Astute readers know by now that the NY Times is claiming that the Bush Administration, under pressure from congressional Republicans posted on the internet documents that "constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." These documents came from "vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war." According to the NY Times:

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.
Of course, it is President Bush's fault for putting these documents on the internet:
“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.”
Far from tossing a match, I am pretty sure the U.S. disabled this flammable area by deposing Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. And, what is truly amazing is that the left, well, at least the NY Times, now seems to admit that there were WMD programs in active development. As noted in the National Review Online:
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?
So, does this mean that Bush didn't lie us into war? (This all comes from Instapundit.)


Wulfgar said...

You did read the article, right? The documents clearly expose Saddam's nuclear ambitions ... pre-Gulf War 1.

And I don't know about you, but I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable about the evidence leading us to war if it had been reviewed well enough that some dipstick would have known better than to post a document online that is a how-to for building a nuke.

Simply put, how are we supposed to trust what the government claimed if they clearly don't even know what it is that they had?

GeeGuy said...

First, good to have you back. Haven't seen you in a while; I guess you're a "bad blogger!"

When you say "they clearly don't even know what it is they had," you lost me. Who is they? The government didn't know what the government had? The government didn't know what the Iraqis had?

Wulfgar said...

"The government didn't know what the government had?"

The administration, to be more precise. If they knew they had these documents that prove their case, and yet clearly undermine national security if posted online, then why were these posted? There's only a few possibilities: 1) They didn't know they had this stuff and/or 2) these documents don't point to an ongoing weapons program at all.

Regretably, the documents *do* give helpful hints for building a nuclear weapon (or program for weapons) and they were posted online. Please note: I'm not accusing the administration of any evil. This is simply more evidence of the vast incompetance that took us to war, has lost control of that conflict (if they ever really had it), and is making us less safe by the day.

(p.s. even though I haven't been posting much or commenting, I still drop by here nearly everyday. And I think you did a terrific job on the Harris stuff, beginning to end.)

free thought said...

I read about the same posting, and withdrawal of the documents. I ignored the analysis you discuss because I automatically decided that the story was wholly political, from both sides. But, that gave me my idea for my latest post. (Yes, GeeGuy, I'm trying to poach your readers again).


Heh. Nice logic, dude.

Here's how I see it. Bush and the Rep majority have been in power for 6 longgg years, and in that time have vowed to not only keep terrorism at bay, but dare I say to extinguish it entirely?

Not only did they not find any reasonable amount of WMD's in Iraq, but in the interim, two countries, Iran and N Korea not only developed nukes, but one of them actually tested one.

Bush must have assumed if we beat up on two little countries that we'd scare the holy crap out of everyone else. Instead, they can easily see that we lack the power to control and police either Iraq or Afganistan, so they went right ahead with their nuke projects, showing other little countries how impotent we've become in policing the world.

The difference is that before all of this, we had a pretty decent bluff going, but now we've squandered our perceived advantage. Everybody knows we can't make it stick. I wouldn't be surprized at all to hear of other small countries coming up with nukes in the coming years, starting with that bonehead from South America.

The words "walk softly and carry a big stick" come to mind...

GeeGuy said...


First, thanks for stopping by. Welcome.

Second, no fair interpretation of anything his adminstration has said would admit to a claim that they promised to end terrorism by '08. That's weak. (By the way, we haven't been attacked again, have we?)

Oh yeah, Iran and N. Korea started their nuclear programs in 1/00, right?

We "lack the power to control and police either Iraq or Afganistan, so they went right ahead with their nuke projects," huh? I would say that, rather than sneering at our lack of military might, N. Korea and Iran are sneering at our lack of political will, driven in large part, no doubt, by the constant drumbeat of political attacks by the loyal opposition (you). Does that mean that the administration is not worthy of dissent? No, but it gets a little silly at times as your post attests.

So, let me get this straight. They were all afraid of us, until we attacked them, but since we have attacked them and haven't 'won' yet, now they're not afraid? So we're safer not aggressively pursuing a policy of self-defense, even if the policy is misguided?

Heh. Nice logic, dude.

Big Sky Husker said...


North Korea and Iran perceive having nuclear weapons as leverage against actions by the United States/good guys. Action against North Korea is no better now than it was under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, or the idiot from Georgia. The United States can't strike North Korea because if we do, the North Koreans will launch a full scale attack on Seoul... which will kill thousands, if not ten of thousands of South Koreas, and destroy a major chunk of their economy. North Korea and Iran, short of military action by the West, are going to develop nuclear weapons. We had no bluff before Dubya... because North Korea and Iran had active nuclear weapons programs. And sending either country money, harsh words or Madeline Halfbright isn't going to change that.


My overblown point, if there was one, was that of engaging in the same type of rhetoric that I see everyday on the news. As in:

"we're safer but still not safe".

What a lucridious statement...

Yes, I'm exaggerating (and being slightly snarky) - off the premise that you support the Reps for the fine job they are doing, so in counterpoint, I am merely pointing out that 6 years later, other countries are going about their "evil axis" business as usual, undetered by our efforts to scare them into submission.

What were talking about is rhetoric vs well thought out plans of action, and I have to assume the former. That we haven't been attacked since then is no indication of anything. The last time we were attacked on that scale was Pearl Harbor.

It wouldn't surprize me in the least to see a major attempt at terror on US soil everytime we change parties and/or presidents from now on. With 9/11, they managed to polarize this presidency for it's duration. Talk about framing an issue.

Oh yeah, I wasn't sneering at our lack of military might. I was looking at it from a historical point of veiw. Our closest parallel in history is the Roman Empire, and they eventually failed by spreading themselves too thin. So, in effect, I was sneering at the current policy and policymakers. It was said by them that the previous administration was weak on terror and that their inattention to the matter created more chaos, so it must be with some chagrin that the current administration finds that the "open a can of whoop-ass" method doesn't work either, but costs considerably more to employ. That's the whole point of having and supporting the UN, and working together as a group for the good of all countries, instead of acting like adolecents in an alleyway gangfight. The 30 something percent approval rating is a direct reflection of that.

And how do we know that A. Bryan Siebert is on the left? All he was saying was that it was against our national security to post those documents online just to justify the war. That doesn't sound like a left statement to me, it just sounds like common sense. Instead, it appears that Bush was trying to sway popular opinion towards him, which he has repeatedly said he doesn't need anyway. (flip-flop, flip-flop) hahaha. Now that was snarky...

How is it "left" of the NYT to report relevant stories on issues that were framed by the very side from which they those same issues have arrisen? They talk terror and security, put those issues into the spotlight as the #1 priority, then breach security by posting atom bomb building documents, and then call it "left" to report it in the news. It seems far more relevant then the "rightist" reporting of who's getting a BJ in the oral office.

That, by the way, was sarcasm...