My first political post so don't kill me. I'm liberal with some things, conservative with others. I'm just posting this because, well, it blew my mind.
I don't see why Bush would override his intelligence leader's advice and go ahead and post directions to bulid a nuclear bomb to "draw out" WMD in Iraq.
Also, I guess they eventually took down the information after NY Times posted . . . and then went on to blame the NY Times for reporting on it. (See interview with Bush' chief of staff) Sigh...
NCMojo
11-04-06, 05:31 PM
For the GOP, everything is political, even the war on terror.
IMRICKJAMES
11-04-06, 05:49 PM
I don't see the problem. It shows off some of the secrets Saddam was trying to hid from everyone. I mean to some of the liberals out there it was like Saddam was just sitting around Iraq like a little dove until big bad Bush came and ousted him. This proves he was still trying to go nuclear.
And don't bring up anything about Iran or some terrorists sitting on their computers learning how to buld a bomb. You're kidding yourself. Its easy enough already for them to figure things out. They weren't sitting around waiting for this to happen.
This whole situation is hilarious, because the same people criticizing the releasing of secret documents are the same people that want Bush to release other secret documents (ones that they'd use against him). They're also the same people that want everything the governments ever done released through the FOIA. You cant have it both ways
mytzplyx
11-04-06, 05:55 PM
I don't see the problem. It shows off some of the secrets Saddam was trying to hid from everyone. I mean to some of the liberals out there it was like Saddam was just sitting around Iraq like a little dove until big bad Bush came and ousted him. This proves he was still trying to go nuclear.
And don't bring up anything about Iran or some terrorists sitting on their computers learning how to buld a bomb. You're kidding yourself. Its easy enough already for them to figure things out. They weren't sitting around waiting for this to happen.
I know where you're coming from, and that's what I had thought at first, but it information posted are actually guidlines - step-by-step, and the administration is now admitting that some of the information put up there was a bit too risky - risk that their own security leader or whatever told them about. I still see this as grasping at straws for anything to "find" WMD.
porieux
11-04-06, 06:10 PM
The republicans are insane. That's pretty much all there is to it.
Too bad the democrats are spineless nitwits. We're screwed.
JasonF
11-04-06, 07:47 PM
I don't see the problem. It shows off some of the secrets Saddam was trying to hid from everyone. I mean to some of the liberals out there it was like Saddam was just sitting around Iraq like a little dove until big bad Bush came and ousted him. This proves he was still trying to go nuclear.
And don't bring up anything about Iran or some terrorists sitting on their computers learning how to buld a bomb. You're kidding yourself. Its easy enough already for them to figure things out. They weren't sitting around waiting for this to happen.
This whole situation is hilarious, because the same people criticizing the releasing of secret documents are the same people that want Bush to release other secret documents (ones that they'd use against him). They're also the same people that want everything the governments ever done released through the FOIA. You cant have it both ways
Pretty much every expert I've seen quoted has indicated that the documents could speed Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb. They also agree that the documents would not be of use to a non-state actor (i.e. al Qaeda or another terrorist group), which would not have sufficient resources to benefit from the documents.
If you've seen information that indicates otherwise -- information that indicates that the materials we posted would not benefit the Iranian program -- I'd love to see it.
OldDude
11-04-06, 08:15 PM
Nonsense, Iraq knows nothing about nuclear weapons. They don't have a shred of information that would be valuable to N. Korea, Iran, etc, as they are a peaceful people with no interest in or capability in weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats all tell me so. There is nothing to worry about in posting captured information from Iraq. It can only serve to emvbarass Republicans by showing how wrong Bush about Saddam's peaceful intentions for the region.
OldDude
11-04-06, 08:18 PM
I know where you're coming from, and that's what I had thought at first, but it information posted are actually guidlines - step-by-step, and the administration is now admitting that some of the information put up there was a bit too risky - risk that their own security leader or whatever told them about. I still see this as grasping at straws for anything to "find" WMD.
But you understand that all the info posted was captured in Iraq, right. So what does that say about WMDs?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1162530000&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war.. . . .
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.
I see two choices:
*If the info is too dangerous to post, then Iraq was too close to WMDs and the invasion was warranted.
*The information is harmless and the invasion was unwarranted.
I don't see how you can successfully argue both:
*THe info (from Iraq) is dangerous
*Iraq was no threat.
crazyronin
11-04-06, 08:22 PM
But you understand that all the info posted was captured in Iraq, right. So what does that say about WMDs?
I see two choices:
*If the info is too dangerous to post, then Iraq was too close to WMDs and the invasion was warranted.
*The information is harmless and the invasion was unwarranted.
I don't see how you can successfully argue both:
*THe info (from Iraq) is dangerous
*Iraq was no threat.
Thats just crazy talk! -ohbfrank-
Damn you <s>movielib</s>OldDude. You beat me to it.
wendersfan
11-04-06, 08:27 PM
Nonsense, Iraq knows nothing about nuclear weapons. They don't have a shred of information that would be valuable to N. Korea, Iran, etc, as they are a peaceful people with no interest in or capability in weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats all tell me so. I'd like to see some substantiation of those statements, please. Most Democrats were willing to acknowledge that the Iraqis were, at one point, building or already in possession of WMDs. What many Democrats did not believe, was that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States or its interests. I know it's convenient to make up stuff up (it saves you from having to think or hard stuff like that), but don't expect it to go unnoticed. And frankly, I expect a little more from you, as someone who usually does think quite a bit about what he posts.
NCMojo
11-04-06, 08:34 PM
OldDude, I think you missed this point:
detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war
After Desert Storm and years of sanctions and the targeted bombings by Clinton, it was abundently clear that Iraq was not a threat to the US.
JasonF
11-04-06, 08:37 PM
US shuts down 'how to build a nuclear bomb' website
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 04 November 2006
The US government has shut down a website containing Iraqi documents from the Saddam Hussein era, after complaints - including one from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog - that they amounted to a manual on how to build an atomic bomb.
Access to the website was suspended after The New York Times newspaper contacted the directorate of national intelligence to ask about the complaints. A review has now been launched, a DNI spokesman said, "to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing". The material deals with Iraq's nuclear research before the 1991 Gulf War. The UN weapons inspectors who subsequently investigated Saddam's WMD programmes were at the time startled to discover how much progress he had made.
According to the Times, the documents in question contain charts and diagrams that give information going well beyond what exists elsewhere on the internet, including details of how to build firing circuits for a bomb, as well as their core of fissile material. Not only did the documents illustrate the technical problems encountered by the Iraqis, they also showed the way a would-be bomb constructor could get round them.
Their precise value, however, is unclear. In the words of one intelligence official quoted by the paper, the material amounted to "a road map that helps you get from point A to point B - but only if you have a car."
The whole affair is nonetheless rich in irony. One of the most forceful complaints came from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, the very body criticised in the past by the Bush administration for its alleged laxity in pursuing the weapons programmes of Iraq.
Instead, a "shocked" IAEA is said to have delivered a private protest to the US last week, saying that the material could speed Iran's suspected quest for a nuclear bomb. In other words, the country that warns most urgently about the perils of "rogue" states and terrorist groups obtaining nuclear weapons may have unwittingly helped the proliferation it is trying to prevent.
Another irony is that the trove of 48,000 boxes of documents was made public largely at the urging of Iraq war hawks in Congress and the press, who believed they might contain the elusive proof that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.
I don't see how you can successfully argue both:
*THe info (from Iraq) is dangerous
*Iraq was no threat.
To borrow from the "road map that helps you get from point A to point B - but only if you have a car" analogy in the article I just posted, we took away Iraq's car in 1991. Iran still has its car; they're trying to drive to point B on their own, but we just posted the map on the internet.
SuprVgeta
11-04-06, 09:33 PM
Since the source is the NY Times I don't think I'll bother reading it, I know where they stand.
NCMojo
11-04-06, 09:50 PM
Since the source is the NY Times I don't think I'll bother reading it, I know where they stand.
That's an insanely stupid thing to say.
NCMojo
11-04-06, 10:09 PM
Here's a thought I just had: isn't this the same Administration who stonewalled the 9/11 commission, who's blocked multiple FOIA requests, who regularly blacks out whole sections of freakin' farm reports for "national security reasons"???
And now they're going to go ahead and put atomic secrets on the goddamn Internet?!?!?!!!
:brickwl2:
CRM114
11-04-06, 11:09 PM
:beer2: Republicans!
They despise big government for a reason: They have no ability to govern with competence!
DeltaSigChi4
11-05-06, 05:01 AM
Keith Olbermann on the Nov Surprise of a Nuclear Kind ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8WkbHn3gtY
E
mytzplyx
11-05-06, 07:12 AM
Keith Olbermann on the Nov Surprise of a Nuclear Kind ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8WkbHn3gtY
E
Yah, I saw that. It's a good watch.
OldDude
11-05-06, 07:43 AM
I'd like to see some substantiation of those statements, please.
Damn, I had trusted that they were worded so outrageously that the dripping sarcasm would be obvious to all. :)
DVD Polizei
11-05-06, 08:26 AM
The republicans are insane. That's pretty much all there is to it.
Too bad the democrats are spineless nitwits. We're screwed.
That's pretty much the current state of the nation. :up:
CRM114
11-05-06, 11:32 AM
So why isn't this thread 16 pages like the Kerry thread?
{{crickets}}
bhk
11-05-06, 11:37 AM
So Saddam had these plans salted away. The centrifuges buried and he was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted.
One of his scientists said before that once the sanctions were lifted, Saddam had to snap his fingers and they could resume along those plans and have weapons "within a year" as the NYT has written.
3 questions.
1. Exactly how far along was Saddam’s nuclear research that Iran might possibly benefit from it?
2. Why is the IAEA worried about Iran using bombmaking information in their “peaceful nuclear energy program”?
3. Since when does the NYT give a rat's ass about providing our enemies with sensitive information.
So:
The Times has just confirmed two things: 1. President Bush was right when he said that Hussein was a threat to the world because, among other things, he would continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction; and 2. congressional Republicans were right in demanding a more aggressive and thorough effort by the Pentagon to interpret the enormous number of documents captured from the Iraqi regime.
wendersfan
11-05-06, 11:46 AM
Damn, I had trusted that they were worded so outrageously that the dripping sarcasm would be obvious to all. :)Sorry, my sarcasm meter is automatically deactivated a week before each election. :(
GreenMonkey
11-05-06, 10:36 PM
I see two choices:
*If the info is too dangerous to post, then Iraq was too close to WMDs and the invasion was warranted.
*The information is harmless and the invasion was unwarranted.
I don't see how you can successfully argue both:
*THe info (from Iraq) is dangerous
*Iraq was no threat.
Let's see. Maybe I want to build a nuclear weapon and I have these docs. Does that make me a threat? No, because there's no way in hell that I could get my hands on the resources to build one. "Can I borrow some enriched uranium, please?". :D
However, the docs, when given to people that actually have the resources to make a bomb (i.e. North Korea, etc) could be dangerous.
Buy: