This time, though, I think they're going to be pretty unhappy about what they've done. Attempting to go on offense and administer the coup de grace to their beleaguered opponent, the NY Times exposes a story today how Iraqi nuclear weapons documents posted on the internet may have helped Iran along in their weapons development.
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a
vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush
administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
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.
Whoa! Let me see if I understand this. As far back as 1991 Iraq had the blueprints in place for nuclear weapons? So then all it needed to do, really, was lift themselves free of the sanctions, and they'd have been able to reconstitute a nuke program? Nigerian yellowcake, anyone? You remember yellowcake. That's the stuff that Joseph Wilson wrote in a NY Times op-ed that Iraq wasn't seeking.
Unfortunately, some of the stuff showed up elsewhere and was traced back to Iraq, in 2004.
AMSTERDAM -- The United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed yesterday
that Iraq was the likely source of radioactive material known as
yellowcake that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam
harbor.
But I digress.
The documents, roughly a dozen in number, 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. For instance, the papers
give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and
triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.
[...]
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.
So in 2002 "Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away?" No WMD, indeed.
Jim Geraghty at NRO:
What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been
"no WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years
solid. Now we're being told that the Bush administration erred by
making public information that could help any nation build an atomic
bomb.
Let's 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 "Boy, did
Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down
the "there was no threat in Iraq" 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 oblivious to it.
The
antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow
wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous
posted on the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to
America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands
of Iran. Game, set, and match.
Back to the Times, whose inept efforts on this offensive possession are apparent.
The director of national intelligence, John. D. Negroponte,
had resisted setting up the Web site, which some intelligence officials
felt implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of
government analysts. But President Bush approved the site’s creation
after Congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the
documents’ release.
Yup, it was Mr. Bush and those evil Congressional Republicans who published information on how to build a nuke that we've been saying Iraq didn't have. Doh!!
Sometimes when you take a shot on offense you turn the ball over. This one just got run back for a touchdown.
Prediction: This has a much greater chance to sway votes than Senator Kerry's Freudian slip. It backs up the WMD portion of the initial rationale for the Iraq war, in spades, the same rationale that caused 77 senators and 296 representatives to vote for authorization of military action.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In
a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted
77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein
refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N.
resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
Others blogging: Allah at Hot Air, Curt at Flopping Aces, Kim at Wizbang!, Blue Crab Boulevard, Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed at CQ, Tigerhawk, The Anchoress, AJ Strata
11/3/06 1000: A refresher:
I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach
of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core
of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough
for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if
necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us
since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know
after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that
he has continued to build those weapons.
He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons,
allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on
weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.
--Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002
11/3/06 1440: Michelle Malkin posts Rep. Pete Hoekstra's statement in response to the NY Times story:
"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."
That's gonna sting. Read the whole thing
