Nov 03 2006

NY Times Forgot About Clinton’s Nuke Gift To Iran

Published by at 8:48 am under All General Discussions

Update: A must read by The Anchoress

The NY Times is such a lost cause. The brain wattage over there must be running low because their “reporting” is pathetic. I am not sure what to make of the NY Times report today that a posting of Iraqi documents helped Iran with their nukes:

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 had 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.

These media hits from the United Nations IAEA right before elections are getting to be tiresome. And someone should seriously investigate why the IAEA feels it can coordinate with the NY Times to influence our elections every damn year. Recall in 2004 they leaked the Al Qa Qaa weapons dump story right before those elections. It was the IAEA that broke the news about the Niger Forgeries right after Bush’s state of the Union speech in 2002 (forgeries which were in a safe in the CIA in Valerie Plame’s section for months until the speech). They meddle too much and can’t even do anything about Iran. I doubt the information was all that useful to Iran, because Bill Clinton gave Iran all they needed to know about building a bomb when he was President:

The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book “State of War” by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, who exposed the Bush administration’s controversial NSA spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran’s nuclear drive.

….

But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.

The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and “may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA,” according to Risen.

That is why none of this information is critical to Iran. Clinton gave them the design to the hardest part of making a nuke – the trigger. He did it in 2000. Of course the NY Times fails to mention any of that. I guess to journalism majors, the material looked really complex and scary. I would wager nothing in these documents could not be found in college text books. We do train people to deal with nuclear reactors and weapons to some level. I have no problem with a review and double checkon the material – makes sense.

But I guess the NY Times is also now admitting Iraq had WMD capabilities! I mean, if Iraq had designs helpful to Iran then Iraq was ahead of Iran in gaining a nuclear weapon. Therefore, it is a good thing we grabbed this information before Saddam shared it with Iran and Al Qaeda.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “NY Times Forgot About Clinton’s Nuke Gift To Iran”

  1. Saddam Closer To Bomb Than Anyone Thought…

    The New Yorks times confirms that in 2002 Saddam Hussein’s “scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away:”
    Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in…

  2. The Rabbit Hole…

    Well, the Times now claims that the information published online included primers on how to build nuclear weapons – information that could prove useful to the likes of Iran. That is, if the Times reporting itself is correct. If the reporting is indee…..

  3. trentk269 says:

    The truth doesn’t matter- and it’s futile to expect the NY Times to report it. We’ve reached the point in this country that talking to a liberal is a complete waste of time. The liberal position is one of faith, not fact.

  4. Barbara says:

    I don’t think the Times article is as much about bashing Bush as it is about undermining the congressional election. The telling statement was that “Bush was forced by Republicans in congress” to release these documents that were detrimental to our safety. Ergo, since Republicans in congress were so egregious to want these documents on a public website, then they must be too incompetent to be in congress so let;s not re-elect them. Isn’t that pathetic. The Times…worrying about national security?

  5. clarice says:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1731259/posts?page=409

    (The detailed response of jveritas, the translator os most of these docs, docs which demolish the Bush Lied theme and which the NYT utterly ignored).

    Also see,for a round up of comments:http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6518

  6. Sensible Mom says:

    NYT Splash On Friday Before Election – Updated…

    The most snarky quotes in the NYT article are from Thomas S. Blanton…His group, The National Secruity Archive, hosted its 20th anniversary party in December 2005 headlined by Bill Moyers and Seymour Hersh. Yes, that Seymour Hersh, who yesterday was …

  7. The Times Has Done It Again…

    This time, though, I think they’re going to be pretty unhappy about what they’ve done. Attempting to go on offense and administer the coup de grace to their beleaguered opponent, the NY Times exposes a story today how Iraqi nuclear…

  8. For Enforcement says:

    In this quote from the NY Times, it clearly says their bomb was only a year away. The liberals will overlook this little detail tho.

    “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.”

  9. Retired Spook says:

    For anybody who hasn’t read it, the Anchoress’ parody of this flap that AJ linked to above is just hilarious.

  10. Mid-Term (Open) Must-Read List /2…

    Dick Morris, Jay Bryant, Michael Barone, Byron York, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Ronald R. Griffin, Mark Mellman, Charlie Cook, Jonah Goldberg, Stuart Rothenberg, Mike Allen, Hugh Hewitt, Larry J. Sabato, David Wasserman, Peggy Noonan, Lawrence Kudlo…..

  11. Ken says:

    We’re supposed to believe this offsets Bush’s Iraq war blunder which
    increased Iran’s power markedly?

  12. The Macker says:

    Thanks AJ and Clarice,
    As expected, the NYT has missed the part that doesn’t fit its template. Others of the translations expose Saddam’s WMD programs and his part in the terrorist web.

    The NYT got tripped up in its scheme to divert attention from its own crimes and now must admit that the other translated documents are authentic and a casus belli.

  13. Terrye says:

    Ken:

    Oh puhleaze, if that stuff was in those documents then that means it was in Iraq and if it was in Iraq that means that Bush did not lie. And if Saddam had this info back then there is no reason to believe that Iran does not already have it and if the isolationists like you have their way the Jew hating holocaust denying madman that runs Iran will be able to do whatever he wants without any interference from the Zionists and the neocons anyway.

    Sometimes reading your posts is like watching a snake swallow itself.

  14. Ken says:

    Terrye

    No dice on two accounts. Bush , Powell, Rummy, Cheney outlined specific WMDs , even where some would be found. They were not there. Bush expected the public would not care, owing to an easy victory and a quick stabilization, which did not follow, due to his ignoring the warnings of an insurgency he in no ways expected.

    What Bush privately believed about WMDs is a matter of amusement but academic.

    His lie to the public was in presenting a body of conflicting
    intelligence as conclusive.

    Having a basic guide to building a bomb is irrevelant, as Saddam was
    “contained and in a box,” both Powell and Rice assured all,
    several times at press conferences during 2001…before 9/11.

  15. Barbara says:

    Ken

    I am surprised to know you are so close to Bush that you know what he was thinking at the time and is thinking now. Tell me, did you miss all the documents and satellite pictures about trucks moving large convoys to Syria? What do you suppose were in those trucks? And I like the “basic guide” bit. It shows how around the bend you have gone. Have you forgotten that Saddam has been trying to build a nuke since the early 1980s and was bombed by Israel. But maybe that’s your beef with Israel. And Saddam was not going to be contained for long, if he ever was , with France, Germany and Russia in cahoots with himin the Oil for Food scandal. They made a lot of money with him. They were pressuring the UN to abolish the sanctions and then he would be free to build nukes and finance terrorists around the world. And please stop quoting the dem mantra that ” Bush Lied People Died” theme. Contrary to Joe Wilson’s lies, he did not use our intelligence information in that famous speech. He used the intelligence information from other countries.

  16. Ken says:

    Barbara do you read anything besides the Weekly Standard?

    Sure you must know the Syrian convoy tale has been debunked by
    Colin Powell and even Rumsfeld. Did you ever wonder why dear leader Bush never defends himself with it? Lady, if it had an ounce
    of credibility he’d cling to it publicly like Linus and his security blanket. Or maybe you believe he’s stupid and needs your help, which would also be the case if true….because it would be his failure to have anticipated the mythg you cling to and intervened, so sure he was of his thoroughgoing intelligence which he cherrypicked for us.

    Saddam was not going to constrained very long? Every neighbor of his, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,even the erstwhile occupied
    nemesis Kuwait told Bush they felt no threat from Saddam and
    advised him not to attack, Jordan’s Abdullah correctly predicting
    a debacle.

    Why even Iran said they same thing! Heh, heh, they and only they
    of the neighbors lied ,playing a double game, having Saddam dissidents like Chalabi on their side purveying phony intel
    and willing to lure America into an Iranian political victory.

  17. Barbara says:

    Ken

    I wonder about you. I really do. You need to wipe the foam off your mouth. You are getting hysterical. So what you are saying is that Saddam was so dangerous the countries around him said to leave him alone. For what? So he could get stronger and get nukes and blast them off the face of the earth or blackmail them into doing what he wanted them to do. Are you nuts? I have never had any faith in the intelligence of the people of these Arab countries. They are too centered on their hatred of Israel and not enough on their quality of life. I wonder if their hatred is based on religion or is it jealousy for the wealth and strengthof Isreal? It is too bad we have people like you defending them in any way. But that’s a lib for you. You are actually becoming comical in your defense of the Arabs and your denegation of the US and the war in Iraq. If you are an American, what, pray tell, is in your best interests?

  18. Ken says:

    That’s your problem, arrogant Arabophobic racist, Barb.

    You “never had any faith in the intelligence of the people of these Arab countries” and justify the attempted imposition of the decadent
    liberal democracy which features crime-ridden metropoli, trashy hip hop subculture, abortion on demand and free flowing pornography
    on them.

    Thank God they resist your brand of “conservatism.”

    And by the way you sound plenty hysterical yourself.
    Could it be because you’re nervous about the election
    and Iraq’s quagmire on it?

  19. Barbara says:

    Ken, Ken, Ken

    There you go, typical lib, start spouting racism when losing an argument and when anyone disagrees with you. And is it racism to dislike the goals of the people who want to destroy my country? For your information, I am not against them for the color or their skin (which is racism), I couldn’t care less about that. I am against them for their fanaticism. However, they haven’t had an opportunity to know anything else. Which is what the US would like to change. The problem is that the people under whose heel they are being ground don’t want us to do that. If we succeed in Iraq, and I know we will, the Arab people in other countries hopefully will demand a democratic government and not be burdened with the political correctness the dems and libs have forced on us. So no, I don’t think they will have the crime we do because they will probably deal with the perpertrators without much kindness and understanding (had a hard life or no chance garbage).

    You know nothing about conservatism if you think we agree with the crime rate, pornography, hip hop culture, all the sex everywhere and certainly not abortion. You have been coming to this site to learn that if nothing else. All this is the result of the dems and libs calling the shots and we can only hope in the future that some of these things can be changed.

    And I am not hysterical at all. You are the one who sounds like he is losing his cool and I have to wonder about your loyalties. Your exhorbitant defense of the Arabs is extremely puzzling when you remember their stated goals.

  20. Ken says:

    Barb

    Your racism is unconscious. You questioned Arab’s innate intelligence,period.

    The fact you do not “agree with the crime rate, pornography,
    hip-hop culture ,sex everywhere and abortion” yet wish to
    impose it on the more conservative Arab world by forced
    open markets, privatization etc which was planned for Iraq, and
    by the mere presence of our decadent youth (see Abu
    Ghraib) makes me question YOUR intelligence.