Is The NY Times Too Smart By Half?

[Annie]

This could be a problem for either side, depends if admin. reacts just like this:

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=

Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
11/02 10:39 PM
When I saw the headline on Drudge earlier tonight, that the New York Times had a big story coming out tomorrow that had something to do with Iraq and WMDs, I was ready for an October November Surprise.

Well, Drudge is giving us the scoop. And if it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have overthunk this:

U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN...

NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site — Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal — to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic guide to building an atom bomb'... Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums...

Website now shut... Developing...​

I'm 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 "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 oblivous 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.

 

[Powerman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/w...=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

"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 interesting

 

[manu1959]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/w...=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

"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 interesting

the ny times is biased.....

 

[1549]

This could be a problem for either side, depends if admin. reacts just like this:

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=

It is blatantly obvious that the author of this little number did not take the time to read the article itself. Or he did, but ignored context, and made an ass of himself. Very professional.

When drudgereport linked him up to the article, he does the usual "liberal times downplays the threat yada, yada, yada".

This line is my favorite: "The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that actually has the documents."

Typical conservative ignores that Iraq did not have the capability to actually build these weapons and gives no second thought to losing thousands of lives for directions to build a bomb.

 

[Annie]

It is blatantly obvious that the author of this little number did not take the time to read the article itself. Or he did, but ignored context, and made an ass of himself. Very professional.

When drudgereport linked him up to the article, he does the usual "liberal times downplays the threat yada, yada, yada".

This line is my favorite: "The information in these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to ensure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that actually has the documents."

Typical conservative ignores that Iraq did not have the capability to actually build these weapons and gives no second thought to losing thousands of lives for directions to build a bomb.

Again, if too dangerous for American sites to publish the documents, for fear it will land in the hands of Iranians or others; so too if Saddam or others had sold them.