[Rhodes22-list] Political Humor: "I Did Not Have Sex With That Man"
Bill Effros
bill at effros.com
Fri Nov 3 16:06:22 EST 2006
Ted Haggard
Bill Effros
Rob Lowe wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list