Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 1:42:50 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

IAEA Went To Times, Not US Goverment By AJStrata on All General Discussions It appears the meddling of the UN’s IAEA in our national elections is now confirmed. I don’t have a link but I did get a copy of a statement by Rep Peter Hoekstra. The full statement is below the fold, but the relevant part is: <<< “That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI’s office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press. … “Second, my staff’s preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi [AJStrata: government obtained] these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam’s regime. >>> So the IAEA went to the NY Times just prior to our national election with this ’story’ and did not inform our government? This is a government run site. It is clear the IAEA coordinated a hit piece for this election cycle. I believe there are laws against this kind of foreign intervention, and the NY Times should be held accountable for their participation. Since when did the UN think they could select our leaders? Here is the full statement: strata-sphere.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 2:20:09 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Saddam was a year away from having nukes -- Bush to blame Power Line The defining characteristic of partisan attacks on President Bush has been their unthinking and indiscriminate nature. For example, Bush is to blame for not halting the development of nukes by Iran and North Korea, but he's also to blame for toppling Saddam Hussein due in part to his concern that Saddam was interested in and capable of developing nukes. Critics point to Iran's rise as evidence that Bush misplaced his focus on Iraq, but they don't consider how Saddam would have reacted to Iranian nuclear progress. The New York Times now has carried unthinking Bush-bashing to a point beyond caricature. Today, as Tiger Hawk notes, it quotes with apparent approval "experts" who say that Saddam was as little as a year away from building an atom bomb. The Times does so in order to show that the Bush administration acted recklessly when it published captured Iraqi documents that describe that country's WMD programs, because those documents might be used by another country in furtherance of building WMD. Did the Times just say that Saddam's Iraq was a year away from building a nuclear weapon? I guess so. Good thing Saddam's no longer in power. As Tiger Hawk puts it, "the New York Times owes Judith Miller an apology. Or at least a hat tip." Not to mention President Bush. See Jim Geraghty for more. tks.nationalreview.com UPDATE: The New York Times story is so poorly written as to leave unclear whether, according to the "experts," Saddam's scientists were on the verge of building a bomb in 1991, at the time of the Gulf War, or in 2002. Here's the key paragraph: <<< Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990's and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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. >>> Frankly, I'm not sure there's much of a distinction here. If Saddam's regime was capable of building an atom bomb within a year in 1991, then it was capable of doing so in 2002. And it's hard to believe that, in light of the progress arch-rival Iran had made on that front, Saddam would not have completed the job by now had he not been overthrown. powerlineblog.com nytimes.com@pzckYvpQ20Q22vvYQ5EQ5Esh5pQ24@vc_RQ20Q5EQ605hJQ515Q20Y tigerhawk.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 2:40:03 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Reaction to the Times, reaction to me TKS Jim Geraghty reporting 11/03 A not terribly surprising roundup of reaction in my mailbag this morning. If you opposed the invasion of Iraq, you believe I'm a drooling moron, an imbicile, have no capacity for reading comprehension, and am a desperate hack willing to do anything to preserve the power of Dennis Hastert. (I'd like to introduce those readers to the ones who thought I was on a cruel, mean-spirited and fundamentally unfair jihad against Dennis Hastert, oh, about two weeks ago.) If you supported the invasion of Iraq, you think I've nailed it, this is huge, etc. Generally, these readers' biggest concern is how it will be spun, whether the voters at large will hear it, etc. There are those who contend that in the sentences... <<< Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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. >>> ...the term "at the time" means before the Persian Gulf War, despite the fact that the previous sentence refers to a) the 1990s and b) in 2002. (It would also help if we had some idea who these "experts" are.) But let's presume that this research was completed in 1990. So these "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building" are devised in 1990, and are then sitting in some file cabinet in an Iraqi government installation, with the Iraqis have absolutely no intention of ever using them ever. And the war opponents are willing to state, with 100 percent certainty, that Iraq would not have attempted to use all this - which was useful enough to put them a year away from completion. Not that the New York Times writers feel any obligation for clarity in their writing, but let's presume the "one year away" statement refers to 1991, the time of the first Persian Gulf war. Even when the sanctions ended, even with lousy enforcement of the sanctions, the leaky borders, the corruption of the oil for food program, we are asked to believe that no one in power in Iraq - not Saddam, not Uday, not Qusay - was ever going to try to use this to get a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, we are asked to believe that these "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building," in the hands of the Iraqi regime, was never, ever, ever going to end up in the hands of another regime, or in the hands of non-state actors hostile to the United States. I mean, it's not like the world has people like A.Q. Khan, out to sell everything they know and everything they can get their hands on to anyone willing to buy. Remember, we are told that the war planners were way too optimistic, that they didn't plan for the postwar chaos, that they looked at the future through rose-colored glasses and didn't foresee what could go wrong, the worst-case scenario. Yet we are also told that this information was harmless to the United States in the hands of Saddam's regime. And now we're also supposed to believe that the information is obviously now in the hands of the Iranians, who have been working on their nuclear program for decades, and who have dealt extensively with the North Koreans, and who also were a major client of A.Q. Khan's: <<< Khan, a hero in Pakistan as the "Father of the Bomb", and his associates sold nuclear codes, materials, components and plans that left his "signature" at the core of the Iranian nuclear programme. >>> Maybe these documents would have been of use to the Iranians, but don't they seem fairly far down the road, if they've already acquired "codes, materials, components and plans" years ago? I also note Spruiell's take: <<< If these documents were as dangerous as the Times and its experts claim they are, why didn't the intelligence officials responsible for posting them recognize that and redact them? From the way the Times describes intelligence officials as lacking enthusiasm for this project to begin with, it sounds to me like they had a job they didn't want to do and half-assed it. How is that Pete Hoekstra's fault? >>> I predict the following update to the Times story: <<< "Republicans never should have trusted government employees to do the job properly and with diligence and awareness of what could go wrong," said Speaker-in-Waiting, Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, while measuring drapes. "As Democrats, we have always exercised the proper skeptism about the effectiveness of a large federal bureaucracy to handle a problem without making mistakes, and have always been on the lookout for unintended consequences." >>> tks.nationalreview.com telegraph.co.uk media.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 3:36:10 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Saddam's Nuclear Plans In Iraqi Documents Little Green Footballs Ray Robison, who’s been studying the Iraqi documents intensely for quite some time, has interesting information about the NYT article on nuclear sensitive releases at DOD website. (Hat tip: Confederate Yankee.) <<< What to keep in mind when you read the NYT article. 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. The Senate Prewar Intelligence Review Phase II report reveals that Saddam’s Foreign Minster told the US government that Saddam was trying to build a bomb. He said Saddam was trying to get uranium and was irate that his nuclear team was taking too long. In September 2002, the CIA obtained, from a source, information that allegedly came from a high-level Iraqi official with direct access to Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. The information this source provided was considered so important and so sensitive that the CIA’s Directorate of Operations prepared a highly restricted intelligence report to alert senior policymakers about the reporting. Because of the sensitivity, however, that it was not disseminated to Intelligence Community analysts. Concerned that something may have been missed in our first Iraq review, the Committee began to request additional information from the Intelligence Community and to question current and former CIA officers who were involved in this issue. As noted above, the Committee has not completed this inquiry, but we have seen the operational documentation pertaining to this case. We can say that there is not a single document related to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs. On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs. So what did Saddam’s foreign minister tell the US government? From the report: [emphasis mine] The intelligence report conveyed information from the source attributed to the Iraqi official which said: * Iraq was not in possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon. Saddam, irate that Iraq did not yet have a nuclear weapon because money was no object and because Iraq possessed the scientific know how, had recently called meeting his Nuclear Weapons Committee. * The Committee told Saddam that a nuclear weapon would be ready within 18-24 months of acquiring the fissile material. >>> UPDATE at 11/3/06 10:07:41 am: And remember, the legitimacy of this information has now been verified by the New York Times. captainsquartersblog.com UPDATE at 11/3/06 10:24:31 am: Ed Lasky suspects that the NYT’s article was another pre-election hit coordinated with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. Note that Ray Robison says in the above-linked post that he notified the IAEA about the documents weeks ago. americanthinker.com littlegreenfootballs.com rayrobison.typepad.com confederateyankee.mu.nu

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 4:31:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I challenge you to read this completely & follow all of the the links. Not only will it provide clear evidence of overt, longstanding leftist MSM bias; it will provide you with incontrovertible evidence that Saddam continued to maintain & upgrade his WMD programs & that he also continued to harbor, train, finance & conspire with many terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, right up until he was removed from power. Case closed. ** For anyone out there who still believes that the liberal media cares more about "informing the public" than smearing Republicans, this incident should knock you back into reality. NYT Revisits al Qaqaa, Blows Self Up Granddaddy Long Legs This is unbelievable. Do you remember just before the 2004 election, when The New York Times splashed reports of an unguarded munitions depot at al Qaqaa in Iraq? Do you remember how they ran 16 lengthy stories on the topic, plus 7 letters to the editor, all critical of the Bush Administration for their incompetence? Do you remember the DNC and Senator Kerry using this information as filler for their anti-Bush campaign speeches and commercials? Of course you do. Now, do you remember ever hearing or reading about al Qaqaa after the election? Think about it. Of course you don't. The story was rife with factual errors and was meant purely to stop Bush's momentum going into the general election. After the election, it's purpose had been served and it was shelved indefinitely. Well, it appears that The New York Times tried to revive an "al Qaqaa-esque" story to impact next week's elections, only they accidently blew themselves up this time around. For anyone out there who still believes that the liberal media cares more about "informing the public" than smearing Republicans, this incident should knock you back into reality. It's Friday, November 3rd. The elections are held on Tuesday, November 7th. So just in time for the final Sunday news programs before voters head to the polls, The New York Times runs this story on the front page: <<< U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer 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. 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." Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency's technical experts "were shocked" at the public disclosures. >>> Translation: George Bush and his cronies are so incompetent that they posted plans on how to build an atomic bomb on the Internet for anyone to read. In doing so, they may have inadvertantly shown Iran - our greatest threat - how to make a device that could be used against us. The editors of the Times don't have time for pesky facts. For instance, they forgot to mention that Congress put these documents online, not the White House. But in their zeal to pull the 'national security rug' out from under the President and his fellow Republicans, they accidently included this flash of insight from one of their many 'unnamed' sources: (emphasis mine) <<< 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.** >>> There you have it. Saddam Hussein's scientists could have built an atomic bomb in one year. The Baathists were waiting for the UN sanctions to be lifted before fully reconstituting their nuclear program, and documents from this same "web archive" prove that their bribes were starting to pay off. So there can be no doubt now that the nuclear threat posed by Saddam was at least as real as the Administration theorized. They say that hate can blind a person, but did the Times editors' hatred for the President really blind them to such an extent that they accidently repudiated all of their claims over the past three years that... "Saddam posed no immediate threat?" Apprently so. Now we'll see how the media covers this story. In his book, 'Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News', Bernard Goldberg posited that the heads of the major news networks use The New York Times as a primer on what news is impacting the national conversation. So I expect most outlets in the mainstream media to echo at least some of these insignificant snipes at the Administration about supposed "incompetence." But the larger story here is that The New York Times just reported that Saddam was within reach of a nuclear weapon, and therefore posed a very real threat to the world. If this smear campaign follows the one that preceded the 2004 election, then we can suspect that the editors at the Times are sitting on at least a few follow-up stories to this one -- each more sensational than the last. Will their gaffe force these add-ons to be placed on the shelf, right next to the original al Qaqaa stories? Or will they obstinately cling to their smear campaign, and try to whitewash or explain away their astounding admission as a mere misquote? Let the games begin. UPDATE: When the "web archive" mentioned in this NYT article first came online, newly translated documents revealed that Saddam Hussein not only possessed WMD, but also collaborated with al Qaeda. At that time, the mainstream media dismissed the documents as "unreliable." Now it appears The New York Times is content to believe that the documents comprising the web archive are real, if only to use them to smear the Bush Administration. The most damning of the newly translated documents can be found here. captainsquartersblog.com But let's take a broader look at some of the many revelations that have come to light because of public translation of these siezed documents: <<< Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden. The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995. The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents. While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the sermons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia. >>> That's certainly not the end of the revelations. There are too many to point out here, so I'll just point you in the right direction and let you discover them for yourselves: - For more information about how the MSM has whitewashed Saddam's past, browse through this directory: The Inconvenient Histories Of Saddam, Al Qaeda & WMD granddaddylonglegs.blogspot.com - Click on the image below to view the Heritage Foundation's Policy & Research Analysis Presentation: The Captured Iraqi Intelligence Documents: What Do They Reveal and How Should They Be Handled? heritage.org multimedia.heritage.org (streaming mp3) multimedia.heritage.org (download mp3) multimedia.heritage.org <Edit - browse through these links for even more info on the translated documents> 12 articles here siliconinvestor.com 51 articles here siliconinvestor.com 50 articles here siliconinvestor.com 14 articles here siliconinvestor.com granddaddylonglegs.blogspot.com nationalreview.com nationalreview.com nytimes.com amazon.com nysun.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 8:00:04 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

NY Times “big scoop” getting buried by media pals By TheAnchoress on Alternative Media Blue Crab Boulevard noticed it: <<< Want proof that the New York Times made a major mistake with its “November surprise?” revelation about Iraq’s nuclear program? The wire services are ignoring it. Nothing at all on the Yahoo News page. Nothing. No coverage. There may be something out there but it is being ignored on the aggregaters. […] The wire services are not spreading this. Okay, found something on CNET, still no big wire service stories. If anyone sees one, put a link in the comments. >>> Hmmm…as of this writing, there are no sitings in his comments section. I notice Drudge, is not covering the backfire, either. Stephen Spruiell also noticed. <<< Writes Grandaddy Long Legs: The death of the “Bush Lied!” meme is a huge story, but it’s not one that the collective media is going to willingly cover. So use this Google link to type in the name of your local news service, and get started. >>> Doubt making noise will change much. When the press doesn’t want to tell you a story, it doesn’t tell you a story. That’s what blogs are for. theanchoressonline.com bluecrabboulevard.com media.nationalreview.com gatewaypundit.blogspot.com gatewaypundit.blogspot.com michellemalkin.com gatewaypundit.blogspot.com ace.mu.nu

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/4/2006 12:33:44 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Iraq Nuke Program: On The Other Hand Posted by SeeDubya JunkYardBlog From the 2002 NIE: <<< How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise. ... In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities. >>> There were a lot of things wrong in this NIE, we now believe. But a one-year completion date in 2002 doesn't seem quite as implausible to me as it did last night. And the interesting thing about the NYT report now becomes the verb tense: <<< 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. >>> They said it in 2002, and appear to have been wrong; if there are (inconveniently unnamed) experts still saying today that Saddam was one year from ignition, well, who are they and why haven't we heard from them? Meanwhile Ray Robison is looking at the Senate's assessment of pre-war intelligence and finds this nugget: <<< The Committee told Saddam that a nuclear weapon would be ready within 18-24 months of acquiring the fissile material. >>> I'm still skeptical, though, that this is what the NYT's "experts" meant. Iran has a working nuclear program chugging along now and everyone knows it; but Saddam was somehow able to keep his a secret and pretty much has to this day. He didn't have a reactor, and the centrifuges he had were buried in scientists' gardens. I guess if he wasn't trying to centrifuge his own U235 it's plausible, since he would basically be assembling a bomb instead of fabricating the explosive payload from scratch. But even then, for this one-year-from-boom capability to vanish more or less without a trace before the invasion? I still think they were talking about 1991, even though I'd like to be wrong. Convince me. Tell me every last detail. junkyardblog.net fas.org junkyardblog.net nytimes.com rayrobison.typepad.com hotair.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23725)	11/6/2006 6:53:44 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Let's see. "Bush lied, people died" becomes "Bush tells the truth and now people might die?" New York Times Mad Bush Administration 'Leaked' Iraqi Nuke Plan Friday , November 03, 2006 By John Gibson This is exquisitely rich. Today The New York Times is accusing the Bush administration of an illegal leak of secret information, which may endanger American lives. Wow. No sense of irony over there at The Times. They can leak the NSA secret wiretapping program, they can leak the Treasury Department's secret program of following terrorist money, they can leak secret memos on the progress of the war, but none of that, evidently, seems to Times editors to endanger Americans. But this latest so-called leak by the Bushies does. And worse, the so-called leak is — get this — an Iraqi plan to make a nuke bomb. It was posted in a trove of captured Iraqi documents on a government Web site. From that site it has also been discovered that Saddam Hussein was planning terror attacks against the West with Al Qaeda, but that has never interested The New York Times before. Why not? Because it runs counter to The Times' argument that Saddam posed no danger. It has also been The Times' argument that Iraq and Saddam had no WMD, especially not nukes. So now they're screeching about the fact that Iraq did have plans to build a nuke bomb and Bush's crew had it posted on a Web site. Let's see. "Bush lied, people died" becomes "Bush tells the truth and now people might die?" I think The Times buried the lead: Saddam had plans to build a nuke bomb. This goes along with the fact that Saddam's agents were, in fact, shopping for yellowcake in Niger. See Christopher Hitchens' excellent essays on this subject. But it must have been a bad day over at The Times. "Let's see, we have to admit that Bush was right about Saddam and WMD. So how do we make this look bad for Bush? Simple. We point out the evidence of Saddam's WMD was on an open Web site. We can say the Iranians probably got their nuke bomb plans from this U.S. government Web site." Would I be right to call this a flip-flop on the part of The Times? Would I be right to assume the hysteria at The Times about this late awakening to Saddam's nukes might mean the election is only a few days away? I would be right. That's My Word. Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com foxnews.com