[Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD

[Rob Lowe]

Ahhhh, how sweet.  I feel the love....... - rob


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD


> Bill,
>
> If you ever let the word out that we agree on some things, I swear, I will
> kill you!
>
> Let's meet in near JFK soon.  I miss you asshole!
>
> Brad
>
>
> On 11/3/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> >
> > Brad,
> >
> > I think you have some inkling of the fact that I am the most right-wing
> > person my left-wing friends know, and the most left-wing person my
> > right-wing friends know.
> >
> > I think of myself as a member of the radical-middle.
> >
> > I supported many of the goals of the Republican Contract with America,
> > and I was genuinely surprised when Republicans abandoned so many of
> > those goals.  (Term Limits?  Fiscal Responsibility?  Military Exit
> > Strategies?  Civil Liberties?  States Rights?)
> >
> > It always makes me nervous when one party controls all branches of
> > government.  I don't care which party--it's always a prescription for a
> > disaster.  And boy, did we get a disaster.
> >
> > The first thing we've got to do is provide oversight.  Checks and
> > Balances is really a good idea--no matter which side of the fence you're
> > grazing.
> >
> > Woman are going to give themselves more of a say on what's going
> > on--whether the men like it, or not.  We lost that battle when we let
> > them vote.
> >
> > Things will change.  The country will change.  I think that's good.
> > There's no excuse for the unending "spin" we've all been getting--that's
> > got to stop.
> >
> > Bill Effros
> >
> >
> >
> > Brad Haslett wrote:
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > Thank you for quoting the Gipper.  I still smile when he speaks from
the
> > > grave.
> > >
> > > Today is not a good day for me to "sort fly shit from pepper", I'm
busy.
> > > We'll do this again, hopefully over beer and pizza.
> > >
> > > Quite frankly, in the long run it doesn't matter who wins this cycle.
> > > I use
> > > the term "doesn't matter" loosely.  The enemy may have their
> > > preference but
> > > we don't know what that is, do we?  There won't be a chicken in every
> > > pot on
> > > November 8th and we will not be at peace.  Charlie (Rangel) can raise
> > > taxes
> > > and cry discrimination, Nancy can sick the "dogs of law" on the
> > > President,
> > > and everyone can redecorate their new offices (upward and downward).
> > >
> > > We slept through the first 20 years of attack until the buildings fell
> > in
> > > NYC.  This war won't be over in our lifetime.  Maybe Nancy and her
> > > friends
> > > are just what we need.  She scares the hell out of me - maybe it will
> > > work
> > > on the Islamofaciasts.
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/3/06, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Brad,
> > >>
> > >> There you go, again! It's the old bait and switch.
> > >>
> > >> Here's what I said:
> > >>
> > >> "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"
> > >>
> > >> We did not go to war over mustard gas. The administration tried that,
> > >> and it did not work.
> > >>
> > >> We had provided Iraq with WMD, and we had authorized Saddam Hussein
to
> > >> use the stuff. No news there. But we also knew it has an extremely
> > short
> > >> shelf life, and what we sent was useless as a weapon against us at
this
> > >> point.
> > >>
> > >> The only way the Neoconservatives could get a Declaration of War
> > against
> > >> Iraq (a stated goal as early as 1991) was by claiming--falsely--that
> > >> Iraq was trying to build Nuclear Weapons, and that we had to invade
> > them
> > >> before they could drop the Nucs on us. The highly secretive Bush
> > >> Administration claimed it had absolute proof, but refused to show it
to
> > >> anyone, and branded people who disputed their claim as "traitors" for
> > >> not believing the "Commander-in-Chief".
> > >>
> > >> I said I cold find no quote from a prominent Democrat who said Iraq
had
> > >> built "Nuclear Weapons" between 1991 and 2003. If I had found one,
you
> > >> can bet your bottom dollar it would have been in my book.
> > >>
> > >> "There will always be some uncertainty about
> > >> how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons,
> > >> but we don't want the smoking gun to be a
> > >> mushroom cloud."
> > >>
> > >> Condoleezza Rice
> > >> National Security Advisor
> > >> September 8, 2002
> > >>
> > >> No prominent Democrat ever said anything remotely like that, and your
> > >> switching "Nuclear Weapons" for "WMD" won't cut it.
> > >>
> > >> Bill Effros
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > >> > 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
> > >> >>
> > >> > __________________________________________________
> > >> > 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
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list