New York Times: Bush DIDN'T Lie
I'm off to Fort Stewart shortly for a field exercise this weekend, but I'll have more to say on Monday about today's big story in the NYT today. Although the Times meant this article to be a slam against the Bush administration for releasing dangerous info (that's a laugh in itself - the NYT being against the release of harmful classified material), the story actually bolsters Bush's case that Saddam had extensive ties to terrorism and that Iraq's nuclear program posed a serious threat.
Captain Ed has a must read post on the subject - a sample:
Captain Ed has a must read post on the subject - a sample:
[The NYT article] appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.
posted by Garry at
9:51 AM
13 Comments:
The Moondog's Den must be a very dim place. Do you really not get it? How is posting nuclear secrets on a publicly accessible website where terrorists can download not TREASON? They executed the Rosenbergs for less.
Andrew Card has admitted: "Top officials knew there were risks when they decided to post the documents. John Negroponte warned us that we don't know what's in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk, and that was a warning that he put out right when they first released the documents."
Who will be held accountable? ANd by the way, the documents were pre-1991 - and referred to the program pre-Gulf War I. After the war their capability was destroyed, according to Colin Powell. Geeze are you stupid.
By
Robert Lewis, At
10:56 AM, November 03, 2006
The information on nuclear weapons was PRE-1990, you idiot. BEFORE THE FIRST GULF WAR. They did not find WMD in 2003 because it was DESTROYED after the first GULF WAR.
Do you really believe the crap that issues forth from your fat fingers?
By
Anonymous, At
11:47 AM, November 03, 2006
moonie...the most serious threat of our time is the incompetents that inhabit the white house and who will do anything to gain and hold onto power. i can't wait to hear how they spin this. it's time for regime change.
By
Anonymous, At
12:09 PM, November 03, 2006
Guess you missed the part about this being pre-Gulf War 1? Moondawg been downin' the moonshine!
By
Anonymous, At
12:47 PM, November 03, 2006
A skaldic poem for Moon Dog:
Bush the bewildered // childish and chimp-like
craven the coward // A.W.O.L. the asshole
sat in the schoolroom// praising the pet goat
Towers were toppled // Bush he was baffled
Osama the Saudi // evil plots plying
Friends of the Bushes // purveyors of petrol
Fled in their airplanes // with the coward's consent
bin Ladens were treated // like friends of the family
while innocent civilians // were killed as they slept
Bone-headed Bush // ordered invasion
collateral damage // ruined families wept
lied to the people // falsehoods were fostered
Doom and disaster // into quagmire he led.
By
Robert Lewis, At
12:47 PM, November 03, 2006
HANG the NY TIMES!
Jeez! How could they be such traitors to release a Pentagon bar graph showing the progress in Iraq! Of course, the administration responded with lightening speed to sniff out the rat and bring them to trial! The Times is just so -- oh, wait! The White House published 1991 Sadaam papers with nuclear how-to info on the world wide web?
Um... stay the course! Fight them there so we ... um JOHN KERRY SHOULD APOLOGIZE ... ummm
If Bush spent half the energy fighting the war as he does trying to spin it, we might actually be finished over there by now.
By
Anonymous, At
2:07 PM, November 03, 2006
Dear Moondawgs den
I am certain you did not know you were making this mistake when you wrote this article but I wanted to point out that the NY times article actually states quite clearly that the documents were written in 2002 ABOUT the 1991-1993 programs. Thus the conclusion that Saddam was nuclear capable within a year of the invasion is particularly incorrect. Easy mistake to make.
Keep up the good work.
AngryLibrarian
By
Anonymous, At
2:42 PM, November 03, 2006
Dear Moondawgs den
I am certain you did not know you were making this mistake when you wrote this article but I wanted to point out that the NY times article actually states quite clearly that the documents were written in 2002 ABOUT the 1991-1993 programs. Thus the conclusion that Saddam was nuclear capable within a year of the invasion is particularly incorrect. Easy mistake to make.
Keep up the good work.
AngryLibrarian
By
Anonymous, At
2:43 PM, November 03, 2006
Moondawg,
How embarassing! Some people actually read and figured out this was old intel but still of possible use to terrorists. Want to ammend your post? Nah, stay the course.
By
Anonymous, At
5:43 PM, November 03, 2006
Just two simple questions:
How are documents referring to a program prior to the 1991 Gulf War relevant to anything leading up to the current occupation?
But, more importantly, how is the release of an internal army memo describing the "reality" of the situation on the ground more of a breach of security, than the posting on the internet of a vlouminous number of papers, some of which contain specifications and methods for developing nuclear weapons?
A memo that reveals the truth, without revealing troup movements, intelligence source or any other sensitive materials (except if one considers that the American public needs to be "protected" from knowing how truly screwed up this administration has conducted this pre-emptive war) is worthy of being classified and then its release berated as treasonous (is that because it shows how our leaders are actually and intentionally lying to the people); and yet the release of these papers that should have been classified until actually vetted (and doesn't the release of these papers compromise the methods used to obtain and burn any intelligence assets associated with them?) is seen as a vindication of an already admitted to and settled question.
We are living in George Orwells 1984 where ignorance is bliss, war is peace and truth is bull.
Thanks for spreading some more of that stinky stuff.
By
Anonymous, At
5:48 PM, November 03, 2006
The end of the reagan revolution is nigh, in the immortal words of Homer Simpson, THANK YOU JEBUS!
By
the rude sports pundit, At
5:59 PM, November 03, 2006
I can never get past right wingers who talk about the New York Times like it's some bastion of liberality. Maybe back in the good ole days, but they've been choking on republican cock over there for at least a decade. Like, it was Judith Miller who was given freedom from editorial oversight to print the pro-war articles (100% fantasy) that leakers like Cheney would then quote the next day when they spun their shit. This is the paper that had the scoop on the domestic spying program, but held the story down for over a year at Bush's request.
Any man can wake up tommorow and decided to be a citizen instead of a wussy consumer. Stop consuming media that treats you like a dull child and seek out alternative media and the context of realpolitik. The world ain't all that complicated, but ain't nobody going to force you to learn the real deal.
By
Aurelius, At
7:01 PM, November 06, 2006
Well well, what a surprise to return from my weekend trip and find such a plethora of impassioned responses to my post from last Friday - even though said post mainly consisted of a quote from another blog. What a raw nerve this is for lefties, when anyone even dares to suggest that Saddam Hussein posed any kind of threat to American interests.
Still, I try to respond to all commenters that visit the Den, so let me begin at the beginning -
To robert lewis: For an Article III treason violation to have occurred, treasonable intent must be coupled with overt acts. Posting untranslated documents with unknown content would hardly constitute such. As Card said, doing so was a "risk", but it was worth the risk I believe. Now we know that Iraq may have compromised personnel in the IAEA, something that is worth knowing as we deal with Iran in the near future.
To free thinker: What, precisely, did Bush "lie" about? And Cheney was passing along the intelligence community's assessment of Iraq's nuke program - read the SSCI report sometime. And contrary to your assertion, NO ONE ever said that Iraq "had any nukes". Rather, the IC was saying that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its nuclear program. Else, why would Saddam bother trying to acquire uranium from Niger?
To "lisa": First off, my fingers are not fat in the least; although even if they were fat, I don't see what bearing it would have on this subject. In any case, if all of Iraq's WMDs were destroyed in the first Gulf War, why did Clinton attack Iraq in 1998 (Operation Desert Fox), saying that "Our mission is clear - to degrade his capacity to develop and to use weapons of mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors"?
To "anonymous": I don't respond to anonymous commenters. If you don't have the balls to identify yourself with even a simple nom de plume, you're not worth my time.
To repo man: What difference does it make if the material was pre-Gulf War? The NYT seems to believe that release FMSO material constitutes a present threat. Technical data on nuclear weapons construction doesn't have a shelf life - certain secrets from the Manhattan Project remain just as dangerous today as they were in 1944.
To robert lewis: Although the content is facile, I will at least give you an "A" for effort in taking a stab at the alliterative drottkvcett form.
2nd anonymous commenter: see response to the first anonymous commenter.
To Angry Librarian (also an anonymous posting but at least the comment was signed): I made no "conclusion" in my post that contended Saddam was nuclear-capable within a year of the invasion; please re-read my post. Also see my response to 'repo man' - nuclear secrets do not have an expiration date.
3rd anonymous commenter: see responses to 1st and 2nd anonymous commenters.
To eddie haskel: eddie has "two simple questions" - 1. How are documents referring to a program prior to the 1991 Gulf War relevant to anything leading up to the current occupation?
The FMSO documents do not merely "refer" to their nuke program, they indicate that Saddam retained an advanced knowledgebase of nuclear weapons technology even in the post-Gulf War era. Thus the combination of Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear program (see the Duelfer Report for more on this as well), combined with Saddam's undermining of the Oil for Food program, combined with Saddam's well-documented links to international terrorism, are about as "relevant" as you can get.
2. But, more importantly, how is the release of an internal army memo describing the "reality" of the situation on the ground more of a breach of security, than the posting on the internet of a vlouminous number of papers, some of which contain specifications and methods for developing nuclear weapons?
I don't know what "internal army memo" you refer to, but if someone knowingly releases classified information it is not merely a security breach, it is a violation of the law.
To the rude sports pundit: The Reagan revolution is already dead, sent to its grave by the current Republican Congress.
To Aurelius: The NYT's former ombudsman, Daniel Okrent (who, I imagine, is hardly a "right winger"), had this to say about the Times' slant:
"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is...These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."
By
Garry, At
1:34 PM, November 07, 2006
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home