NYT admits Iraq had nuclear program

[Borealis]

And the silence is deafening...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/w...&ex=1163134800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

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.

Let me get this straight. The NYT, after three YEARS of screaming that Hussein was a harmless guy with no weapons program to speak of, now tries a November surprise by announcing that he was trying to build nukes?

Just how stupid are the editors of that newspaper, anyway? They've just admitted that they LIED for three years, ON THE FRONT PAGE!

Unbelievable. No, it's not. It's totally believeable that the New York Times is a pack of lying shills for the Democrats who will do and say anything to get them elected. Let's see the spin to reconcile these two completely opposed ideas: Iraq had no WMDs and wasn't trying to get them, and Iraq was a year away from having nukes.

Oh, and I find it interesting that the NYT would condemn the release of sensitive, classified information...because if there's one thing the NY Times has always defended, it's the release of sensitive, classified information.

 

[JoyJuice]

And the silence is deafening...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/w...&ex=1163134800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Let me get this straight. The NYT, after three YEARS of screaming that Hussein was a harmless guy with no weapons program to speak of, now tries a November surprise by announcing that he was trying to build nukes?

Just how stupid are the editors of that newspaper, anyway? They've just admitted that they LIED for three years, ON THE FRONT PAGE!

Unbelievable. No, it's not. It's totally believeable that the New York Times is a pack of lying shills for the Democrats who will do and say anything to get them elected. Let's see the spin to reconcile these two completely opposed ideas: Iraq had no WMDs and wasn't trying to get them, and Iraq was a year away from having nukes.

Oh, and I find it interesting that the NYT would condemn the release of sensitive, classified information...because if there's one thing the NY Times has always defended, it's the release of sensitive, classified information.

Read it again Borealis.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

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.

For the reading impared. Besides, it's not just the NY Times who has said Iraq actually had no WMDs. The Bush Administration has now conceded this. If new evidence had been found that Iraq indeed had such programs in 2002, the Adminstration would be proclaiming it loudly.

 

[JoyJuice]

For the reading impared. Besides, it's not just the NY Times who has said Iraq actually had no WMDs. The Bush Administration has now conceded this. If new evidence had been found that Iraq indeed had such programs in 2002, the Adminstration would be proclaiming it loudly.

The really sad thing is, these guys are so desperate to prove their fuhrer right, they get Bush's permission to post Iraq's pre 1990 documents on how to build a nuclear bomb on the internet for all the terrorists in the world to see, hoping they could pass this off as some kind of proof to vindicate their incompetence.

Truly pathetic.

 

[ElvisFan42]

And the silence is deafening...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/w...&ex=1163134800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Let me get this straight. The NYT, after three YEARS of screaming that Hussein was a harmless guy with no weapons program to speak of, now tries a November surprise by announcing that he was trying to build nukes?

Just how stupid are the editors of that newspaper, anyway? They've just admitted that they LIED for three years, ON THE FRONT PAGE!

Unbelievable. No, it's not. It's totally believeable that the New York Times is a pack of lying shills for the Democrats who will do and say anything to get them elected. Let's see the spin to reconcile these two completely opposed ideas: Iraq had no WMDs and wasn't trying to get them, and Iraq was a year away from having nukes.

Oh, and I find it interesting that the NYT would condemn the release of sensitive, classified information...because if there's one thing the NY Times has always defended, it's the release of sensitive, classified information.

Funny, even if what you claim was true, Bush has conceded there were no WMD's, why aren't you bashing him for lieing?

 

[DhaliClone]

There is no question he was trying stuff before the Persian War. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't believe that (well, maybe on Democratic Underground).

But, he hasn't had the capacity for over a decade, and everyone (Bush Administration included) is admitting that there are no WMDs and that there is no connection to Al Qaeda (especially considering this is supposedly the reason we went there in the first place).

Unless, of course, you still think Iraq and Al Qaeda had a connection...

 

[Maynard Keenan]

No one questioned that in 1991 he had a weapons program.

 

[Sphere]

Wait, this information was available to anyone? Doesnt this mean that the US could have contributed to the development of the Iranians nuclear program?

Clearly borealis didn't read the article, otherwise he would see that they are are refering to a pre-1991 program. Now watch this thread go mysteriously silent.

 

[Jacey]

I thought everyone knew all of this already, this is kinda deceptive.

I mean, it'd be like opening a thread with the title BUSH ADMITS HE'S AN ALCOHOLIC or CHENEY IS A DRUNK DRIVER!!!

 

[ElvisFan42]

I thought everyone knew all of this already, this is kinda deceptive.

I mean, it'd be like opening a thread with the title BUSH ADMITS HE'S AN ALCOHOLIC or CHENEY IS A DRUNK DRIVER!!!

Now we know why the silence is deafening.

 

[Foolish_Fool]

Clearly borealis didn't read the article, otherwise he would see that they are are refering to a pre-1991 program. Now watch this thread go mysteriously silent.

The laughter is still echoing.

 

[Sphere]

Bump. This thread isn't going anywhere.

C'mon borealis, surely you have some input to add, especially after such a compelling OP?

 

[Dannager]

This thread is hilarious.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

reading comprehension

 

[blueapplepaste]

I, too, am curious for Borealis's response.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Come on, give Borealis a break, at least he knows when to walk away, that's more than can be said for a couple of other posters.

 

[reverend B]

ask not for whom the bell tolls, borealis.
it tolls for you.

 

[burrow_owl]

Clearly, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction related program activity intentions would have been sufficient reason to go to war.

I mean, it's obvious that we invade every country that wants nuclear weapons, so invading Iraq was the logical next step.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

looks like someone owes the NYT an apology.

 

[crazyfingers]

at least he knows when to walk away, that's more than can be said for a couple of other posters.

You do have a point there.