NYT: Confirms Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

Boy did the Times screw up! What was supposed to be a November surprise, you know one more poke at Bush has turned into complete justification for the war in Iraq according to Jim Geraughty of National Review Online. (Click on NYT:Confirms)

That’s right boys and girls I don’t stutter. The Times the bastion of anti-Bush news all the time in their attempt to show just how dumb the Bush administration is just showed THEIR collective ignorance. They’ve JUST SHOWED THAT BUSH WAS RIGHT! And they don’t even know it!

How so? Okay for all my slow witted Liberal friends I’ll go slow.

The Times reported that 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 had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

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.

Geraughty asks, 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.


Geraughty reports 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 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 Yellowcake

So the New York Times, confirms that Iraq had a "how to manual" on how to build a nuclear bomb, and could have had a nuke in a year. In addition to that Iraq could have easily put this information into the hands of terrorist.

Geraughty makes this hard hitting point, “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.

So I’d say mistakes were made but in pointing out the mistake that the Bush administration errantly posted on the internet Saddam’s nuclear plans the Times actually told the truth that Saddam did have the capability the know-how and the plan to seek out and build WMD and was within a year of accomplishing that feat. That’s the reason that the President said that we went to war.

That is the reason that all Democrats should be swept out of office on Tuesday. Thank you New York Times!