[Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD

[3drecon at comcast.net]

Hank,
     In most jurisdictions, if you say I have a gun . . . you are charged with armed assault or armed robbery, even if you are unarmed.

Philip


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Hank <hnw555 at gmail.com> 

> Bill, 
> 
> I kind of agree with you and I kind of don't. 
> 
> I do not believe that the claims that Iraq had WMD and was building Nukes 
> was false. I believe it was inaccurate. To me, false signifies a 
> deliberate attempt to mislead, and I don't believe that happened. My 
> opinion. 
> 
> A good part of the blame for these inaccuracies has to lie with Saddam. He 
> did everything he could to hinder the UN inspections teams and to create the 
> belief that he had WMD. 
> 
> Look at it this way, if someone comes up to my family and says "I have a gun 
> and I am going to kill you", I'm certainly not going to wait until he proves 
> it to take action. I'm going to get him first. I know this analogy is very 
> simplistic and the issues with Iraq before the 2003 invasion were much more 
> complicated, but essentially, this is what happened. The intelligence we 
> had at the time (and this is across the western countries, US, UK, Germany, 
> France, etc.) showed that he had WMD. Now it looks like he may not have had 
> it. Unfortunately, decisions are made with the information you have at the 
> time, not with information you receive later. This is called Monday Morning 
> Quarterback and it is real easy to say we should have done this or that 
> based upon new information. We've all made some sort of decision that 
> later, in hindsight, we realize was not the best decision we could have 
> made. Once we realized it, we couldn't go back and change the decision, we 
> have to determine where to go from this point further. 
> 
> Nobody around the world, except the Islamic extremists, wants the U.S. to 
> unilaterally pull out of Iraq. Everyone knows that this would be 
> devastating to the region. 
> 
> In the end, it doesn't really matter how we got here or whose fault it is. 
> It is what it is. The only thing that matters is where do we go from here. 
> 
> Hank 
> 
> On 11/3/06, Bill Effros wrote: 
> > 
> > Brad, 
> > 
> > Getting desperate, are we? 
> > 
> > The Bush administration got the United States into this war by claiming 
> > Iraq had actually built nuclear weapons: 
> > 
> > "We do know, with absolute certainty, 
> > that he is using his procurement system 
> > to acquire the equipment he needs 
> > in order to enrich uranium to 
> > build a nuclear weapon." 
> > 
> > Dick Cheney 
> > Vice President 
> > September 8, 2002 
> > 
> > and 
> > 
> > "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted 
> > nuclear weapons." 
> > 
> > Dick Cheney 
> > Vice President 
> > March 16, 2003 
> > 
> > The documents referenced in the New York Times were posted on the web by 
> > the Bush Administration in an effort by Republicans to flush out more 
> > documents to support administration claims. 
> > 
> > The documents posted were all captured during the 1991 Gulf war. No one 
> > said Iraq wasn't trying to build WMD prior to the first gulf war. It 
> > was the current administration that claimed Iraq had actually built 
> > nuclear weapons after the first Gulf war, and that the United States had 
> > to invade Iraq in order to find them. 
> > 
> > There has not been one shred of evidence to support administration 
> > claims that Iraq tried to build nuclear weapons between 1991 and 2003. 
> > 
> > The point of the Times story was that this administration, which is now 
> > running on a "we can protect America better" platform, is posting plans 
> > for building nuclear weapons on the Internet in a last ditch effort to 
> > try to justify false claims that Iraq was building nuclear weapons just 
> > prior to our invasion. 
> > 
> > Now Republicans are trying to claim that documents they posted, which 
> > detail how to build atomic bombs, refer to Iraqi attempts to build 
> > weapons after 1991. 
> > 
> > You guys must think everyone else is really stupid. 
> > 
> > Bill Effros 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Brad Haslett wrote: 
> > > You gotta love the intelligentsia at the New York Times. No doubt, 
> > > this was 
> > > supposed to be a hit piece on the Bush Administration. Perhaps they 
> > > outwitted themselves? An analysis and the original article from today's 
> > > newspaper is attached. 
> > > 
> > > Brad 
> > > 
> > > --------------------- 
> > > 
> > > *Shocker: New York Times Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program 
> > > *11/02 10:39 
> > > PM< 
> > 
> http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2 
> Y= 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > When 
> > > I saw the headline on Drudge earlier tonight, that the New York Times 
> > > had a 
> > > big story coming out tomorrow that had something to do with Iraq and 
> > > WMDs, I 
> > > was ready for an October November Surprise. 
> > > 
> > > Well, Drudge is giving us the scoop. 
> > > And if 
> > > it's meant to be a slam-Bush story, I think the Times team may have 
> > > overthunk this: 
> > > 
> > > *U.S. POSTING OF IRAQ NUKE DOCS ON WEB COULD HAVE HELPED IRAN... 
> > > 
> > > NYT REPORTING FRIDAY, SOURCES SAY: Federal government set up Web site 
> > > ? **Operation 
> > > Iraqi Freedom Document 
> > > Portal* 
> > > * ? to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the 
> > > war; detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research; a 'basic 
> > > guide to 
> > > building an atom bomb'... Officials of the International Atomic Energy 
> > > Agency fear the information could help Iran develop nuclear arms... 
> > > contain 
> > > charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building 
> > > that 
> > > the nuclear experts say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the 
> > > Internet and in other public forums... 
> > > 
> > > Website now shut... Developing... * 
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that 
> > > *IRAQ HAD 
> > > A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB*? 
> > > 
> > > What? Wait a minute. The entire mantra of the war critics has been "no 
> > > WMDs, no WMDs, no threat, no threat", for the past three years solid. 
> > Now 
> > > we're being told that the Bush administration erred by making public 
> > > information that could help any nation build an atomic bomb. 
> > > 
> > > Let's go back and clarify: IRAQ HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANS SO ADVANCED 
> > AND 
> > > DETAILED THAT ANY COUNTRY COULD HAVE USED THEM. 
> > > 
> > > I think the Times editors are counting on this being spun as a "Boy, did 
> > > Bush screw up" meme; the problem is, to do it, they have to knock down 
> > > the 
> > > "there was no threat in Iraq" meme, once and for all. Because obviously, 
> > > Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, 
> > > or any 
> > > well-funded terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions 
> > of 
> > > Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, 
> > > oh... 
> > > *al-Qaeda.* 
> > > 
> > > The New York Times just tore the heart out of the antiwar argument, 
> > > and they 
> > > are apparently completely oblivous to it. 
> > > 
> > > The antiwar crowd is going to have to argue that the information somehow 
> > > wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous 
> > > posted on 
> > > the Internet. It doesn't work. It can't be both no threat to America 
> > > and yet 
> > > also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. Game, 
> > > set, 
> > > and match. 
> > > 
> > > UPDATE: The article is up 
> > > here< 
> > 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5094&en=1 
> 511d6b3da302d4f&hp=&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > . 
> > > 
> > > Having now read it, I can see that every stop has been pulled out to 
> > > ensure 
> > > that a reader will believe that posting these documents was a strategic 
> > > blunder of the first order. 
> > > 
> > > But the story retains its own inherent contradiction: The information in 
> > > these documents is so dangerous, that every step must be taken to 
> > > ensure it 
> > > doesn't end up in the wrong hands... except for topping the regime that 
> > > actually has the documents. 
> > > 
> > > (By the way, is it just me, or is the article entirely devoid of any 
> > > indication that Iran actually accessed the documents? This threat 
> > > that, "You 
> > > idiot! Iran could access all the documents!" is entirely speculative. 
> > > If the 
> > > government servers hosting the web site have signs that Iranian web 
> > > browsers 
> > > accessed those pages, it's a different story; my guess is somebody 
> > > already 
> > > knows the answer to that question.) 
> > > 
> > > I'm still kinda blown away by this paragraph: 
> > > 
> > > Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in 
> > > the 
> > > 1990's and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making 
> > sure 
> > > Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf 
> > > war. 
> > > *Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the 
> > > verge of 
> > > building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.* 
> > > 
> > > Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 
> > 2002, 
> > > months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from 
> > > building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush 
> > > used to 
> > > trick us into war. 
> > > 
> > > And yet here is the New York Times, saying that Iraq had a "how to 
> > > manual" 
> > > on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year. 
> > > 
> > > In other news, it's good to see that the New York Times is firmly 
> > against 
> > > publicizing sensitive and classified information. Unless, of course, 
> > > they're 
> > > the ones doing it. 
> > > 
> > > ONE LAST THOUGHT: So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the 
> > > designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb 
> > > building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future 
> > > material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of 
> > action 
> > > for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, 
> > > they 
> > > would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would 
> > > have 
> > > needed, but articles like this 
> > > one< 
> > 
> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3597&URL=http://www.foreig 
> npolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3597 
> > >give 
> > > 
> > > a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind 
> > > of 
> > > firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a 
> > > lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional 
> > > explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, 
> > of 
> > > course, the nuclear material itself. 
> > > 
> > > They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that 
> > > stuff 
> > > called? Oh, that's right. 
> > > 
> > > *Yellowcake.* 
> > > 
> > > But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe 
> > Wilson 
> > > had tea with officials in Niger who said so. 
> > > 
> > > --------- 
> > > November 3, 2006 
> > > U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer 
> > > 
> > > By WILLIAM J. 
> > > BROAD< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/william_j_broad/ind 
> ex.html?inline=nyt-per 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a 
> > > vast 
> > > archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush 
> > > administration 
> > > did so under pressure from Congressional 
> > > Republicans< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_p 
> arty/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >who 
> > > 
> > > had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of 
> > > the prewar dangers posed by Saddam 
> > > Hussein< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/inde 
> x.html?inline=nyt-per 
> > >. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons 
> > > experts 
> > > say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of 
> > > Iraq< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/in 
> dex.html?inline=nyt-geo 
> > >'s 
> > > 
> > > secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The 
> > > documents, the 
> > > experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb. 
> > > 
> > > Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York 
> > > Times 
> > > asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. 
> > A 
> > > spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the 
> > > site 
> > > had been suspended "pending a review to ensure its content is 
> > appropriate 
> > > for public viewing." 
> > > 
> > > Officials of the International Atomic Energy 
> > > Agency< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internationa 
> l_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >, 
> > > 
> > > fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear 
> > > arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to 
> > the 
> > > agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of 
> > > anonymity 
> > > because of the issue's sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency's 
> > > technical 
> > > experts "were shocked" at the public disclosures. 
> > > 
> > > Early this morning, a spokesman for Gregory L. Schulte, the American 
> > > ambassador, denied that anyone from the agency had approached Mr. 
> > Schulte 
> > > about the Web site. 
> > > 
> > > The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, 
> > > equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear 
> > experts 
> > > who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the 
> > > Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give 
> > > detailed 
> > > information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering 
> > > explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. 
> > > 
> > > "For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very 
> > > irresponsible," said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of 
> > > classification 
> > > at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation's nuclear 
> > arms 
> > > program. "There's a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are 
> > > secret and 
> > > should remain so." 
> > > 
> > > The government had received earlier warnings about the contents of the 
> > > Web 
> > > site. Last spring, after the site began posting old Iraqi documents 
> > about 
> > > chemical weapons, United 
> > > Nations< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_natio 
> ns/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >arms-control 
> > > 
> > > officials in New York won the withdrawal of a report that gave 
> > > information on how to make tabun and sarin, nerve agents that kill by 
> > > causing respiratory failure. 
> > > 
> > > The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative 
> > > publications 
> > > and politicians, who said that the nation's spy agencies had failed 
> > > adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the 
> > > March 
> > > 2003 invasion. With the public increasingly skeptical about the 
> > rationale 
> > > and conduct of the war, the chairmen of the House and Senate 
> > intelligence 
> > > committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the documents 
> > > ? most 
> > > of them in Arabic ? would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr. 
> > > Hussein 
> > > had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the 
> > > invasion. American search teams never found such evidence. 
> > > 
> > > The director of national intelligence, John D. 
> > > Negroponte< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/john_d_negroponte/i 
> ndex.html?inline=nyt-per 
> > >, 
> > > 
> > > had resisted setting up the Web site, which some intelligence 
> > > officials felt 
> > > implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of 
> > > government 
> > > analysts. But President Bush approved the site's creation after 
> > > Congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the documents' 
> > > release. 
> > > 
> > > In his statement last night, Mr. Negroponte's spokesman, Chad Kolton, 
> > > said, 
> > > "While strict criteria had already been established to govern posted 
> > > documents, the material currently on the Web site, as well as the 
> > > procedures 
> > > used to post new documents, will be carefully reviewed before the site 
> > > becomes available again." 
> > > 
> > > A spokesman for the National Security 
> > > Council< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_sec 
> urity_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >, 
> > > 
> > > Gordon D. Johndroe, said, "We're confident the D.N.I. is taking the 
> > > appropriate steps to maintain the balance between public information and 
> > > national security." 
> > > 
> > > The Web site, "Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal," was a 
> > constantly 
> > > expanding portrait of prewar Iraq. Its many thousands of documents 
> > > included 
> > > everything from a collection of religious and nationalistic poetry to 
> > > instructions for the repair of parachutes to handwritten notes from Mr. 
> > > Hussein's intelligence service. It became a popular quarry for a 
> > > legion of 
> > > bloggers, translators and amateur historians. 
> > > 
> > > Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in 
> > > the 
> > > 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure 
> > > Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian 
> > > Gulf 
> > > war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the 
> > > verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away. 
> > > 
> > > European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents 
> > on 
> > > the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations 
> > > Security 
> > > Council< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_cou 
> ncil/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >in 
> > > 
> > > late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on 
> > > the 
> > > Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively 
> > > edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms. 
> > > 
> > > The deletions, the diplomats said, had been done in consultation with 
> > the 
> > > United States and other nuclear-weapons nations. Mohamed 
> > > ElBaradei< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/mohamed_elbaradei/i 
> ndex.html?inline=nyt-per 
> > >, 
> > > 
> > > the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which ran the 
> > > nuclear part of the inspections, told the Security Council in late 
> > > 2002 that 
> > > the deletions were "consistent with the principle that 
> > > proliferation-sensitive information should not be released." 
> > > 
> > > In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the 
> > > nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as 
> > > potentially dangerous. "It's a cookbook," said the diplomat, who spoke 
> > on 
> > > condition of anonymity because of his agency's rules. "If you had 
> > > this, it 
> > > would short-circuit a lot of things." 
> > > 
> > > The New York Times had examined dozens of the documents and asked a half 
> > > dozen nuclear experts to evaluate some of them. 
> > > 
> > > Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms 
> > > scientist now at the war studies department of King's College, London, 
> > > called the posted material "very sensitive, much of it undoubtedly 
> > secret 
> > > restricted data." 
> > > 
> > > Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore 
> > > National 
> > > Laboratory< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/lawrence_liv 
> ermore_national_laboratory/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >in 
> > > 
> > > California, an arms design center, said "some things in these 
> > > documents 
> > > would be helpful" to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and 
> > > should 
> > > have remained secret. 
> > > 
> > > A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic 
> > > issues said the documents showed "where the Iraqis failed and how to get 
> > > around the failures." The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran 
> > or 
> > > other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but 
> > > probably 
> > > not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested 
> > > anonymity because of his agency's rules against public comment, called 
> > > the 
> > > papers "a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but 
> > > only if 
> > > you already have a car." 
> > > 
> > > Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a private 
> > > group at George Washington 
> > > University< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/george_washi 
> ngton_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >that 
> > > 
> > > tracks federal secrecy decisions, said the impetus for the Web site's 
> > > creation came from an array of sources ? private conservative groups, 
> > > Congressional Republicans and some figures in the Bush administration 
> > > ? who 
> > > clung to the belief that close examination of the captured documents 
> > > would 
> > > show that Mr. Hussein's government had clandestinely reconstituted an 
> > > unconventional arms programs. 
> > > 
> > > "There were hundreds of people who said, 'There's got to be gold in them 
> > > thar hills,' " Mr. Blanton said. 
> > > 
> > > The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House 
> > > Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. Last 
> > > November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts of Kansas, wrote 
> > > to Mr. 
> > > Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material. The sheer volume of 
> > > the 
> > > documents, they argued, had overwhelmed the intelligence community. 
> > > 
> > > Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, 
> > > translated and 
> > > interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess 
> > the 
> > > intelligence agencies' view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional 
> > > weapons or substantive ties to Al 
> > > Qaeda< 
> > 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/ind 
> ex.html?inline=nyt-org 
> > >. 
> > > 
> > > Reviewing the documents for release would add an unnecessary burden on 
> > > busy 
> > > intelligence analysts, they argued. 
> > > 
> > > On March 16, after the documents' release was approved, Mr. Negroponte's 
> > > office issued a terse public announcement including a disclaimer that 
> > > remained on the Web site: "The U.S. government has made no determination 
> > > regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual 
> > > accuracy of 
> > > the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, 
> > > when 
> > > available." 
> > > 
> > > On April 18, about a month after the first documents were made public, 
> > > Mr. 
> > > Hoekstra issued a news release acknowledging "minimal risks," but 
> > > saying the 
> > > site "will enable us to better understand information such as Saddam's 
> > > links 
> > > to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and violence against the Iraqi 
> > > people." He added: "It will allow us to leverage the Internet to enable 
> > a 
> > > mass examination as opposed to limiting it to a few exclusive elites." 
> > > 
> > > Yesterday, before the site was shut down, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for 
> > Mr. 
> > > Hoekstra, said the government had "developed a sound process to review 
> > > the 
> > > documents to ensure sensitive or dangerous information is not posted." 
> > > Later, he said the complaints about the site "didn't sound like a big 
> > > deal," 
> > > adding, "We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug." 
> > > 
> > > The precise review process that led to the posting of the nuclear and 
> > > chemical-weapons documents is unclear. But in testimony before 
> > > Congress last 
> > > spring, a senior official from Mr. Negroponte's office, Daniel Butler, 
> > > described a "triage" system used to sort out material that should remain 
> > > classified. Even so, he said, the policy was to "be biased towards 
> > > release 
> > > if at all possible." Government officials say all the documents in 
> > Arabic 
> > > have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists. 
> > > 
> > > Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq's program to make 
> > germ 
> > > weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms. 
> > > 
> > > At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms 
> > > at the 
> > > Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in 
> > > charge 
> > > of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones. 
> > > 
> > > In April, diplomats said, the commission's acting chief weapons 
> > > inspector, 
> > > Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission 
> > to 
> > > the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents 
> > > tabun 
> > > and sarin. 
> > > 
> > > Soon, the document vanished from the Web site. On June 8, diplomats 
> > said, 
> > > Mr. Perricos told the Security Council of how risky arms information had 
> > > shown up on a public Web site and how his agency appreciated the 
> > American 
> > > cooperation in resolving the matter. 
> > > 
> > > In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some 
> > > soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called 
> > > "Progress 
> > > of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995." That description is potentially 
> > > misleading since the research occurred years earlier. 
> > > 
> > > The Iraqi document is marked "Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95)," 
> > > meaning it 
> > > was preparatory for the "Full, Final, Complete Disclosure" that Iraq 
> > > made to 
> > > United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three 
> > > diagrams 
> > > showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters. 
> > > 
> > > On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, "Summary of 
> > > technical 
> > > achievements of Iraq's former nuclear program." It runs to 51 pages, 18 
> > > focusing on the development of Iraq's bomb design. Topics included 
> > > physical 
> > > theory, the atomic core and high-explosive experiments. By early 
> > October, 
> > > diplomats and officials said, United Nations arms inspectors in New 
> > > York and 
> > > their counterparts in Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do. 
> > > 
> > > Last week in Vienna, Olli J. Heinonen, head of safeguards at the 
> > > international atomic agency, expressed concern about the documents to 
> > Mr. 
> > > Schulte, diplomats said. 
> > > 
> > > Scott Shane contributed reporting. 
> > > __________________________________________________ 
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list 
> > > 
> > __________________________________________________ 
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list 
> > 
> __________________________________________________ 
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list