Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    Hobbes, looks like they were a little premature putting docs up on th "Iraqi Documnet Portal".

    Nice.

    U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer

    Source: The Old Gray Lady

    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.

    -snip-

    Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

    -snip-

    The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

    For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”

    -snip-

    Ray E. Kidder, a senior nuclear physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, an arms design center, said “some things in these documents would be helpful” to nations aspiring to develop nuclear weapons and should have remained secret.

    A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states. The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”

    -snip-

    The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra (R) of Michigan. Last November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas, wrote to Mr. Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material. The sheer volume of the documents, they argued, had overwhelmed the intelligence community.

    -snip-

    Yesterday, before the site was shut down, Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, said the government had “developed a sound process to review the documents to ensure sensitive or dangerous information is not posted.” Later, he said the complaints about the site “didn’t sound like a big deal,” adding, “We were a little surprised when they pulled the plug.”

    -snip-

    Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.

    At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms at the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in charge of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones.

    In April, diplomats said, the commission’s acting chief weapons inspector, Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission to the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents tabun and sarin.

    Soon, the document vanished from the Web site. On June 8, diplomats said, Mr. Perricos told the Security Council of how risky arms information had shown up on a public Web site and how his agency appreciated the American cooperation in resolving the matter.

    In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.
  2. #2  
    ""If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois" - February 11, 2004

    He should should have went on to say, "...unless of course its an election year and we need to reveal a CIA agents name to help discredit those that disagree with us. Oh and, with my new Presidential powers I may also recklessly disclose nuclear secrets if it helps my party retain control over both houses....just seems right to me. Now if any of you don't like that then I'll have a few of my friendly staffers come on by and convince you that my interest is your best interest....and since you no longer enjoy your supposed rights under habeas corpus - if I say so - then I can just lock you all up if you don't agree with me since you clearly must hate America!".
  3. #3  
    lol I was going to post this last night as it was breaking, I immediately thought of hobbes' crazy doc postings.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster View Post
    lol I was going to post this last night as it was breaking, I immediately thought of hobbes' crazy doc postings.
    Yeah, I know. I did not necessarily want to post it, but no one had, so I decided what the hell.
  5. #5  
    A lot people (including many on this site) said the site never gave any real information about Iraq knowledge and intentions....now they say it gave too much of what they had. Go figure.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 11/05/2006 at 06:18 PM.
  6. #6  
    So much for the "Saddam had no WMD program". The Old Grey ***** was too smart by half in publishing this.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    So much for the "Saddam had no WMD program". The Old Grey ***** was too smart by half in publishing this.
    I don't think it is any seceret that Saddam had a nuke program.

    Also, let me get this right, you are upset at the NY Times for publishing this?
  8. #8  
    Wait a minute...I thought he was no threat because he had no WMD program?

    And I think the Old Grey ***** screwed herself by publishing this. This was their late hit surprise...and the boomerang they threw hit them in the forehead.

    And I really appreciate the irony of leftists squealing that there wasn't enough visibility and now there's too much.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Wait a minute...I thought he was no threat because he had no WMD program?
    Having WMD's and knowledge how to make WMDs are 2 different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    And I think the Old Grey ***** screwed herself by publishing this. This was their late hit surprise...and the boomerang they threw hit them in the forehead.
    Can you explain? Should the US, just have left the documents up there for all to see? So maybe Iran can have a road map to build a warhead they could stick on top of their NEW missle?

    Source: 580 CFRA
    Iran Test Fires Long Range Missile
    Josh Pringle
    Thursday, November 2, 2006

    Iran has reportedly test fired a long range missile with a range of more than two-thousand kilometres.

    State-run television says Tehran tested fire the Shahab-Three missile as part of new military manoeuvres.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    And I really appreciate the irony of leftists squealing that there wasn't enough visibility and now there's too much.
    What are you referring to?
  10. #10  
    These documents were part of Saddam's ongoing WMD research program...you know, the one the Dems say didn't exist. The Old Gay ***** published this story as a Bush security leak, and managed to illustrate that Saddam was a threat.

    I am referring to the leftists ranting for visibility on these documents, and then squealing when it shows how wrong they are.
  11. #11  
    1911sforever, you seriously need to come home soon as you've clearly been in one too many sandstorms.

    Nobody doubted Saddam wanted WMDs. But he was surrounded and was being inspected by the UN (again) and we chose to rush into the war rather than building a coalition and waiting for the inspections to conclude. And the reason for this big rush was that we'd supposedly find out the hard way someday soon by way of a "mushroom cloud".

    The Bushies hyped the war. Fixed the intel around their neocon policies. And we are all paying a dear dear price for their utter failure to build concensus (you know...via that diplomacy thing I mentioned before) before going in there. And lets not even go into post-war planinn since there are now an army of ex-military that says Rumsfeld could not have frigged it up worse.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by hdtv4me View Post
    1911sforever, you seriously need to come home soon as you've clearly been in one too many sandstorms.

    Nobody doubted Saddam wanted WMDs. But he was surrounded and was being inspected by the UN (again) and we chose to rush into the war rather than building a coalition and waiting for the inspections to conclude. And the reason for this big rush was that we'd supposedly find out the hard way someday soon by way of a "mushroom cloud".

    The Bushies hyped the war. Fixed the intel around their neocon policies. And we are all paying a dear dear price for their utter failure to build concensus (you know...via that diplomacy thing I mentioned before) before going in there. And lets not even go into post-war planinn since there are now an army of ex-military that says Rumsfeld could not have frigged it up worse.

    Ah. Now you believe I'm in Baghdad.

    Again, how do you build a concensus with countries that WANT TO SEE YOU DEFEATED? And how many congressional inquiries went into your charge of intelligence fixing, and what were there result?

    As for your army of ex-military that couldn't have frigged it up worse, how many of them were passed over by Rummy because they wouldn't change. Let me tell you who failed here...the generals. That's right, the generals. These guys are still waiting for the 3rd Guards Shock Army to come through the Fulda Gap. Big Army just couldn't get it's head around this war. The Marines out west and the Special Forces are the only organizations that really adapted to this fight.

    I could write for hours. One day I will. Then you'll accuse of me of violating my security clearance again
  13. #13  
    "Let me tell you who failed here...the generals. That's right, the generals."

    I'm certain you are unqualified to know that as their decisions were probably well above your pay grade.

    Look, you live in a vaccuum over there and hear what the Army wants you to hear by and large. Having a rationale discussion with you has proven to be pointless because you resort to hyperbole and "characterizing" in just about every sentence. Feel free to start being an American first and a rightwinger nut job second at any point here and we can chat.

    I'll look forward to your book. I'm sure it will be largely fiction since I don't believe anybody there who is seeing real **** and in real danger would have the time to post up here nor being able to run their mouth like you. So while you may be in Baghdad you are doing a disservice to your fellow troops by putting your imagined "liberal" bashing ahead of your mission.
    Last edited by hdtv4me; 11/05/2006 at 04:07 PM.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by hdtv4me View Post
    I'm sure it will be largely fiction since I don't believe anybody there who is seeing real **** and in real danger would have the time to post up here nor being able to run their mouth like you. So while you may be in Baghdad you are doing a disservice to your fellow troops by putting your imagined "liberal" bashing ahead of your mission.
    I am not in the military and I am not over in Iraq, but I do personally find this a little insensitive and offensive. I have had several very close family members and life long friends in Iraq and each have volunteered for multiple tours. Each of them put their lives on the line on nearly a daily basis. The stories they have shared with me are victorious, scary, heart wrenching, discouraging, empowering, frustrating, inspiring, horror, and encouraging. Just because an individual maybe "seeing real **** and in real danger" does NOT mean that they do not have a safe place to rest their head at night on occasion with some personal time to do with as they please.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I am not in the military and I am not over in Iraq, but I do personally find this a little insensitive and offensive. I have had several very close family members and life long friends in Iraq and each have volunteered for multiple tours. Each of them put their lives on the line on nearly a daily basis. The stories they have shared with me are victorious, scary, heart wrenching, discouraging, empowering, frustrating, inspiring, horror, and encouraging. Just because an individual maybe "seeing real **** and in real danger" does NOT mean that they do not have a safe place to rest their head at night on occasion with some personal time to do with as they please.
    Well I apologize if it was offensive. I found his rhetoric offensive but I got banned and he did not.

    I too served and I too have been in harms way. Yes, it takes a lot of guts to serve and he has more than earned the right to speak his mind. As did John Kerry. As did Bush Sr. As did John McCain. As did Chuck Hagel. I hope he will stay safe over there and come home to a much warmer welcome than I did.

    Since I'll likely be banned again I'll just say that I apologize to anyone in uniform I have offended. My comment was not intended to mean he isn't in harms way, but yes, I did mean to say that he obviously isn't on the front lines per se. Albeit...you have a point, in that mess over there the front line is all around you.

    To 1911sforever - my apology if I offended. Of course I respect you as you are still a brother in arms even though I am no longer in the service and we clearly disagree on politics. But never lose sight of the fact that you are defending freedom of speech for all and that a democracy without discourse is no democracy at all.
    Last edited by hdtv4me2; 11/05/2006 at 07:59 PM.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by hdtv4me View Post
    "Let me tell you who failed here...the generals. That's right, the generals."

    I'm certain you are unqualified to know that as their decisions were probably well above your pay grade.

    Look, you live in a vaccuum over there and hear what the Army wants you to hear by and large. Having a rationale discussion with you has proven to be pointless because you resort to hyperbole and "characterizing" in just about every sentence. Feel free to start being an American first and a rightwinger nut job second at any point here and we can chat.

    I'll look forward to your book. I'm sure it will be largely fiction since I don't believe anybody there who is seeing real **** and in real danger would have the time to post up here nor being able to run their mouth like you. So while you may be in Baghdad you are doing a disservice to your fellow troops by putting your imagined "liberal" bashing ahead of your mission.
    No imagined liberal bashing going on here at all. I really am bashing liberals, because they really are jeopardizing the security of the country.

    You'll note that I post mostly on Sundays. I don't have a front line job any more...those days are in my past. I do have time now to step back and see what is happening. I read a lot of reports. I travel to a lot of places. I have a lot of experience. What I'm saying would be borne out in a rational conversation with someone not afflicted as you are with BDS.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by hdtv4me2 View Post
    Well I apologize if it was offensive. I found his rhetoric offensive but I got banned and he did not.

    I too served and I too have been in harms way. Yes, it takes a lot of guts to serve and he has more than earned the right to speak his mind. As did John Kerry. As did Bush Sr. As did John McCain. As did Chuck Hagel. I hope he will stay safe over there and come home to a much warmer welcome than I did.

    Since I'll likely be banned again I'll just say that I apologize to anyone in uniform I have offended. My comment was not intended to mean he isn't in harms way, but yes, I did mean to say that he obviously isn't on the front lines per se. Albeit...you have a point, in that mess over there the front line is all around you.

    To 1911sforever - my apology if I offended. Of course I respect you as you are still a brother in arms even though I am no longer in the service and we clearly disagree on politics. But never lose sight of the fact that you are defending freedom of speech for all and that a democracy without discourse is no democracy at all.
    No offense taken. Where was I assailing free speech? I did point out the ramifications for irresponsible speech. And there it is where you should look for examples of politicians seeking power at the expense of the country, and at the cost of soldiers lives.

    Go to YouTube and watch the CNN sniper video segment. It was essentially the broadcast of a Jihadi recruiting film. Tell me if you think that was responsible, or another media GOTCHA trying to destabilize the administration at any cost.
  18. #18  
    Well where we obviously differ is that I think a healthy democracy has an ever vigilant and skeptical free press to help watch over the government. If that gov't cannot keep their mouth shut and leaks info they need to improve their policies and information security practices - not demonize a free press for publishing what they have learned. Now if the press is taking gov't employees hostages to extract such information that would be different or if they are breaking into places to find information then they have committed a wrong and to publish illegally obtained information would be treasonous.

    Where I doubt we'll find common ground is in how free a free press should be. Personally I find lots of stuff in the media morally offensive. But my morals are my morals, not yours. So in a country where we enjoy the separation of church and state and a free press I just don't think we should be legislating morality. Moreover, it should be clear to all that politicians need to worry about their own morality rather than legislating it or pandering to those that want their views imposed on others.

    I've not seen the video but will make a point of looking at it at some point. But if the identities are hidden and it is absent of actual kill shots then I'd say a free press was showing it because they are skeptical of the government - as they should be. I think the day our media completly cowtails and tows the party line for the government will be the day our democracy can be considered ripe to be overthrown as it will simply not be a democracy any longer if all the media can report on is what the administration wants them to. It cannot all be planted stories with paid-under-the-table "journalist".

    On the other side of it guys like Geraldo Rivera can clearly go too far. He was invited to be an embedded reporter and assuredly giving a brief not disclose troop movements and what did he do? He drew a map of where the troops were! That is not a free press - that is a self agrandizing moron that should never have been invited to be an embedded journalist.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    No imagined liberal bashing going on here at all. I really am bashing liberals, because they really are jeopardizing the security of the country.
    Well putting aside the name calling yet again....

    ....I guess we need to come to understand what a liberal is. So can you please define it for me? Seriously, maybe I wouldn't be so offended if I knew what your definition of a liberal is. My guess is that you'll find that I have liberal leanings socially (in some cases...but not with entitlement programs) but are largely a libertarian....although I am not 100% on board with their platform either. But with respect to fiscal conservatism, free enterprise, free press, separation of church and state, etc. I am a libertarian more than a liberal. But again...do tell...what is your definition of a liberal?

Posting Permissions