Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iraqi WMD documents threaten America
American Kafir    11/3/2006 1:04:09 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- November 3, 2006 U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide By WILLIAM J. BROAD 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 who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’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, 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. 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 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, 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, 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
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
American Kafir       11/3/2006 1:21:02 AM
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.
 
As in 2003?
 
You're kidding right?
 
Lemmesee if I got this straight. Iraq possessed the technology, knowledge, specialists, designs, and infrastructure to begin making nuclear weapons...
 
...and proving to the world that a post-Gulf War Iraqi nuclear weapons program was in more advanced stages than had been previously discovered threatens international security, but...
 
doesn't justify toppling Saddam Hussein.
 
Oookay.
 
Will the last leftist "no WMD in Iraq" goober please STFU and STFD?   
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/3/2006 1:41:34 PM

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.

 

As in 2003?

 

You're kidding right?

 

Lemmesee if I got this straight. Iraq possessed the technology, knowledge, specialists, designs, and infrastructure to begin making nuclear weapons...

 

...and proving to the world that a post-Gulf War Iraqi nuclear weapons program was in more advanced stages than had been previously discovered threatens international security, but...

 

doesn't justify toppling Saddam Hussein.

 

Oookay.

 

Will the last leftist "no WMD in Iraq" goober please STFU and STFD?   




Some lessons in reading comprehension
 
"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. "
 
Hussein was a year away in 1990 not 2003...this is nothing new, as the documents date from the early 1990s and rewritten for UN inspectors in 2002.

 


Try not to rewrite history.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    AK   11/3/2006 3:01:41 PM
even if they were a year away and our intelligence was so good--we should be able to get them by a simple air or Special forces strike. And remember even Iran is aminimal of 3 years away, and have u seen their tech and engineers. Anyways its not the WMD issue that irks me its this 400$ billion bill, even if WMDs were found this war is gonna cost us $600 billion upfront excluding finance charges and upwards of 30,000 casualties. Obviously a bad deal--remeber the 9/11 bill was $40billion tops + 3000 dead. Lets c who do we blame--the neocons of course--they want a solution for Iraq--thats the mantra--whats ur plan -well I have one. I think Missouri and Tennessee are persisting in their policy, I say we sell both those states to China, UK, Japan that mostly finance our debts. Really, I believe in the Jack Welch way , fire the bottom 10% incompetents. Besides the Cardinals there is not much too lose, oh yeah and grab the Elvis memorial--the rest hand it to China. SOLD!!
 
Quote    Reply

EW3       11/3/2006 3:08:38 PM
"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."
 
I don't see the word rewritten here.  In fact your post is the only place the word is used.

 
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir       11/3/2006 4:01:45 PM
Please, Plutarch and Herc, I said please. Now please, all leftist goobers, sit the f_ck down and shut the f_ck up.
 
The Bush Administration has made the world a less safe place by releasing documentation of Iraqi WMD programs that didn't exist?
 
The Bush Administration should have kept the extent of Iraq's WMD programs a secret, because the data and schematics revealed could help a rogue state or a terrorist build a nuclear weapon?
 
Iraq had a functional nuclear weapon design that has international arms inspectors throwing fits because it was made publicly available to everyone with internet access, but we could trust Saddam Hussein with it?
 
I gave up on leftists speaking intelligently decades ago. But tell me there is brain activity in there, right?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       11/3/2006 7:33:05 PM
"Try not to rewrite history."

LOL, a Democrat telling a Republican not to rewrite history. LOL

Pot calling Kettle, Kettle come in, this is Pot.

Did you perhaps stop to understand the vague wording leaves the interpretation up in the air as to whether it was 1990 or 2002?

Didn't think so.

 
Quote    Reply

Bob       11/3/2006 9:50:40 PM

I gave up on leftists speaking intelligently decades ago. But tell me there is brain activity in there, right?
Yeah. After this latest NYTimes-ism I am absolutely positive you have been correct all along. I don't know why there was ever a small Luke Skywalker-esque feeling in me telling me "there's still a hint of intelligence in them. i feel it." Especially after 9/11.

In the past six years alone (since I've been paying serious attention) we've collected hundreds of thousands of terabytes of data that prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is something seriously, seriously wrong with the left. Medically.

But barring some strange dispute that they take to the courts (only to later lose), I guess after they lose outright on Tuesday, they'll at least STFU for awhile.... then maybe we can diagnose them and decide what type of brain surgery they'll require to become functioning members of society.
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       11/3/2006 10:33:38 PM
Does anybody know? If all that you need are the actual weapons components, how far away are you?
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/5/2006 2:46:31 PM

"Try not to rewrite history."



LOL, a Democrat telling a Republican not to rewrite history. LOL



Pot calling Kettle, Kettle come in, this is Pot.



Did you perhaps stop to understand the vague wording leaves the interpretation up in the air as to whether it was 1990 or 2002?



Didn't think so.




No the writing wasn't vague as everyone knows that Saddam was close to a nuke prior to the Gulf War, yet there is no additional evidence that Saddam was close to a nuke in 2002/2003.  He had no plutonium, no uranium of a high-enough grade to make a bomb, and no reactors to transmute the elements.  I also don't recall telling you I am a Democrat, so I don't know why you refer to me as one.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/5/2006 2:55:20 PM

Does anybody know? If all that you need are the actual weapons components, how far away are you?



You are pretty far as the actual weapons components are the hardest parts of the program.  Uranium doesn't grow on trees.  It  is heavily regulated and monitored.  Lost in all the brouhaha over the Niger uranium story is the fact that Saddam never got the uranium.  You can seek all you want for uranium but getting it is the actual hard part.  IF Saddam really wanted a nuke he could have bought them from the Russians, or at least imported their scientists to make a weapon. The Russians, Chinese, Americans, Brits, French, Pakistanis, Indians, and Nigerians all didn't think enough of Saddam to provide him with the components, so how serious was his nuclear program?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics