[Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD

[3drecon at comcast.net]

Bill,
    I don't totally disagree with you regarding Zinni's comments or even Byrd's (I do find an incredible double standard where Byrd, a former member of the KKK is revered by the left but a faint praise to Strom Thurmond on his birthday caused a firestorm (to name only one incident), but here are a couple of quotes.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others 

"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

"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 

"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 

"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

"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 

These are only a few from a very shallow, quick search.  Did they all lie?  No, I don't think that.  Perhaps they were mistaken in the degree to which Iraq had progressed.  Intelligence boils down to a ton of information and a lot of guess work.  An old military saying is "There are only Operational Successes or Intelligence Failures."

Philip


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> 

> 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 
> > 
> > 
> >> 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