Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

....but.....but....BUSH LIED!

It must be true he lied because a buch of e-tard short bus moonbats have repeted it BILLIONS of times and we all know endless repetition of the lamest piece of bullshit will eventually make it true! Joseph Gobbels said so!

Surely all those drooling pieces of idiocy can't be wrong?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 3, 2006 07:33 AM

Rand,
It would be interesting if the report actually said what you're claiming it said. The sentance in there that says that experts claim that they were only a year away doesn't actual present any new evidence. There were so-called experts who claimed they were only a year away from having a nuke, but if you actually read the NYT article, it's pretty clear that these documents were from their Pre-1991 nuclear program.

Now, if the report had said something along the lines of "new evidence from these papers leads experts to belive that Iraq was only a year away from a nuclear weapon", that might support your thesis. But taken in context, it's merely saying that "some people were claiming back in 2002, that they were only a year away from a nuclear bomb".

Try again. This time with better reading comprehension.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at November 3, 2006 08:13 AM

Read the damn article.

It refers to documents from 1991!!!!!

1991!!!

That Saddam was well on the way to nuclear weapons in 1991 is not news. The program was successfully broken up by the United Nations, throught santions and inspections - Saddam never recovered, as we now have ample evidence.

The fact that those dumbasses stuck this stuff on the Web is proof that these guys are more interested in scoreing political points than national security, and deserve the hiding they are going to recieve on Tuesday.

Posted by Duncan Young at November 3, 2006 08:17 AM

I'll bite. If Iraq was a year-away from nukes in 91 but stopped for some reason, how much further away would they be when they restarted?

The answer depends on what assets they threw away or deteriorated.

Goff seems to think that they lost assets. Some evidence would be nice.

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 3, 2006 08:17 AM

Did Simberg bother to read the article carefully or did he get so horny about a few of the sentences he found that he rushed to post? Seems like a case of premature ejaculation...

Posted by at November 3, 2006 08:22 AM

Andy,
One of the guys that Bush sent in to inspect for WMD after the war, Duelfer I think, actually works now for an alt.space company, t/Space. When I was getting the tour of Bigelow Aerospace a summer ago at the Return to the Moon conference, I had a chance to talk with him. I looked at his name tag, and said, something like "that name sounds familiar", and he admitted that yeah, he was the guy Bush sent in to investigate WMDs in Iraq. He was obviously quite embarrased, and said that in spite of looking rather hard, they didn't find any.

Do you know what it takes to make a nuclear weapon and to be only "one year away" from having one? It takes a whole bunch of equipment. If they really did have that much stuff (like oh, say massive centrifuge cascades for starters), we would've known from now. Every single piece of evidence available about that program shows very clearly that Rand jumped the gun, again.

It's ok Rand. We all make mistakes. Now just admit that once again, you gave a false alarm. I'm not sure how many "well it turns out they really did have WMD afterall" stories have to blow up in a blogger's face before he learns, but it is a bit amusing.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at November 3, 2006 08:29 AM

Andy,
Here.

Especially the last line.

Posted by Duncan Young at November 3, 2006 08:31 AM

It's pretty clear that Iraq wasn't making a nuclear bomb in 2002 in hindsight (and frankly I should have been clear to the people who actually had the intelligence), but my take has always been that they kept what resources they could around. That indicates to me that they were ready to restart the program once sanctions were lifted.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 3, 2006 08:41 AM

Puckett, next time wait a bit, read a couple of the comments, then commit your thoughts here. You just made an ass of yourself.

Also, think before you vote on Tuesday. Maybe you did already, in which case, think clearly next time even if it means voting for Hillary.

Posted by at November 3, 2006 08:58 AM

it's pretty clear that these documents were from their Pre-1991 nuclear program.

It obviously relates to documents from significantly before 1991, since Israel blew up the Osirak reactor a decade earlier.

Posted by at November 3, 2006 09:13 AM

One of the guys that Bush sent in to inspect for WMD after the war, Duelfer I think, actually works now for an alt.space company, t/Space.

If you read the Duelfer Report, it claims that he was planning to reconstitute his nuclear program as soon as sanctions were lifted and the heat was off. This (among other things) was the purpose of all the bribes to the French and Russians.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 3, 2006 09:14 AM

Do you know what it takes to make a nuclear weapon and to be only "one year away" from having one?

About half a tonne of highly enriched uranium?

Posted by at November 3, 2006 09:15 AM

One indisputable fact.... Saddam Hussein and his regime will now never be able to produce a nuclear weapon. I hope the same can be said in the near future for the unstable, belligerent regimes of NK and Iran.

And, one of the great benefits to come out of all this is Libya's decision to abandon its program altogether.

Posted by MickD at November 3, 2006 09:27 AM

I'll admit to not ready the NYT article, but I do have this question: If the report is from 1991, why does it deserve above the fold coverage on the cover of the New York Times in 2006? What is news about 15 year old report?

Posted by Leland at November 3, 2006 09:31 AM

Leland--it's intended to be a November Surprise to hurt the Republicans: "Look, Bush put up plans on how to build a nuke on the web!"

Posted by Rick C at November 3, 2006 10:03 AM

To amplify on a post here. What was going on in 2002 relative to Saddam?

The Frenchies and the Russians were pushing hard to get ALL sanctions lifted, starting with deauthorizing the no fly zones. When that happened the Kurds and Shiites would have been in deep Shiite. Then with all sanctions lifted and a huge resevoir of good well built up through billions of dollars worth of bribes, does ANYONE seriously think, especially with the Iranian ramp up in nuclear ambitions (remember Saddam was more scared of them than us) , that Saddam, in the face of complete impotence from the west in dealing with Iran, not restarted his program?

Where we would be today is both Iran and Iraq hell bent on building nukes.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 3, 2006 10:33 AM

Here here Dennis.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 3, 2006 10:46 AM

Of course, the one of the main reasons Iran and NK accelerated their programs was the invasion of Iraq. And if the Frenchies and the Russians push hard diplomatically, the cheaper, more effective answer is just to push back diplomatically - rather than launching an ill-planned war and blowing the U.S.'s strategic credibility and much of its millitary strength.

Posted by Duncan Young at November 3, 2006 11:12 AM

Of course, the one of the main reasons Iran and NK accelerated their programs was the invasion of Iraq.

Oh, please, Duncan.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 3, 2006 11:17 AM

Yongbyon and the Pu track was opened up in the immediate prelue to the war. Less is known about the Iranian program, but certainly their rhetoric heated up in the last couple of years.

Plus it is a rational response to Iraq; if one is to be attacked for having nukes, one would be better off actually having them. Indeed, the counter example is Pakistan; where Bush's 9/11 night doctrine of not distinguishing between the terrorists and those who host them falls flat for about a megaton of reasons.

NK's response to the adminstration's speak loudly-small stick policy emphasizes the point.

Posted by Duncan Young at November 3, 2006 11:53 AM

"Indeed, the counter example is Pakistan; where Bush's 9/11 night doctrine of not distinguishing between the terrorists and those who host them falls flat for about a megaton of reasons."

And what US cities are in range of Pakastani Nukes.

Having Nukes =! delivering them effectively.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 3, 2006 12:15 PM

The reason Iran / NK programs have accelerated is that they believe the US is in no position to do much to stop them given the US political climate. With the Democratic party parroting the same anti-Bush lines that Iran / NK spew they see the US as divided with not enough political will to go the distance in stopping the Iranian / NK programs. They may be right; thank you Howard Dean and company.

Iran / NK also have allies in Russia / China that they hope will insulate them from any US actions, and to a lesser extent other European powers that so far have shown very little backbone in supporting REAL measures against Iranian / NK nuclear programs.

Why not speed up their nuclear programs when they see it as the US alone against them with everyone else either on their side or on the sidelines?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 3, 2006 12:32 PM

Of course, the one of the main reasons Iran and NK accelerated their programs was the invasion of Iraq.

Following this line of reasoning, if the United States had never existed, would will still be using Flintlock Muskets? And I guess N Korea invaded S Korea in 1950 because the United States cornered the spring roll market? Or did we threaten to cut off their supply of puppy chow?

The constant drone that the U.S. is "the cause" of all the worlds woes irks me to tears. Perhaps we should keep all our "nasty foreign aid" for 2007.

Posted by Steve at November 3, 2006 12:51 PM

Cecil,
..the US political climate
The U. S. political climate is in large part determined by the bungled wars into which the Dems have had no input...

they see the US as divided with not enough political will to go the distance in stopping the Iranian / NK programs..

And what exactly would you propose that the U. S. should do, if it were to find sufficient "political will". Magic up a million troops with your gritted teath or just nuke 'em all?

Steve: Here's some simple concepts for you.
Then.
Now.

The simple fact is the United States is a tremendously influential hyperpower, which implies certain responsibilities and a certain amount of the blame (and to be fair, credit) for just about everything. If you dont have the stones to deal with that, maybe you should just vote Green.

Posted by Duncan Young at November 3, 2006 01:25 PM

Duncan: "wars into which the Dems have had no input"

BS. Leading Democrats voted for the war in Iraq and then they claimed they were misled into doing so even though those same Democrats had been publicly calling Iraq/Saddam a threat for years. But when the political winds shift and it is politically expedient for them to "Blame Bush" they claim they had never thought Saddam was a threat* and they were all misled by Bush. In short by their lying about the President, they give aid and comfort to the enemy.

AQ leaders are huddled with fingers crossed hoping for a Democratic victory on Tuesday, anyone with two functioning brain cells (which rules out 90% of the Democratic leadership) knows that is so.

* Kerry in one of the debates: "I've always said Saddam was a threat" SECONDS later: Bush was distracted in Iraq "where there was no threat".

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 3, 2006 01:53 PM

Cecil,
Feel free to name any significant element of the implementation of the war strategy that wouldn't of happened without Democratic input.

AQ thrives on war and chaos. Only one party so has delivered that for them so far, and it aint the Dems. The CIA believes that UBL's contribution to '04 was motivated in favour of Bush, and nothing that the GOP has done has actually reduced the prevalence of terrorist attacks globally.

Posted by Duncan Young at November 3, 2006 02:10 PM

I've responded to Duncan's latest with a new post.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 3, 2006 02:31 PM

> nothing that the GOP has done has actually reduced the prevalence
> of terrorist attacks globally.

You don't think killing terrorists reduces their ability to attack us?

Amazing.

Posted by Liberals Say the Darnedest Things at November 3, 2006 03:56 PM

I will point out to those rabid Democrat supporters that the Dems had no coherent plan to deal with Iran or NK except more of the same plan Clinton used which let NK develop atomic assets. Oh yeah, they still don't have one. So you want people to vote for a party whose slogan seems to be "Vote for us, no plan is better than his plan". BTW Duncan, the US governments FIRST responsibility is keep the US safe. 5 years later, NO attacks on US soil. Works for me.

Posted by Bill Maron at November 3, 2006 04:06 PM

You don't think killing terrorists reduces their ability to attack us?

Sure wouldn't reduce their ability to vote in Dem strongholds like Cook County or Philadelphia.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at November 3, 2006 04:49 PM

Rand, the Neocon's are even abandoning the Iraq war.
Are you going to be the last man calling for more
war in Iraq?

Posted by anonymous at November 3, 2006 06:41 PM

One thing all the "it was 1991!" defensive leftists seem to be ignoring is that at that time the IAEA and the UN inspectors did not know nor believe that Iraq was about "a year away" from building a nuclear bomb. It was only several years after the fact when that information was fully understood.

The IAEA has been similarly clueless about Pakistan's, North Korea's, and Iran's nuclear programs. As well as AQ Khan's nuclear weapons information market. Not to mention Iraq's post-gulf War weapons programs. The fact is that the IAEA has NEVER provided accurate and timely information about the status of clandestine nuclear weapons programs. And yet despite all the evidence of history people still rely on them as the absolute, final word on the state of nuclear weapons programs.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at November 3, 2006 08:26 PM

Cecil, you wrote

Leading Democrats voted for the war in Iraq and then they claimed they were misled into doing so [...]

The Bush administration pulled a classic bait-and-switch with the invasion of Iraq. It may have been accidental or a product of deception by Saddam Hussein's government or other non-US forces, but it happened. Remember the Democrats don't have their own independent intelligence agency capable of vetting US intelligence. It makes no sense to me to assume that they would unconditionally support the Bush administration in the face of such a crucial intelligence failure.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 5, 2006 09:19 AM

Bait and switch is fraud. By definition it's an intentional act. An inaccurate intelligence assessment based on inadequate information is not intentional and cannot have been fraud. Indeed, characterizing it as fraud is much closer to being dishonest than was the Administration's argument for war. Our decision to invade Iraq was based on many considerations besides that intelligence estimate. Why shouldn't the Democrats have supported the Bush administration in favoring invasion? Many of them did. They wanted to share the political benefits of a quick and decisive war. Or maybe they sincerely agreed with the need to invade. Now that the war has become messy a lot of them want to rewrite the history of what happened. It's one thing to say, "We didn't know better." It's quite another, and dishonest, to say, "We didn't know better, therefore it must be true that the Bush administration lied to us."

It's a fact of life that some important decisions have to be made with inadequate information. That means that some decisions will later appear to be mistakes. But that doesn't mean they were the wrong decisions to make at the time. If perfection in hindsight is your standard you will never make decisions. Any mature adult knows that. Unfortunately, today's Democratic Party is run by people who, in this sense at least, are not adults.

Posted by Jonathan at November 5, 2006 10:29 AM

"...the IAEA has NEVER provided accurate and timely information about the status of clandestine nuclear weapons programs..."

Other than their, in retrospect, entirely accurate assessment of that whole Iraq thing three years ago, I guess. I wonder whatever happened with that country?

Posted by BruceR at November 6, 2006 03:48 PM

Post a comment