For those that do not trust the article from the NYT (and I do understand why), here are two more sources that have an equivalent article concerning the debacle:

 

From Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1939055,00.html

 

From China: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/03/content_5287842.htm

 

Without a doubt, this story will begin to get some legs of it's own. Stay tuned.

 

 

Frances

The first source mostly quotes the New York Times and provides no named sources.

 

The second source is owned by the "Xinhua News Agency -- a state news agency of the People's Republic of China."

 

Given the choice between a source quoting the NYT and one controlled by the communist thugs of Beijing, I guess I will go with the New York Times. The Old Grey Lady looks good in comparison - quite an accomplishment.

Please don't presume that I have not read something just because you do not agree with my take on it, and I will do the same when I post an article for your reading pleasure.[/Quote] I did not "presume" that you had not read the article. I actually "assumed" that you had, or you would not have been able to pick out the one sentence which allowed you to completely ignore the point of the article.

 

 

Thanks.[/Quote] You're welcome.

 

 

Where has the Democrats' concern been for all of the classified intelligence data that the New York Times has leaked over the last few years? [/Quote] I will pass on your attempt to divert the debate away from the issue at hand. I will ask again - what say you, regarding the fact that these politicians have so grossly (and willingly) served their own interests, at the risk of exposing America (and the rest of the world) to an incredible danger? While you're at it, you might want to address the hypocrisy angle as well...

 

 

The article you posted uses several unnamed sources. [/Quote] Since we both know that you read the article, can I take it that you place absolutely no faith in the named sources, or are you simply willing to ignore them for the sake of political affiliation?

 

 

Given the NYT's record on leaking classified materials, forgive me if I suspect that there are some disgruntled Clinton holdover's in our intelligence agencies who are up to no good. [/Quote] A true non-sequitur. The fact that anyone in the intelligence community was there during the Clinton administration has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that enough agencies and commissions complained that they were finally forced to remove the material from the site.

 

 

I am, I believe, naturally skeptical about a hand picked NYT expert translating something written in Arabic and telling me how damaging the contents are to national security. The New York Times does not have much of a record for veracity or accuracy, IMO.

Excellent point. Is there any chance that you have had the opportunity to read the stories in the other two links I posted? While you're at it, please read the post by "H" on this thread, to get an idea of why the vehicle that carried this story is immaterial. Unless someone really doesn't care about the safety of our country, or the ethics of it's leadership ...

 

 

Frances

The first source mostly quotes the New York Times and provides no named sources.

 

The second source is owned by the "Xinhua News Agency -- a state news agency of the People's Republic of China."

 

Given the choice between a source quoting the NYT and one controlled by the communist thugs of Beijing, I guess I will go with the New York Times. The Old Grey Lady looks good in comparison - quite an accomplishment.

 

Still attacking the messenger, while not having an opportunity to address the point of the story, huh?

 

Remember - there's the small item of hypocrisy, when you get around to it.

 

 

Frances

I did not "presume" that you had not read the article. I actually "assumed" that you had, or you would not have been able to pick out the one sentence which allowed you to completely ignore the point of the article.

 

 

You're welcome.

 

 

I will pass on your attempt to divert the debate away from the issue at hand. I will ask again - what say you, regarding the fact that these politicians have so grossly (and willingly) served their own interests, at the risk of exposing America (and the rest of the world) to an incredible danger? While you're at it, you might want to address the hypocrisy angle as well...

 

 

Since we both know that you read the article, can I take it that you place absolutely no faith in the named sources, or are you simply willing to ignore them for the sake of political affiliation?

 

 

A true non-sequitur. The fact that anyone in the intelligence community was there during the Clinton administration has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that enough agencies and commissions complained that they were finally forced to remove the material from the site.

 

 

Excellent point. Is there any chance that you have had the opportunity to read the stories in the other two links I posted? While you're at it, please read the post by "H" on this thread, to get an idea of why the vehicle that carried this story is immaterial. Unless someone really doesn't care about the safety of our country, or the ethics of it's leadership ...

 

 

Frances

This article ran when it ran as part of the Democrats' efforts to regain control of Congress. The website has been taken down to further investigate its contents and if the results of the investigation shows that what is alleged to have happened did, in fact, happen, then I will condemn the Republicans involved.

 

Unfortunately, if the material that appeared on the website was not as billed by the New York Times, the follow-up story will be buried deeply in liberal rags like the NYT. Right beside the articles that were published following the revelation of the true source of the Valerie Plame "leak."

 

Newpapers that allow their political convictions spill over from the editorial pages to the front page make me sick.

 

As for the link to the official Peoples' Republic version of the news, I confess that I did not read the linked article and have no plans to do so anytime soon.

Fox News (we report, you decide) has the story posted on its website:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227309,00.html

 

If fair and balanced Fox sees fit to post this article, I don't know how media bias can be claimed. How about a response on the substance of the story instead of ad hominem attacks on the messenger(s)? Did Republican politicians unknowingly post information useful in the development of nuclear weapons to try to shore up their sagging Iraq war rationale?

Newpapers that allow their political convictions spill over from the editorial pages to the front page make me sick.

 

:thumb: I clicked on this thread and when I noticed that it began with a link to a NYT article.....................................................well I'll leave it at that.

Your first sentence in this thread: It would appear that the need to justify our invasion of Iraq actually outweigh our national security.

Landshark's post (gleaned from your own source) proved that just the opposite is true. Saddam was close to having a nuclear bomb, and this was only one good reason for taking him out, FOR national security. Landshark exposes this topic as another rant from the usual chronic complainers. Way to go Landshark.:thumb:

Francis,

 

Are you saying that the Republicans who urged the administration to publish the documents about Saddam's WMD program were fully aware of all the details contained in those documents and urged the Bush administration to publish them even though they knew that the documents contained extremely sensitive information about how to construct a nuclear bomb? Are you further saying that the senior Bush administration officials were also fully aware of the sensitive information that was contained in those documents but decided that the Congressional Republicans were correct in their assessment that it was more important to win elections than prevent terrorists from acquiring the information necessary to build a nuclear bomb?

What does this do to Democrats' claims that Saddam was not an equal threat to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons? .

 

If there was no evidence found of WMD's does it makes the Dem's claims true?

 

If there was no evidence found of WMD's does it makes the administrations cliams about Iraq false?

 

Can both answers be yes and no?

Fox News (we report, you decide) has the story posted on its website:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227309,00.html

 

If fair and balanced Fox sees fit to post this article, I don't know how media bias can be claimed. How about a response on the substance of the story instead of ad hominem attacks on the messenger(s)? Did Republican politicians unknowingly post information useful in the development of nuclear weapons to try to shore up their sagging Iraq war rationale?

 

In a statement Thursday night, a spokesman for National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said his office has suspended public access to the site "pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing."

...

"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," said Negroponte's spokesman, Chad Kolton.

 

The site is being reviewed. No more no less. The usual suspects are making more out of this than they should at this early stage. I'm going to wait until the facts come out before forming an opinion.

Still attacking the messenger, while not having an opportunity to address the point of the story, huh?

 

Remember - there's the small item of hypocrisy, when you get around to it.

 

 

Frances

 

POINT OF THE STORY (WHITE HOUSE DETRACTORS INTERPRETATION) - Bumbling White House officials place online detailed instructions on how to construct nuclear weapons for all the world to see in a failed attempt to support ridiculous invasion of Iraq, thus allowing enemies access to the documents.

 

Talking points:

 

1. Both articles clearly express that the documents were placed online by the military. I'm sure Frances will correct me if I missed this, but whether the military published the documents at the behest of White House officials I think has been denied, and is still being investigated.

 

2. IF White House officials insisted that said documents be placed online, their animus is a legitimate question. I will concede that at the present the only animus that makes sense is political motivations to support the invasion of Iraq.

 

3. If that was the animus, so what? Should the public be surprised that the White House is attempting to retroactively find support for the invasion of Iraq?

 

4. "Millions" of pages of documents were placed online. Said pages were in Arabic. The authenticity has not been confirmed but is also not questioned. Since their are "millions" of pages, a fair conclusion is that the website might have been as much to make disclosure of evidence as it was to say "See, told you so."

 

5. Legitimate question - Does the fact that Iraq had detailed plans for the construction of nuclear weapons lend support to the theory that Saddam was on the verge of constructing them? Since we have found small caches of various materials in and around Baghdad, I think it does. I think this is being overlooked, and intentionally so.

 

6. I think a fair conclusion can be drawn that noone bothered to translate the Arabic before publishing them. Had we translated them first and seen plans for making weapons, and published them anyway, that would be a gaffe.

 

7. Is it a major gaffe, though? One worthy of continued hackneyed thread-making? Probably not. Reason: Do we really believe that if Saddam had these plans that he kept them secret and did not share them with other evil me around the world? Also, where did the plans come from? Saddam wasn't smart enough to think them up on his own. He got them from someone else, someone who probably sold them to people like North Korea, et. al. The though that somehow these rouge nations would somehow learn something "new" is pretty thin. The problenm with making nuclear weapons is not the instructions - but the materials and having the technological capacity to control and tes them. The "instructions" are old hat.

 

I won't comment upon the "source" debate because its not relevant.

While I was posting, apparently this got personal, in spite of my earlier warning.

Bunch of bunk. You conveniently forgot your first sentence in this (worthless) thread: It would appear that the need to justify our invasion of Iraq actually outweigh our national security.

Landshark's post (gleaned from your own source) proved that just the opposite is true. Saddam was close to having a nuclear bomb, and this was only one good reason for taking him out, FOR national security. Then you go on to attack Landshark, rather than answer this question: What does this do to Democrats' claims that Saddam was not an equal threat to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons? Very typical. Landshark exposes this thread as another rant from the usual chronic complainers. Way to go Landshark.:thumb: Keep scouring the NYT, Frances, and get back to us with a rant that actually has some substance.

 

billyrayjoebob,

 

Your statements are at odds with the facts. The documents posted by Republicans to bolster their case for the invasion of Iraq contained information about Saddam's nuclear program prior to 1991 (including, according to nuclear weapons experts, information that we don't need to be making available to belligerents with nuclear ambitions). Following the first Gulf War, his nuclear program was dismantled and had not been reconstituted prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. This is known and is not in dispute by any credible source. Therefore, the documents do not suggest, indicate, or prove that Saddam was a threat worthy of toppling through military force in 2003. The same Republican politicians who pressed to have this information released would love it if everyone misinterpreted the significance of the documents as you did by confusing the progress of Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 with its state in 2003.