valley in Lebanon. Which is one reason why the Israeli invasion of Lebanon last summer should have been allowed to proceed awhile longer--they might have found those weapons.
But the question of WHEN Saddam was a year away from a nuclear bomb is very important. That sentence in the Times can be parsed either way, but if "at the time" refers to 2002, the BushLied meme is buried for good.
But that's not up to us to answer, simply from trying to guess what a New York Times writer meant by a confusing sentence. We may need to get some answers from those who have read the documents.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php
Ed Morrissey has an interesting take on this article at Captain's Quarters. The fact that the New York Times is publishing this tends to support the authenticity of other Iraqi documents which suggest collusion between Saddam and Al Qaeda AFTER the first Gulf War, which was also one of the justifications given by the Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq.
This could be a lot bigger than the slip of a Timesman's tongue. Especially right before an election.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
"We were for leaking classified material before we were against it!!!"
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Jeff and all the other bush-bots here,
Do you guys even know where the "one year away from a nuke" theory came from?
And you do understand that these claims were disputed 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."
Please, someone, do some research, and let me know if you'd like to debate the actual substance of your claims.
All us bush-bots can't think for ourselves, we must wait to get or talking points to answer you. In the meantime, please hold your breath until we get back to you...
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
of the war. That would be the 100 Years War. Being that it has the same degree of relevance to today as does the start of the Iraq war, I'm sure you won't mind the change. Further, you have demonstrated that there is a high probability of your having an equivalent level of expertise between the two. You go first.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The immediate cause of the war was economic. English sheep growers sold their long fine wool to weavers in Flanders, across the English Channel. Flemish weavers as well as English sheep growers depended on this trade for their livelihood. In 1336 Philip VI arrested all English merchants in Flanders and took away the privileges of the Flemish towns and the craft guilds. The Flemings revolted against French control and made an alliance with England.
(nah, I'm really not that smart...I looked it up!) :-)
The notion that all wars have economic principal causes is plain wrong, though that is not to say they don't also underlie things.
The immediate cause was dynastic. With the extinction of the Capetian line there were two claimants to the French throne. The King of England was the the grandson of the last Capetian King, through the female line. The Valois claimed that under the Salic Law, property and title could not pass through the female line, even to a male heir, so they seized the throne. In fact the Salic Law, if it ever applied in France, had lapsed by Twelfth Century, when Henry II (of England) inherited the French Duchy of Normandy from his mother and Eleanor of Acquitaine inherited Acquitaine in her own right.
Hope that helps.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is hardly a useful source when presented by itself. Naving lived through a couple of decades of this bunch of moonbats and their "Doomsday Clock" pronouncing us within minutes of nuclear Armageddon I think is is clear to any dispassionate, or even rational, observer that as a group they are as credible as MoveOn.org and SANE/Freeze.
A second point. This group was as surprised as everyone else when India and Pakistan popped a nuke. So it isn't like they know very much about what is going on in the field of clandestine nuclear research.
A third point. There is a logical fallacy here that discredits everything else they have said on the subject:
"It seems safe to assume that what has taken Brazil over a decade would have taken Iraq at least that long."
While it may be true that Iraqi's are no more competent than Brazilians, though Brazil does have hotter chicks, this rather ludicrous statement presumes the BS artists at BAS actually know the start date for Iraq's nuclear research.
As we know they were very interested in acquiring nukes as early as the construction of the Osirak reactor (destroyed 1981). Not being an "atomic scientist" my math may not be all that good but it seems to a guy who passed algebra back in high school that we can say with some degree of accuracy that the Iraqi nuke program was about 20 years old when terminated by the Gulf War.
A final point. Using "bush-bot" gets you shown the door. If you were smart or amusing it might be worth letting it slide but all evidence indicates you are an idiot. Go bother someone else.
Streiff, I call you (and Jeff) a bush-bot because you will reliably find a way to justify the administration's actions using the most tenous logic. A perfect case in point is this thread. Jeff has taken a piece from the New York Times (?), and not only has trumpetted its content without (apparently) checking on the reliability of the sources, but he has also badly misconstrued the article's conclusions. I'll ask it again, because no one has bothered to answer so far, where in this article is it said or even implied that Saddam was one year from having a nuke in 2002?
You said,
-"...this rather ludicrous statement presumes the BS artists at BAS actually know the start date for Iraq's nuclear research... Not being an "atomic scientist" my math may not be all that good but it seems to a guy who passed algebra back in high school that we can say with some degree of accuracy that the Iraqi nuke program was about 20 years old when terminated by the Gulf War."
No, streiff, YOU may not have a firm grasp of the timeline of Iraq's nuclear program, but in general this timeline is fairly well established, and is solidly anchored in various documentation. You may look it up if you like, but it is highly presumptuous of you to assume that others share your ignorance. Your estimate of 20 years means... what exactly? Really, what in the hell does that mean? That they had twice as long to pursue a nuke than did Brazil? Would you then argue that Iraq should have anywhere near the roughly thousand centrifuge machines that Brazil has built in that time? What other brilliant estimates or predictions can you come up with? Perhaps you should leave it to those who did more than pass their algebra classes.
In the mean time, it might be helpful to you to consider the content of the BAS rebuttal to Paul Leventhal's original "one year from a nuke" theory. Let's have a look shall we?
From the BAS article "Iraq and the bomb: Were they even close?" by David Albright and Mark Hibbs March 1991:
"Immediately after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait last August, the German Foreign Office issued an internal memo to its export control officials. The document ordered an end to a training program three German firms had been conducting for Iraqi engineers... Although Interatom officials told German export authorities that the transfer of nuclear know-how was forbidden, customs agents emphasized that IPC staff expressed a keen desire to get specific and extensive nuclear-related information. IPC is also behind a company called Al Fao General Establishment, in Baghdad. According to U.S. and Israeli intelligence reports, Al Fao has been active in procuring missile technology for Iraq. A U.S. government expert said that Al Fao wanted laboratory equipment from Interatom which could be used as a clean room for manufacturing missile guidance systems, or centrifuge components needed to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. A work room, German investigators said, was the first dual-use (civilian-military) export to Iraq which was stopped after Kuwait was overrun."
This seems rather important since Germany was the source for the ENTIRETY of Iraq centrifuge equipment and training. Do you dispute any of this so far, streiff?
Concerning Iraq's possession/creation of fissile material, the BAS says:
"Iraq might not have enough highly enriched uranium for a "crude" nuclear device, that is, one containing just slightly less fissile material than necessary to achieve criticality when the device is assembled. To make a crude implosion device using weapongrade uranium (enriched to over 90 percent uranium 235), one would have to start out with at least 15 kilograms. This assumes that the design would incorporate a thick reflector/tamper and that little fissile material would be lost in processing--although such losses can under many circumstances reach 10-20 percent. But Iraq has only 12.3 kilograms of 93 percent enriched uranium, some of which might fuel the Tammuz II research reactor at Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad. The material was intended for the 40-megawatt Osiraq reactor, destroyed by Israel in 1981 just before it was scheduled to begin operating.
"Iraq also has about 10 kilograms of 80 percent enriched uranium at the 5-megawatt IRT-5000 reactor supplied by the Soviet Union. Up to two-thirds of the enriched uranium has been irradiated in the reactor and would require remotely operated chemical processing to extract the highly enriched uranium, a step that would have been difficult for Iraq to accomplish quickly, even before the bombing of Tuwaitha. The unirradiated highly enriched uranium, however, could be added to the 93 percent material, possibly providing Iraq with just enough material for a crude bomb."
I will point out to you that, when the U.S. inspected Tuwaitha again in 2003 after the invasion, they found only the low-enriched uranium that was placed under IAEA seal in 1991. You may look this up if you like, and I'll leave you to draw the inevitable conclusions about Saddam's enrichment efforts during the 90's
Any disputes or questions so far?
There's plenty more there. I found the bit about Bruno Stemmler to be especially compelling. I'll not waste any more space pasting in stuff that you could easily go look up for yourself, streiff. Until you do, you don't have much useful to contribute to this discussion.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
The Democrats are now all over the administration for dragging his heels in response to N Korea, and are asking what he intends to do about Iran's nukes.
But he did absolutely stop at least one rogue state from having WMD and what did that get him with the left?
I don't really care how far or close Saddam was, the thing is that after he tossed out inspectors we had no way of being sure what his program was That, by itself was reason enough to go to war. Given his nature, it was inconceivable to have such a threat and not way to verify. So really all your arguments are garbage.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Try again. You'll need to explain some more, because in case you've forgotten, UNMOVIC had inspectors in Iraq right up until the invasion in spring 2003. And the consensus among the inspectors was that there was little or no evidence that Saddam had viable chemical, biological, or weapons programs. Let me know if you need help looking any of this stuff up.
you say,
-"Given his nature, it was inconceivable to have such a threat and not way to verify."
Sure, inconceivable to you, maybe. You and some members of the Bush administration seem to have that in common. However, now that we have unfettered access to Iraq, the evidence is confirming the views of those who were able to think more clearly than you apparently can.
And your hand-wringing about the democrats' heckling of Bush over N. Korea is lost on me, because as a republican, I am yet more disdainful of democrats' incompetence than I am of Bush's.
you said
"However, now that we have unfettered access to Iraq, the evidence is confirming the views of those who were able to think more clearly than you apparently can."
Maybe the next Saddam-like defier of America (especially if said defier is subject to a ceasefire achieved with American blood) will cooperate better so that we don't have to rely upon Blixus consensus to prevent the establishment of more gaping hols in Manhattan. Of course, that depends on whether we have a Cowboy at the helm or a UN trusting wimp that pines for the days when America was balanced by another superpower or who wishes that we humbly follow the French.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
It completely demolishes everything you are saying. You might want to actually read it.
Let us have no more Nates. You got banned. Please stay banned.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
As soon as someone here can address my challenges with any actual evidence, I will stay banned. I promise.
[You labor under the misconception that you have a say in the matter. - Moe Lane]
Anyone that continuously uses discredited evidence to advance their argument would actually honor their word.
AGain, as has been mentioned before....we are so sick of refuting claims such as yours that we ignore them.
That battle was fought years ago...won, and we've moved on. How about you do the same?
See The World In HinzSight!
It's also banned.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Especially when through your multitude TOS violations for this site you have proven yourself untrustworthy and difficult to reply to with any degree of certainty.
Here goes
And you do understand that these claims were disputed 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
You might just as well quoted from the daily worker concerning economic indicators or lancet for war casualties. BTW The bulletin discredited themselves when they kept advancing the doomsday clock because Reagan was confronting the soviet union. They have a pacifist agenda and are against any use of force or even a harsh confrontation.
No, we don't. There is absolutely zero evidence that Saddam was any closer to having a nuke in 2003 than he was in 1991.
Saddam was on the verge of breaking sanctions and had thrown out UN inspectors. This alone put him closer to gaining a nuke.
Right. In 1991. NOT in 2003
Good job there its always nice when someone discredits themselves. Seeing as you are the source for the bulk of your comments this covers it. I could research newpaper archives to find all the examples of foreign and domestic leaders making statements about saddams WMD program. I think I will just point out he gassed the Kurds during the clinton years and leave it at that.
You don't tell other people what to do with their property. See the next step in this process is when they ban your IP.
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
Let me try to clarify for you Tbone. In his post, Jeff parrots the quote from the NYT claiming that Saddam was just a year from having a nuke in 1991, and then holds it up as justification for the invasion in 2003. My suspicion is that neither he nor you have any idea where this claim originally came from, nor can you defend it with substance.
Hence my proposition: instead of simply parroting the Times, look up the source of the original claim, and tell me why the one-year-to-a-nuke theory holds water. Then I will tell why it doesn't.
My god Jeff, I just read this:
"...in that one brief paragraph they pulled the rest of the “Bush lied” and “Iraq was no threat” house of cards completely to the ground, with the contention that in 2002 – on the very eve of the Iraq invasion – Saddam was less than one year away from building an atomic bomb. America seems to have made it there just in time."
Are you reading the same article everyone else is? Where does it claim - when has ANYONE claimed - that Saddam was a year from a nuke in 2002? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't (the actual time frame was 1991), and no one has.
I'll say it again, you guys need to do a little more research before posting, ESPECIALLY when you're use the NYT as a source.
You have exactly zero credibility here and have provided NO proof to back up your posts so as it stands I call bullsh** on everything you've said to this point.
If your going to come into our house and Sh** on the floor at least do us the courtesy of providing proof and use some manners!!! Coming here and calling people liars is bad form!
I'm not sure what the point of re-debating this issue is or why it mean so much to you? No amount of proof or walking you though this issue using common sense is going to change the fact that you hate Bush.
Putting the irrelevant timeline aside this issue of Bushlied™ is now defunct:
Who Thought Iraq Had WMD?
Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, February 1998: Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 1998: He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: There is a problem the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.
President Bill Clinton, December 1998: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. Clinton, July 2003: [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in 98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn?t know it because we never got to go back there.
General Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat.Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn?t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean [D], September 2002: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. Dean, February 2003: I agree with President Bush he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given. Dean, March 2003: [Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.
Former Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, March 2002: How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously?and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.
Senator Bob Graham [D-Florida] and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], December 1998: Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Senator John Rockefeller [D-W. Virginia], ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, October 2002: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
I've debated this to death already and really don't feel like doing it again.
The following are more articles that back up my statement...
Saddam's Terror Training Camps
Interview with Saddam?s Bombmaker
SPIES, LIES, AND WEAPONS: WHAT WENT WRONG
Saddam Saw al-Qaida As Threat?
You're problem is that, like most leftists, you automatically think we on the right are idiots that think with one mind or in lockstep with the president, We do not!!! and being that you're just the latest in a long line of moonbats that have come here to debate this topic most find it done to death and boring at this point.
Good day to you, Sir!
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Just days before the election I guess I was feeling frisky!!!
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
good clipping to to have at the ready... ;-)
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
I saved it as a file on my computer. I might even give you credit! :-)
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
here is one the Times might want to look at.