[Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD

[Brad Haslett]

Bill,

Did you include these quotes in your book?  Oh yeah, you sent it to me, of
course not!

Brad

----------------


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between
Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to
dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit
monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has
developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological
capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear
weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and
Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright,
1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some
day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10
times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical
and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United
States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were
before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing
nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he
were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would
face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26,
2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American
security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security.
It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a
clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination
to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." --
John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham,
December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive
his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim
Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he
is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction
cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He
presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has
spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and
disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian
Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the
United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors
discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq
was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is
still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the
proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still
has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic
missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these
deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX
substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored
in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains
significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that
difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002



On 11/3/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>
> Philip,
>
> I earn a living collecting quotes.  I have never seen a quote from Bill
> Clinton, John Kerry, or any other prominent Democrat saying that Iraq
> built Nuclear Weapons after 1991.
>
> The Bush Administration claimed to have secret evidence that Iraq had
> built nuclear weapons, but it would not show the evidence to anyone--not
> even United Nations Inspectors--because it said to do so would
> compromise national security.
>
> In his State of the Union Address to Congress and the Nation, President
> Bush said:
>
> "The British government has learned that
> Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
> quantities of uranium from Africa."
>
> George W. Bush
> State of the Union Address
> January 28, 2003
>
> What some Democrats said was that if this claim, were true, it justified
> starting a pre-emptive war attacking Saddam Hussein before he developed
> the ability to attack us.
>
> It turned out that this claim was false, and that the United States
> Intelligence Community and the Administration both knew it was false,
> although prominent Democrats did not.
>
> Many prominent Democrats opposed pre-emptive war.  Here is what one of
> them said:
>
> "If we are going to hit first,
> based on perceived dangers,
> the perceptions had better be accurate."
>
> Robert Byrd
> Senator, West Virginia
> June 24, 2003
>
> Mr. Byrd is actually running for office this year.  I believe his seat
> is considered safe for the Democrats.
>
> Bill Effros
>
> PS -- Both Republicans and Democrats paid off Saddam and used him and
> his army to fight both Iran and the terrorists.  We put Saddam and the
> Baathists in power in the first place.  We had Saddam completely
> contained, and he was using all his resources to try to keep the lid on
> his country.  Which meant fighting Islamic extremists backed by both
> Iran and Saudi Arabia:
>
> "A weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq...is
> more dangerous in the long run than a
> contained Saddam is now."
>
> General Anthony C. Zinni
> US Central Command (CENTCOM), Commander
> October, 1998
>
>
> 3drecon at comcast.net wrote:
> > Bill,
> >    In all fairness, you should also post the comments of former Pres
> Clinton, John Kerry and other prominent Democrats who said much the same
> things.
> >
> >     Remember, I didn't think we should have gone after Iraq
> either.  Frankly, we should have paid off Saddam and used him and his army
> to fight the terrorists.
> >
> > Philip
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: Bill Effros <bill at effros.com>
> >
> >
> >> Brad,
> >>
> >> Getting desperate, are we?
> >>
> >> The Bush administration got the United States into this war by claiming
> >> Iraq had actually built nuclear weapons:
> >>
> >> ?We do know, with absolute certainty,
> >> that he is using his procurement system
> >> to acquire the equipment he needs
> >> in order to enrich uranium to
> >> build a nuclear weapon.?
> >>
> >> Dick Cheney
> >> Vice President
> >> September 8, 2002
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> ?We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted
> >> nuclear weapons.?
> >>
> >> Dick Cheney
> >> Vice President
> >> March 16, 2003
> >>
> >> The documents referenced in the New York Times were posted on the web
> by
> >> the Bush Administration in an effort by Republicans to flush out more
> >> documents to support administration claims.
> >>
> >> The documents posted were all captured during the 1991 Gulf war. No one
> >> said Iraq wasn't trying to build WMD prior to the first gulf war. It
> >> was the current administration that claimed Iraq had actually built
> >> nuclear weapons after the first Gulf war, and that the United States
> had
> >> to invade Iraq in order to find them.
> >>
> >> There has not been one shred of evidence to support administration
> >> claims that Iraq tried to build nuclear weapons between 1991 and 2003.
> >>
> >> The point of the Times story was that this administration, which is now
> >> running on a "we can protect America better" platform, is posting plans
> >> for building nuclear weapons on the Internet in a last ditch effort to
> >> try to justify false claims that Iraq was building nuclear weapons just
> >> prior to our invasion.
> >>
> >> Now Republicans are trying to claim that documents they posted, which
> >> detail how to build atomic bombs, refer to Iraqi attempts to build
> >> weapons after 1991.
> >>
> >> You guys must think everyone else is really stupid.
> >>
> >> Bill Effros
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Brad Haslett wrote:
> >>
> >>> You gotta love the intelligentsia at the New York Times. No doubt,
> >>> this was
> >>> supposed to be a hit piece on the Bush Administration. Perhaps they
> >>> outwitted themselves? An analysis and the original article from
> today's
> >>> newspaper is attached.
> >>>
> >>> Brad
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------
> >>>
> >>> *Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
> >>> *11/02 10:39
> >>>
> >>>
> >> PM> 5N2Y=>
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> UPDATE: The article is up
> >>>
> >>>
> >> here>
> &en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp=&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print>
> >>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> Having now read it, I can see that every stop has been pulled out to
> >>> ensure
> >>> that a reader will believe that posting these documents was a
> strategic
> >>> blunder of the first order.
> >>>
> >>> But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: 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.
> >>>
> >>> (By the way, is it just me, or is the article entirely devoid of any
> >>> indication that Iran actually accessed the documents? This threat
> >>> that, "You
> >>> idiot! Iran could access all the documents!" is entirely speculative.
> >>> If the
> >>> government servers hosting the web site have signs that Iranian web
> >>> browsers
> >>> accessed those pages, it's a different story; my guess is somebody
> >>> already
> >>> knows the answer to that question.)
> >>>
> >>> I'm still kinda blown away by this paragraph:
> >>>
> >>> Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in
> >>> the
> >>> 1990's 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. Hussein's scientists were on the
> >>> verge of
> >>> building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.*
> >>>
> >>> Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or
> 2002,
> >>> months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from
> >>> building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush
> >>> used to
> >>> trick us into war.
> >>>
> >>> And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to
> >>> manual"
> >>> on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year.
> >>>
> >>> In other news, it's good to see that the New York Times is firmly
> against
> >>> publicizing sensitive and classified information. Unless, of course,
> >>> they're
> >>> the ones doing it.
> >>>
> >>> ONE LAST THOUGHT: So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the
> >>> designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about
> bomb
> >>> building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future
> >>> material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of
> action
> >>> for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons,
> >>> they
> >>> would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would
> >>> have
> >>> needed, but articles like this
> >>>
> >>>
> >> one> reignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3597>give
> >>
> >>> a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind
> >>> of
> >>> firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a
> >>> lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional
> >>> explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and,
> of
> >>> course, the nuclear material itself.
> >>>
> >>> They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that
> >>> stuff
> >>> called? Oh, that's right.
> >>>
> >>> *Yellowcake.*
> >>>
> >>> But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe
> Wilson
> >>> had tea with officials in Niger who said so.
> >>>
> >>> ---------
> >>> November 3, 2006
> >>> U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer
> >>>
> >>> By WILLIAM J.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> BROAD> ad/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
> >>
> >>> 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> republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org>who
> >>
> >>> had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of
> >>> the prewar dangers posed by Saddam
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hussein> ein/index.html?inline=nyt-per>.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons
> >>> experts
> >>> say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Iraq> aq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>'s
> >>
> >>> secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The
> >>> documents, the
> >>> experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.
> >>>
> >>> Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York
> >>> Times
> >>> asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control
> officials. A
> >>> spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the
> >>> site
> >>> had been suspended "pending a review to ensure its content is
> appropriate
> >>> for public viewing."
> >>>
> >>> Officials of the International Atomic Energy
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Agency> national_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
> >>
> >>> fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop
> nuclear
> >>> arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to
> the
> >>> agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of
> >>> anonymity
> >>> because of the issue's sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency's
> >>> technical
> >>> experts "were shocked" at the public disclosures.
> >>>
> >>> Early this morning, a spokesman for Gregory L. Schulte, the American
> >>> ambassador, denied that anyone from the agency had approached Mr.
> Schulte
> >>> about the Web site.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> "For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very
> >>> irresponsible," said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of
> >>> classification
> >>> at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation's nuclear
> arms
> >>> program. "There's a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are
> >>> secret and
> >>> should remain so."
> >>>
> >>> The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the
> >>> Web
> >>> site. Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents
> about
> >>> chemical weapons, United
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Nations> ed_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org>arms-control
> >>
> >>> officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave
> >>> information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by
> >>> causing respiratory failure.
> >>>
> >>> The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative
> >>> publications
> >>> and politicians, who said that the nation's spy agencies had failed
> >>> adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the
> >>> March
> >>> 2003 invasion. With the public increasingly skeptical about the
> rationale
> >>> and conduct of the war, the chairmen of the House and Senate
> intelligence
> >>> committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the documents
> >>> ? most
> >>> of them in Arabic ? would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr.
> >>> Hussein
> >>> had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the
> >>> invasion. American search teams never found such evidence.
> >>>
> >>> The director of national intelligence, John D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Negroponte> egroponte/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> In his statement last night, Mr. Negroponte's spokesman, Chad Kolton,
> >>> said,
> >>> "While strict criteria had already been established to govern posted
> >>> documents, the material currently on the Web site, as well as the
> >>> procedures
> >>> used to post new documents, will be carefully reviewed before the site
> >>> becomes available again."
> >>>
> >>> A spokesman for the National Security
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Council> onal_security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org>,
> >>
> >>> Gordon D. Johndroe, said, "We're confident the D.N.I. is taking the
> >>> appropriate steps to maintain the balance between public information
> and
> >>> national security."
> >>>
> >>> The Web site, "Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal," was a
> constantly
> >>> expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents
> >>> included
> >>> everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to
> >>> instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from
> Mr.
> >>> Hussein's intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a
> >>> legion of
> >>> bloggers, translators and amateur historians.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents
> on
> >>> the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United
> Nations
> >>> Security
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Council> rity_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org>in
> >>
> >>> late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on
> >>> the
> >>> Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been
> extensively
> >>> edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms.
> >>>
> >>> The deletions, the diplomats said, had been done in consultation with
> the
> >>> United States and other nuclear-weapons nations. Mohamed
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ElBaradei> lbaradei/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,
> >>
> >>> the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which ran the
> >>> nuclear part of the inspections, told the Security Council in late
> >>> 2002 that
> >>> the deletions were "consistent with the principle that
> >>> proliferation-sensitive information should not be released."
> >>>
> >>> In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the
> >>> nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as
> >>> potentially dangerous. "It's a cookbook," said the diplomat, who spoke
> on
> >>> condition of anonymity because of his agency's rules. "If you had
> >>> this, it
> >>> would short-circuit a lot of things."
> >>>
> >>> The New York Times had examined dozens of the documents and asked a
> half
> >>> dozen nuclear experts to evaluate some of them.
> >>>
> >>> Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government
> arms
> >>> scientist now at the war studies department of King's College, London,
> >>> called the posted material "very sensitive, much of it undoubtedly
> secret
> >>> restricted data."
> >>>
> >>> Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore
> >>> National
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Laboratory>
> awrence_livermore_national_laboratory/index.html?inline=nyt-org>in
> >>
> >>> California, an arms design center, said "some things in these
> >>> documents
> >>> would be helpful" to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and
> >>> should
> >>> have remained secret.
> >>>
> >>> A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with
> atomic
> >>> issues said the documents showed "where the Iraqis failed and how to
> get
> >>> around the failures." The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran
> or
> >>> other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but
> >>> probably
> >>> not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested
> >>> anonymity because of his agency's rules against public comment, called
> >>> the
> >>> papers "a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but
> >>> only if
> >>> you already have a car."
> >>>
> >>> Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a
> private
> >>> group at George Washington
> >>>
> >>>
> >> University> eorge_washington_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org>that
> >>
> >>> tracks federal secrecy decisions, said the impetus for the Web site's
> >>> creation came from an array of sources ? private conservative groups,
> >>> Congressional Republicans and some figures in the Bush administration
> >>> ? who
> >>> clung to the belief that close examination of the captured documents
> >>> would
> >>> show that Mr. Hussein's government had clandestinely reconstituted an
> >>> unconventional arms programs.
> >>>
> >>> "There were hundreds of people who said, 'There's got to be gold in
> them
> >>> thar hills,' " Mr. Blanton said.
> >>>
> >>> The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House
> >>> Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan.
> Last
> >>> November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts of Kansas, wrote
> >>> to Mr.
> >>> Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material. The sheer volume of
> >>> the
> >>> documents, they argued, had overwhelmed the intelligence community.
> >>>
> >>> Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents,
> >>> translated and
> >>> interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess
> the
> >>> intelligence agencies' view that Mr. Hussein did not have
> unconventional
> >>> weapons or substantive ties to Al
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Qaeda> da/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
> >>
> >>> Reviewing the documents for release would add an unnecessary burden on
> >>> busy
> >>> intelligence analysts, they argued.
> >>>
> >>> On March 16, after the documents' release was approved, Mr.
> Negroponte's
> >>> office issued a terse public announcement including a disclaimer that
> >>> remained on the Web site: "The U.S. government has made no
> determination
> >>> regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual
> >>> accuracy of
> >>> the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations,
> >>> when
> >>> available."
> >>>
> >>> On April 18, about a month after the first documents were made public,
> >>> Mr.
> >>> Hoekstra issued a news release acknowledging "minimal risks," but
> >>> saying the
> >>> site "will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam's
> >>> links
> >>> to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the
> Iraqi
> >>> people." He added: "It will allow us to leverage the Internet to
> enable a
> >>> mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites."
> >>>
> >>> Yesterday, before the site was shut down, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for
> Mr.
> >>> Hoekstra, said the government had "developed a sound process to review
> >>> the
> >>> documents to ensure sensitive or dangerous information is not posted."
> >>> Later, he said the complaints about the site "didn't sound like a big
> >>> deal,"
> >>> adding, "We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug."
> >>>
> >>> The precise review process that led to the posting of the nuclear and
> >>> chemical-weapons documents is unclear. But in testimony before
> >>> Congress last
> >>> spring, a senior official from Mr. Negroponte's office, Daniel Butler,
> >>> described a "triage" system used to sort out material that should
> remain
> >>> classified. Even so, he said, the policy was to "be biased towards
> >>> release
> >>> if at all possible." Government officials say all the documents in
> Arabic
> >>> have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq's program to make
> germ
> >>> weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.
> >>>
> >>> At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms
> >>> at the
> >>> Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in
> >>> charge
> >>> of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones.
> >>>
> >>> In April, diplomats said, the commission's acting chief weapons
> >>> inspector,
> >>> Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission
> to
> >>> the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents
> >>> tabun
> >>> and sarin.
> >>>
> >>> Soon, the document vanished from the Web site. On June 8, diplomats
> said,
> >>> Mr. Perricos told the Security Council of how risky arms information
> had
> >>> shown up on a public Web site and how his agency appreciated the
> American
> >>> cooperation in resolving the matter.
> >>>
> >>> In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and
> some
> >>> soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called
> >>> "Progress
> >>> of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995." That description is potentially
> >>> misleading since the research occurred years earlier.
> >>>
> >>> The Iraqi document is marked "Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),"
> >>> meaning it
> >>> was preparatory for the "Full, Final, Complete Disclosure" that Iraq
> >>> made to
> >>> United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three
> >>> diagrams
> >>> showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.
> >>>
> >>> On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, "Summary of
> >>> technical
> >>> achievements of Iraq's former nuclear program." It runs to 51 pages,
> 18
> >>> focusing on the development of Iraq's bomb design. Topics included
> >>> physical
> >>> theory, the atomic core and high-explosive experiments. By early
> October,
> >>> diplomats and officials said, United Nations arms inspectors in New
> >>> York and
> >>> their counterparts in Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do.
> >>>
> >>> Last week in Vienna, Olli J. Heinonen, head of safeguards at the
> >>> international atomic agency, expressed concern about the documents to
> Mr.
> >>> Schulte, diplomats said.
> >>>
> >>> Scott Shane contributed reporting.
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>