[Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD

[3drecon at comcast.net]

"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
 

Philip


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

> Hank, 
> 
> I believe there was a deliberate attempt to mislead. 
> 
> The rest of the world simply did not believe Iraq had WMD. That was 
> what got us so mad at the French and Germans. Our administration said 
> they had secret evidence, but they would not show anyone else--the 
> British backed us up, saying there was secret evidence. The French, 
> Germans, and almost everyone else said they had never seen anything 
> indicating Iraq had WMD, and had seen much indicating they did not. 
> 
> The United Nations inspectors said categorically that Iraq had fully 
> complied with Nuclear Weapons Inspectors, and that it was virtually 
> impossible for the Iraqis to develop and deploy nuclear weapons after 1991. 
> 
> Within 3 hours of being handed the "secret evidence" cited by the 
> President in his State of the Union message, UN inspectors proved that 
> it was a forgery by going on the Internet. (The person purportedly 
> signing the document was not the President of Niger at the purported 
> date of signing.) 
> 
> To quote Hans Blix: "You can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the 
> Dog,' without having a dog," -- but you don't attack another country at 
> the cost of more than 3000 American lives just because somebody posts a 
> warning sign. 
> 
> I agree that nobody wants us to leave Iraq in chaos, but nobody wants to 
> do what must be done to prevent chaos, either. 
> 
> Sooner or later we're going to cut and run. This does not make me 
> happy, but we have backed ourselves into a corner, and finally someone 
> will pull the plug. It could be the Democrats, it could be the 
> Republicans--but the sooner the better. Not because it's the right 
> thing to do, but because it will end the killing sooner. The Iraqis 
> will sort things out, one way or another. We will be worse off than 
> when we started. Some Iraqis will be better off, some will be worse. 
> We will be blamed for destabilizing the region. 
> 
> I started collecting quotes during the Vietnam War. I have posted some 
> of those quotes on my web site: www.QuoteWithoutComment.com. Just keep 
> hitting "Next Quote" until you get to the Vietnam section at the back. 
> The claims that we would fight to victory started 20 years before we 
> actually got out of Vietnam. Let's not make that mistake again. 
> 
> Bill Effros 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hank wrote: 
> > Bill, 
> > 
> > I kind of agree with you and I kind of don't. 
> > 
> > I do not believe that the claims that Iraq had WMD and was building Nukes 
> > was false. I believe it was inaccurate. To me, false signifies a 
> > deliberate attempt to mislead, and I don't believe that happened. My 
> > opinion. 
> > 
> > A good part of the blame for these inaccuracies has to lie with 
> > Saddam. He 
> > did everything he could to hinder the UN inspections teams and to 
> > create the 
> > belief that he had WMD. 
> > 
> > Look at it this way, if someone comes up to my family and says "I have 
> > a gun 
> > and I am going to kill you", I'm certainly not going to wait until he 
> > proves 
> > it to take action. I'm going to get him first. I know this analogy 
> > is very 
> > simplistic and the issues with Iraq before the 2003 invasion were much 
> > more 
> > complicated, but essentially, this is what happened. The intelligence we 
> > had at the time (and this is across the western countries, US, UK, 
> > Germany, 
> > France, etc.) showed that he had WMD. Now it looks like he may not 
> > have had 
> > it. Unfortunately, decisions are made with the information you have 
> > at the 
> > time, not with information you receive later. This is called Monday 
> > Morning 
> > Quarterback and it is real easy to say we should have done this or that 
> > based upon new information. We've all made some sort of decision that 
> > later, in hindsight, we realize was not the best decision we could have 
> > made. Once we realized it, we couldn't go back and change the 
> > decision, we 
> > have to determine where to go from this point further. 
> > 
> > Nobody around the world, except the Islamic extremists, wants the U.S. to 
> > unilaterally pull out of Iraq. Everyone knows that this would be 
> > devastating to the region. 
> > 
> > In the end, it doesn't really matter how we got here or whose fault it 
> > is. 
> > It is what it is. The only thing that matters is where do we go from 
> > here. 
> > 
> > Hank 
> > 
> > On 11/3/06, Bill Effros wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 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< 
> >> 
> http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2 
> Y= 
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 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< 
> >> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5094&en=1 
> 511d6b3da302d4f&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< 
> >> 
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3597&URL=http://www.foreig 
> npolicy.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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/ind 
> ex.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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_p 
> arty/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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/inde 
> x.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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/in 
> dex.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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internationa 
> l_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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_natio 
> ns/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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/john_d_negroponte/i 
> ndex.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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_sec 
> urity_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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_cou 
> ncil/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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/mohamed_elbaradei/i 
> ndex.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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/lawrence_liv 
> ermore_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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/george_washi 
> ngton_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< 
> >> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/ind 
> ex.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