Webloggin » ‘Sheesh, You Mean Those Iraqi Docs Are Real?’

That would be the moonbatty NY Times Reaction as they have finally found a reason to believe that the Saddam Hussein document repository as posted on a U.S. government website is real.

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.

Wow amazing, the New York Times is concerned about National Security for a change; or perhaps not. The intent is to paint a broader picture of a bumbling move by Republicans in charge who insisted that the web site be set up as a testament to the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

While the New York Times thought they were scoring points against the Republicans they did something else that was perhaps unintended in the liberally drenched logic of America’s most lefty MSM newsroom. This article pretty much validates that the documents are genuine.

Thus, while the New York Times finally gets around to printing a story about the contents of the Iraqi documents cache we can use it as a reminder of other information in that stash that the MSM has ignored. (such as the discovery of Saddam’s terrorist training camps).

The best long term coverage of this information has come from Captains Quarters so I will simply bullet point the items.

Saddam Hussein was working on plans to get volunteers for suicide missions to ’strike American interests”
Saddam Hussein’s regime actively coordinated with Palestinian terrorists in the PFLP as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Iraq had ties to Osama Bin Laden

Ed Morrisey also pointed out the following revelations from the Iraqi documents:

* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq for radiation, and to use “trusted news agencies” to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject. They specify CNN.

* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam’s sons planned a series of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq

* Saddam’s early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from 1994-7

* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in 2002, but never reported it.

* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and chemical weapons by the notorious “Dr. Germ” in 2002

Finally Ed points out that the New York Times article gives a bit of justification to the war in Iraq by noting U.N. Inspector’s concerns that Saddam Hussein was very advanced in his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

So now we know. The New York Times is only concerned with something when it can be used as a weapon against George Bush. Well actually that is a lie. We always knew that the Times staffers hatred of George Bush drove their agenda.

This latest report by the Times is simply more proof of their agenda driven reporting. Not that they will admit to the other revelations in the stash. No that will likely never happen. But the mention of its validity in any context is progress. We know that the NY Times isn’t really concerned about the national security of the United States but thanks for the heads up anyway.

Previous Webloggin

Catching The MSM With Their Pants Down Isn’t Funny Anymore

Others Blogging on this story
Wizbang, The Iowa Voice, Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Right Winged, The Political Pit Bull, Flopping Aces