[Rhodes22-list] Politics - WMD

Brad Haslett flybrad at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 14:03:33 EST 2006


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
>


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list