Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990âs and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Husseinâs scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
excerpt NYT front page
___________________________________________________
The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.
_______________________________________________
Iâm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been âno WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now weâre being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.
Letâs go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a âBoy, did Bush screw upâ meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the âthere was no threat in Iraqâ meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh⦠al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasnât dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesnât work. It canât be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once itâs in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
National Review
excerpt NYT front page
___________________________________________________
The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb. Had the United States not eliminated this threat, today we would be facing a nuclear armed Iraq and possibly a nuclear armed Iran.
_______________________________________________
Iâm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been âno WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. Now weâre being told that the Bush administration erred by making public information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb.
Letâs go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED AND DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM.
I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a âBoy, did Bush screw upâ meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down the âthere was no threat in Iraqâ meme, once and for all. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh⦠al-Qaeda.
The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, and they are apparently completely oblivous to it.
The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow wasnât dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous posted on the Internet. It doesnât work. It canât be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once itâs in the hands of Iran. Game, set, and match.
National Review
