Mixed Emotions
As our good friend mtl points out, the New York Times is running with a big story on how the “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal” apparently posted very, very detailed nuclear documents for public consumption before being shut down after the Times started asking questions. This bothers me a great deal, because my regular readers well know that the nuclear issue has become the number one concern of mine, and I hate the idea that we may have helped some bad guys with a few shortcuts on the road to the bomb.
However, let us note for the record that these documents consist of items seized in the invasion of Iraq. Very detailed nuclear documents, in the possession of Saddam, in other words. The article also points out previous documents posted that dealt with biological and chemical agents.
The point, of course, is that Saddam was, in fact, a huge menace, and the fact that we did not find the stockpiles of WMDs, though a colossal intelligence failure that has eroded much of the credibility of our efforts in Iraq, nevertheless does not eradicate the overwhelming conviction that Saddam continued to seek a WMD capacity and would have eventually succeeded had the sanctions been lifted.
UPDATE 11:57 p.m.: Captain Ed is very good on this story, with more on the apparent validation of documents that reveal an Iraq a year away from the bomb with extensive ties to terrorist organizations, and full UN and European Union buy-in on these capabilities. Do I exaggerate? See for yourself…
UPDATE 12:02 a.m.: Also flawless is the great Tom Maguire, who notes the hypocrisy of the Times in publishing this story that quotes an expert who warns of the very sensitive nature of the information revealed, despite the fact that said expert claimed that ”Bush lied!” about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities in 2003.
And anyone care to defend the Joe Wilson interpretation of that Niger expedition in light of this?…
I’m imagining a world where we are really spread too thin, trying to deal with Iran, Iraq and NK simultaneously. (Where have I heard those 3 countries before?)
Given the independent reality that dawned on us, post iraq invasion, that NK and Iran are on the verge of developing nukes, it returns to the question of where saddam was proceeding independently, and how soon. Before NK and Iran we lied to ourselves and said ‘not for another five to 10 years’. We were wrong on nk and iran, as well as the general belief that it was a far future problem. This news should cause people to reconsider their estimates of Iraq as a threat.
The aiea has pretty much stated that Iraq had superior technology to Iran, and we are trying to get sanctions to avoid Iran from getting a nuke. Saddam was a year away from having his sanctions lifted, thru bribery. This pretty much confirms that the threat iraq posed was far nearer than imagined.
It will have no effect on the election. It does give me, personally, validation that the efforts of our soldiers, and the cost they have paid was not as in vain as previously reported.
Pretend-
We don’t invade Iraq-
oil for food bribery continues. Sanctions lifted by Jan 05, at the latest. 2 years for saddam to pursue a nuke program-we now know he had more to go on than when Iran started ramping up their program over a year ago…
the entire axis of evil goes nuclear within five years of w’s speech.
tks@nro pointed this sentence out:
“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.”
Saddam was a year away?
I haven’t picked up my NY Times from the driveway yet, but the CNN story states that the documents provide “detail about Iraq’s covert nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.” Is there any evidence in the story that Saddam had a nuclear program after 1991?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/iraq.documents.ap/index.html
As with Kerry’s blown joke, I think that people might be running the wrong way with this.
You can find people asking the right question – “why are these documents such a danger when posted online, but not a danger when held by Saddam?” – but they’re coming up with the wrong answer – that Saddam was particularly dangerous. I think that the real answer is that the documents aren’t dangerous – and that the Times is trying to play up a non-story to make Bush look bad. Which, seriously, they could do with real news, so I’m not sure why (beyond a Kerry-like combination of arrogance and stupidity) they feel the need to run with this.
Did you read the Times article? They asked a number of experts who said the documents were well beyond what you can find on the Internet, including detailed technical specifications on a nuclear trigger. But you’re right, the Times‘ motive in playing this story so big is pretty transparent…particularly considering how close to the midterms it comes…
Peter, it may be that the program was all in the early ’90s, as this excerpt implies:
Nevertheless, you don’t ‘unlearn’ how to make a nuke. You do learn from your mistakes…and one of the ways that the documents are said to be potentially harmful is that they would allow others to learn from what Iraq got right and wrong and provide a shortcut to many sensitive issues.
Saddam probably did NOT have a dedicated nuclear program at the time we invaded in 2003; nevertheless, I maintain he would have, had the sanctions been lifted…
1) The implied question is whether Iraq’s nuclear program justified invasion. The fact that the nuclear program was dormant for a dozen years argues for a continuation of the existing policy, not an invasion.
2) The Times reports that as a result of the administration’s PR strategy, nuclear secrets were revealed on the Internet. (If this happened under a Clinton administration, we would be hearing about it for ten years.) Is your suggestion that this is not newsworthy?
3) Why would the publication of an article which shows (apparent) administration ineptitude a week before the election necessarily (and “transparently”) be motivated by partisanship? Is your suggestion that there should be a moratorium on news stories before an election? The Times recently had front page, unfavorable articles on Harry Reid, John Murtha, and Robert Menendez — were these also partisan?
Mark-
I’m not impressed that these documents are beyond what could otherwise be found on the internet. Do you really think that a group with the logistical capacity – the men, material, an equipment – necessary to build an atom bomb would have any trouble getting the technical capacity? They could just buy it – from North Korea, from Pakistan . . . I’m sure there’s a willing seller.
Also . . . I’m pretty sure that none of this stuff is “secret.” Building an implosion trigger is, I imagine, a pretty tricky bit of physics, but at the end of the day it’s just a calculation. The real issue is the capacity to refine and shape the material, and shape the explosives to create the desired shock wave.
Really, I think that people are making a lot out of a little. These weren’t, AFAIK, designs for a multi-stage nuclear device – they were plans for a (relatively) simple Uranium bomb.
I find this sentence (buried deep in the article) most telling: “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.”
That’s definitely something that earns more discussion, and has portents about what our intelligence operations really believed prior to the Iraq invasion.
The sanctions would have ended, if not for 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq…
combined with-
‘a year away from the bomb’.
The world is a more dangerous place because Saddam was taken out?
I don’t expect critics to find this important. In general these are the same critics who believed up until 2 years ago that Iran and NK would not be a problem for another five to 10 years. As a supporter of the war, it is vindication.
Peter, I stated in the post that I find the posting of nuclear secrets on the Internet to be troubling, and that I hate the fact that we may have given the bad guys a leg up. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I did not find the story newsworthy. That’s a seperate question from timing of publication.
T.W.L., not being a nuclear expert myself, I’m putting my faith in the nuclear experts who WERE questioned by the Times and said the revelations were dangerous…
Also, T.W.L., I share your opinion that the knowhow and specifications could be purchased…I’m not saying the material wasn’t available elsewhere, I’m just commenting based on the expert opinions offered…
My point is a simple one: if it’s newsworthy, it ought to be published right away, regardless of what the political consequences are one way or the other. In my opinion, that’s how a newspaper avoids partisanship.
Also, while I don’t expect you to applaud the Times for bringing this website to light, presumably you would agree that they performed a public service by leading to the closure of the site.
Be it far from me to go on a BDS rant, but I think you are ignoring the broader implications of the story. The website was erected because conservative Republicans urged Bush to get the documents in the public domain so that, in their hopes, somebody would read through them and find evidence of WMD. Needless to say, that never happened. Bush overrode Negroponte’s objections and allowed the site to go up. However, apparently nobody vetted the documents, so nuclear secrets were released into the public domain.
Now, let’s connect the dots. The aim of releasing the documents was not to fix things in Iraq – it was a Hail Mary pass to bolster the administration’s position and to fog over the fact that we invaded Iraq to find WMD which did not exist. The documents were disseminated over the objections of the head of national intelligence, and now we have no idea who has downloaded the files and for what purposes. The administration which loudly proclaims itself to be protecting the American public has, once again, made us less safe through its ineptitude and its emphasis on PR over experience.
Is it still your suggestion that the Times should have delayed publication?
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…
New York Times Validates Iraqi DID Have WMD’s .
Once again New York Times manages to shoot itself, the Democratic party and it’s credibility in the head. In their pathetic attempt to once again influence the American public in the upcoming elections, they have managed to validate the evidence that…
Peter, you assert a number of things that aren’t true. A number of very troubling (and important) discoveries were made through these documents…click through the Captain’s Quarters link if you care to see some of them catalogued.
The documents were in fact vetted, as the article itself states:
That may not be thorough enough but it is something.
Might I suggest actually reading the article? (Okay, snarky, I know, but still…)
Finally, I don’t agree that it was a public service to shut down the site. I believe the idea of the site was and is a good idea. Obviously, however, the vetting process was not thorough enough. I’m glad the nuclear documents are down, but it’s too bad that this means the site may go away, too…
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…
1) If important discoveries were made through the documents, I’m not sure that the best way to do it is through release to the general public so they can do the government’s work for them.
2) If the documents were vetted, obviously the process was deeply flawed. The point is not whether there was no screening or whether the screening was ineffective: the point is that the documents were made available.
3) I was able to read the first half of the article before I had to leave for work, but the salient points (to me, anyway) are that the administration overrode Negroponte to launch a PR campaign which was not properly supervised and resulted in placing nuclear secrets in the public domain. Everything else is minutiae.
4) As for the Times: the public service is not in shutting down the site per se, it is in removing the documents from the public domain, which necessitated shutting down the rest of the site to make sure that other secrets are not also being given out to anyone with an IP address.
Well, that’s a neat trick, to read half an article and declare the rest of it ‘minutiae’ sight unseen…
Well, hopefully you will forgive my eagerness to participate in your forum — I did want to throw my two cents in, even though it’s admittedly a little lazy intellectually to do so without reading the whole thing (which I will get to later today) –
Or, since my mind is made up, why should I confuse myself with the facts?
Hey, don’t get offended now, you know I’m only teasing with the snarkiness…we love having you here…nothing’s more boring than a bunch people sitting around agreeing with each other all the time…
Hey, I spent sixteen years living and working in New York City — it takes a whole lot of abuse before I get offended about something –
“Bush lied, people died”?: challenging the critics
A very common assertion has been, and unfortunately continues to be, that President Bush lied in order to “get” his war on Iraq. Herein I will discuss how these opponents have yet to prove or demonstrate their claims and how recent events e…