Look closer. Think harder. Choose the sound argument over the clever one.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

NYTimes: Saddam was on the Verge of an A-Bomb

Via TKS and Powerline: the NYTimes, while bashing Bush, 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.

Huh. Wow. What happened to "No WMD?"

The article attacks Project Harmony, which is a name you should know. That project published a large volume of documents found by our soldiers in Iraq. Those documents have gone a long way in refuting the "no ties to terror" and "no WMD" claims.

An intersting twist, too, for the Times, who seem to publish any secret they can get their hands on.

It would be interesting to have a nuclear physicist independently review the specific documents the Times sites, to see what information may have really been compromised.

HT: Townhall


Comments:

(Please keep in mind that each commenter's opinions are only his/her own.)



Actually the NYT doesn't say that Saddam was on the verge of an A-Bomb at all. The intel that you are bringing up is completely out of context. The documents recklessly published by the Bush administration to try to get the ring-wing bloggers going in time for some election propaganda have produced no propaganda gold, and with good reason: the archives cannot yield what is not there. There are no records documenting active WMD programs, or even dormant WMD programs, because there had been no such programs in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War – a fact that the western intelligence agencies, and the Clinton and Bush White Houses, knew very well, because they had been told of this in 1995 by the man in charge of the programs and their destruction: Saddam's own son-in-law, Hussein Kamel.

However, as the New York Times reports, there was a good deal of material in the archives on Iraq's pre-1991 WMD programs. These included, says the NYT, "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." They contain "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums."

The entire zaney reference appears to be to the paragraph that reads, "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."

That's hardly specific enough for people to pick this up and run with it. And BTW, the article is entitled "U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer" not "Saddam was on the verge of an A-Bomb". The Times never said that, though you certainly imply that it did.
 


Thanks for visiting, and taking the time for a thoughtful response.

As you quote, "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." Then you contradict that twice: "Actually the NYT doesn't say that Saddam was on the verge of an A-Bomb at all" and "not 'Saddam was on the verge of an A-Bomb'. The Times never said that, though you certainly imply that it did."

So "on the verge of" is the Times' wording. If I reworded my title to be "NYTimes: Saddam's scientists on the verge of building an atom bomb", would you have then a problem with it?

You claim that the Clinton White House "knew very well" the state of Iraq's WMD programs. But Clinton ordered air strikes in 1998, on the unanimous recommendation of his national security team, saying "without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years" and "If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons."

Sounds like Clinton knew Kamel's testimony but didn't believe it.

I agree that my focus is very different than the Times, simply drawing attention to what I consider to be an important buried admission on their part. I briefly mentioned the context ("while bashing Bush") in my original post.
 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?