The New York Times is breaking the news that sensitive documents captured when Saddam Hussein was toppled. The documents outline in detail plans for building nuclear weapons. They also reveal Saddam’s connections with Iran and various terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.
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. HusseinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
The New York Times and others seem to be attempting to use this information as a slam on the Bush administration immediately before the mid-term elections. Their argument is that this documentation should never have been put on the internet. They are right. Only it was Congress that authorized their release to the internet.
The part they seem to be overlooking is that this intellegence is irrefutable proof that Saddam Hussein’s regime was, indeed, had nuclear ambitions and was actively pursuing nukes. It also provides proof that Saddam Hussein’s regime did have a connection with al-Qaida.
It proves there was a legitimate reason to go into Iraq, aside from the reasons that I personally think were reason enough. For instance, having a standing army in the middle of the Middle East.
I think what they are saying is that the Bush administration lied about WMDs before he told the truth about WMDs.
They are so wrapped up in their own agendas that they don’t seem to realize that the big bombshell is that the intelligence documents were on the internet as opposed to that Saddam Hussein was connected with al-Qaida and other enemies of the United States and was in the process of building a nuclear bomb.
hat tip: In the Bullpen
Mensa Barbie says this isn’t new news. She remembers the New York Times’ proclivity for publishing dangerous leaks that breach national security.
Captain’s Quarters has a thorough expanation of the intelligence and a points out some of the highlights of the NYT article:
That 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.
Ray Robinson has a vivid reminder of Saddam’s violent reign and an excellent run down of the Iraqi documents.
Yes, the New York Crimes is frigginÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ insane. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was plotting to build an atomic bomb, but the Bush Administration is bad because those plans ended up online and could help Iran. Iran, who of course is only interested in nuclear technology for Ã¢â‚¬Å“peaceful purposes.Ã¢â‚¬Â Allllll-righty then.
But see … the problem with the NYT thinking (beyond the obvious fact that they’re traitors) is that it proves that Bush was RIGHT. The New York Times may think they are reporting another “gotcha” on Bush….but, this is THE gotcha that Bush has for all of the war in Iraq naysayers!!!
Bottom line is as simple as this, the DOCS are proof of Saddam having WMD and how he supported destruction and terrorism.
Here’s a thought. The Dems were shown to be completely wrong during the Reagan years vis-a-vis the Cold War and how to end it, which Reagan did. Of course, the Left claims it was Carter (snicker) who really ended it.
Now, the New York Times itself shows that Bush was right, and the Left was wrong. How do they spin this?
The Black Republican says Pay No Attention to the Dictator Behind the Nuclear Curtain.
Conservatives and Liberals alike are trying to figure out how the Democratic Party is going to spin this, and they’ve come up with some good ideas. But it still strikes me that the morsel people will take away from the story will be: “Saddam had the goods”.
My question is: too little, too late? It depends how torqued up New Media can make the otherwise-uninformed portion of the populace between now and Tuesday. Go at it, bloggers.
Others posting: Stop the ACLU has a huge round-up, Blue Crab Blvd, Flopping Aces also has a large round-up, Uncooperative Blogger, Sister Toldjah, Hot Air, Wizbang, Leaning Staight Up, Michelle Malkin, Dread Pundit Bluto, Wake Up America, Iowa Voice, Weblogging, Outside the Beltway, Coalition of the Swilling, Hyscience, Counterterrorism Blog,
crossposted at Jihad du Jour