Does anyone with a lick of sense think that Iran didn't already have all the docs it needs to produce a bomb? You don't get to the centrifuges-spinning-enriched-uranium staqe based on back issues of Popular Mechanics.

Posting bomb-making instructions on the Internet (in Arabic) so that conservative bloggers can help Republican Congressman get re-elected -- smart move!

And do it over the objections of scientists and security eexperts - ramrodded through by Bush (aka Karl).

What an October surprise - that backfired right in the face of the Republicans. Congratulations, conservative bloggers - you just helped the Democrats take over Congress!

Lee...

Serious question straight up... Which one of these would you prefer happen?

Someone putting up documents that might have been seen by Iran and it might have helped their nuke program in some way.

OR

George Bush stopping Saddam from getting a nuke.

Come on... No bullshit.... Which one would you prefer happen?

BTW- YOU DO NOT have to agree with me. BUT if you give me an intellectually dishonest answer, I'll send the email to my fellow wizbangers nominating you for banning.

We've been MORE than tolerant with you Lee. But I don't want your crazy B.S. If you are ONLY going to troll, we don't need you.

If you pick option #1 above you better make a damn good case.

Answer the question.

yeah, I worded that poorly, I'm editing as we speak

you know what I mean.

Paul said: "Remember, offense, offense, offense. This only helps us -if- we help ourselves."

Help yourselves? What about your country? Isn't there any interest n helping America?

Conservative bloggers offer help to Republican congressman get re-elected, and we end up with Bush ramrodding through approval of a website that posts nuclear bomb-making instructions in Arabic???

Way to go wingnuts.

I think you guys have helped enough already. It's time for conservative activist bloggers to shut up and sit down!

[crazy spam deleted]

Paul said:

Serious question straight up... Which is better for the coutnry....

Someone put up documents that might have been seen by Iran that might have helped their nuke program in some way.

OR

Stopping Saddam from getting a nuke.

Since the issue is the posting of Arabic-language bomb-making instructions on the internet to help asshats like Rick Santorum get re-elected, the "stopping Saddam" meme is a strawman argument.

Saddam wasn't stopped by the action of the internet postings, Paul.

And since conservative bloggers didn't have anything to do with stopping Saddam, and everything to do with posting sophisticated arabic-language bomb-making instructions on the internet -- I'm at a total loss (wink wink) as to why you'd try to spin this?

Lee you are so full of BS it's insane. I've never seen anyone more of a blatant hypocrite in my life, with the possible exception of John Kerry.

My idea for a political cartoon:

The NYTs yells, "stop you Republican bastards or I'll shoot". As NYT loads the one bullet from the front pocket it goes off directly into the foot.

Draw the picture in your head. Now that's a knee slapper.

>Saddam wasn't stopped by the action of the internet postings, Paul.

Lee answer the question or you're banned from my posts and I send the mail.

None of your stupid bull shit. Answer the question.

[btw I got like 2 hours sleep so my typos, poor wording are crazy this AM. You know what I mean]

"Lee you are so full of BS it's insane. I've never seen anyone more of a blatant hypocrite in my life, with the possible exception of John Kerry."

It's Clinton's fault. No, wait! It's Carter's fault. No -- uhm Kerry, it's Kerry's fault. Howard Dean - it's his fault - can we run the videotape of "the scream" again, please? Now, please! HILLARY! It's her fault. Michael J. Fox, it's all his fault - tell them Rush, please....

[Lee, I'm not joking. Answer the question or stop commenting on this thread. This is the last warning.]

GROW UP! After 6 years of total screw ups you don't win the vote based on some single story. Especially when its a story about yet another screw up by the incompetant in charge and the best you can do if fabricate it into ..."Saddam was 1 year away from the bomb". Seriously are you in Junior High School or what??? Desperately pathetic...but with a touch of comedic ROTFLMAO thrown in.

Paul, you got Lee by the balls and he has NO answer except to dance around in circles like Michael Moore in a tutu....

Fact is, it turns out that Bush WAS correct and a few million liberals owe him an apology for being wrong for 4 years....

Dean and Moore should be the first ones.

God you wingnut loons are funny. But I will give you this. You can turn horseshit into a pot of gold. I wonder how many of you have actually read this Times article. My guess is practically none - now or ever for that matter.

If you read it you'd see two important things:

1) The time period they were getting close to the bomb was 1991 - read the goddamn story instead of foaming at the mouth. !991...not 2002 you freaking boobs. If it was 2002 and they were a year away what was found in that regard after the invasion?

2) Officials of the IAEA fear the information could help IRAN build its nuclear arsenal.

It's not a reasonable deduction to say that Saddam was a year away from getting the bomb in 2003 just because he was in 1991. Show me some evidence or an expert who backs your presumption. If he was 1 year away then why didn't he have one built by 1999 a year after the inspectors left?

Lee, read your non-answer above.

I'm serious.

Hugh,

Lee, Muirgeo, and you could care less about the evidence. It is SO OVERWHELMING that if you 3 ACTUALLY DID look at it, it would take you DAYS or WEEKS.

You 3 seem to care less about innocent children being killed and the evidence against Saddam.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Your hot air is doing NOTHING except adding to global warming.

How are you going to rally the base, when you lost NRO (RE: Rev Haggard):

"I'm not 100% behind him (though it sounds like someone was) and he should have kept his back to the wall and his chin up. Some may be asking "Where's the beef?" in this story, but I'm afraid the proof will be in the pudding and I shudder to think what that means for the children." Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Even Republicans think Christians are a joke.

WHAT on earth does some crackpot liberal like Haggard have to do with this thread.

Get a life.

Ok, Paul - I can tell you're serious (and seriously sleep-deprived) so I won't mess with you.

Paul said:

Serious question straight up... Which one of these would you prefer happen?

Someone putting up documents that might have been seen by Iran and it might have helped their nuke program in some way.

OR

George Bush stopping Saddam from getting a nuke.

Which would I prefer happen?

I'd prefer that George Bush stop Saddam from getting a nuke, Paul. Posting bomb-making instructions on the Internet helps terrorists interested in harming us today with weapons like a suitcase bomb. That's much more difficult to defend ourselves against than a despot like Saddam playing with his nuclear trigger.

I didn't answer the question because the answer seems obvious. Did you want to reword the question? I'm not going to guess at what other meanings you might have had, or intended to ask.

I told you the NYT wasnt biased!

To be fair, we cannot lump Lee and Barney with muirgeo.

Muirgeo belongs in a class by himself. Only slightly above Michael Moore.

ok nehemiah, but Lee, Barney and hugh could pass him up anytime...

btw, excellent job Paul.

>I didn't answer the question because the answer seems obvious.

No you didn't answer the question because it pained you.

(some famous coach whose name I'll remember with some sleep) Said: "Losing hurts worse than winning feels good." (vince Lombardi I'm 99%)

But on this one, stopping Saddam from going Nuke was worth 10X the ~possibility~ that Iran ~might~ have learned something from those docs. (That they didn't already know from A Q Kahn)

The idea of releasing the Docs is that there was proof of Saddams WMD. Looks like the Republicans where right. (and that means you where wrong)

Lee, I defended you the one time I saw you made a valid point. And I defended you hard. I don't ask you agree with me chapter and verse that would be boring if nothing else....

But I do ask -no, I demand- you come here intellectually honestly.

This validates Bush's whole rational for war and ends the whole "Bush Lied" nonsense. (assuming the NYTime is correct, which oddly enough I doubt)

There comes in time in life Lee, where you have to admit your opponent has a point.

the Troll Patrol isout in force today, throwing every bit of chaff they can in the air.

Meanwhile every MSM outlet in America is trying to figure out how to spin this for the Dimorats!!

(a) Saddam did NOT really have the plans to construct his nuke...in which case this is the NY Times trying to tie a story to influence an election

(b) Saddam DID have the plans to build his nuke, and given the manufacturing capacity of Iraq was VERY close to building the sumbitch!

Way to go NY Times!!!

How could Iraq know how to do something in 1991 but not know how to do the same thing in 2003?

A year away? What a joke. All of Saddam's material was locked-down and protected by the UN. Before and after the war, all of Iraq's raw material were still right were the UN left it, and still under UN seals (as agreed to by the US).

Were would Saddam get the plutonium from?

Even if your train of thought was true, which it is not, how do you defend the posting of nuke "construction manuals" on the Internet where any rogue nation or terrorist (why build a dirty bomb, when Bush is giving you the plans to build the real thing?) had access?

Because the liberals believe that Saddam had alzheimers....

Hugh,
Obviously, you missed my previous post Barney....

...you could care less about the evidence. It is SO OVERWHELMING that if you 3 ACTUALLY DID look at it, it would take you DAYS or WEEKS.

You 3 seem to care less about innocent children being killed and the evidence against Saddam.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Your hot air is doing NOTHING except adding to global warming.

BarneyG2000:

"Even Republicans think Christians are a joke."

Did you realy mean that the way it sounds?

Are Jews a joke? How about Muslim or Hindus?

Isn't the anonymity of the internet marvelous.

You know USMC... You're right... If he had said that about any other ethinic group I would have probably deleted it. (we do have -some- standards around here....)

But from the left, the Christian bashing is so routine, I didn't even notice....

I wonder the outcry if he said the same about gays or blacks....

Paul said: "But on this one, stopping Saddam from going Nuke was worth 10X the ~possibility~ that Iran ~might~ have learned something from those docs. (That they didn't already know from A Q Kahn)"

How did posting arabic-language bomb making instructions on the Internet stop Saddam from going nuke? I don't see the relevance - but then, I've had more sleep than you - so help me out, Paul.

[Good Bye Lee. Take 3 days off from my posts. I mistakenly thought I could get you to not be an idiot for one day. I admit, I was wrong.]

BarneyG2000: "All of Saddam's material was locked-down and protected by the UN."

I've seen the formidable "lock down" mechanisms that "protected" the material! That is why the U.S. Government was so concerned that Saddam would gain access to the link below...

http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&vertical=SEARS&sid=I0033900150001800085&pid=00973573000

USMC Pilot and Paul, the quote came from Jonah Goldberg at NRO (a major conservation though probably not a Christian, but that is just my guess). Do you think he was serious or joking? Based on Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, by David Kou do you think the current Republican administration is taking the Evangelical movement seriously?

PS, I have never seen any Islam basing on this site!

Lee, read above, game over. You're an idiot. See you in 3 days.

I think this is kind of like another big issue that Paul thought would be great fodder for the Republicans and wanted to publicize to everyone in the world. How did that one work out?

As Hugh pointed out above, this document was dated 1991. According to reports, the document is a pretty detailed plan for making a bomb. He had 12 years and didn't make one. We now know that when we invaded, there were no active plans, research, etc in place to make a bomb. Hussein had no plutonium. He had no centrifuges to enrich unanium, all relevant starting material (yellowcake) was still sitting uned IAEA seals. So, obviously, the claim that "George Bush stopp[ed] Saddam from getting a nuke." is just ludicrous. If anything, these documents prove that containment was working quite well before the invasion.

Wow, Paul threatening to ban someone he disagrees with. What a novel concept. Paul banned me once for daring to speak about abortion on a thread having to do with an pill that causes abortion. Anyone that disagrees must be silenced. That is the way that Paul conducts "debates". In his own words, he's, "quick on the delete/ban button". I guess that's easier than having a discussion with nothing to stand on.

Joe Yang,

Nice try but you cannot outdo muirgeo. Jim Valvano said that you should be moved to tears everyday -- and I cannot thank muirgeo enough. Some days I cry due to laughing, somedays due to frustration, somedays due to sadness that someone can be like him. Thanks muirgeo.

BaneyG2000:

Sorry, but you don't get off that easily. The statement came after the credits, which made it appear to be yours. "Christians" encompasses a large group of people, whom you have just offended. I find this to by emblematic of the so called liberals/progressives in this country. The party of FDR has room for everyone, as long as they agree with your way; otherwise it's name calling.

>I think this is kind of like another big issue that Paul thought would be great fodder for the Republicans and wanted to publicize to everyone in the world. How did that one work out?

It motivated the hell out the base didn't it...

BTW I think you should put down the crack pipe... I searched the thread for "Joe" and didn't even see your name on that thread.

I searched for "banned" and got nothing and I searched for Paul and read every comment I made and also saw nothing.

I didn't read the whole thing but I think you're off base... BUT I do try sometimes to keep people on topic. If you refused, you I very may well have booted you. Get your own blog and you can ban me.

I'm a Christian but not offended by Barney. In fact, Barney also moves me to tears on occasion (see the post about muirgeo). Just not as often. I'd like to take some time today to thank him as well -- for his ability to move me to tears.

Wow, Paul threatening to ban someone he disagrees with

That's obviously not the basis. Paul's threatening to ban someone who's doing nothing more than adding partisan rhetoric. What value does that add to the site ?

IMO, the admins here have been more than tolerant of the trolls... and by troll I mean someone who isn't engaging in reasoned discourse but rather continue posting sophmoric name calling and contributing nothing more than repeating the same mindless rhetoric regardless of the topic. Lee has been a prime example of this.

HA!

Yes "jyt" I did ban you.... For being a troll.

I asked you to quit baiting people and you refused. 5 times.

I see your tactics havn't changed. Don't debate the matter at hand, change the topic and troll...

In Paul's defense, I have been banned for less. Thank you for your patience.

Pilot, I am a Libertarian, and I take great offense when any religion tries to force their values on the general public. Pray all you want, you don't like abortions, than don't have one, but keep your bible out of my schools and my government.

Mike, I agree, the admins here have been very tolerant, as well as all the regular posters. Some admins more tolerant than others though, where I might side with Paul on his arguments, his liberalesque childish ranitng is so off-putting I might as well talk to muriego all day. I thought Paul left months ago. Paul, does it not seem ridiculous to you that you get all worked up and have to preface your statements with "btw I got like 2 hours sleep"? If that is the case, then just get some friggin' sleep.

barney, whats the difference between religion pushing values and libertarians (liberals) pushing their PC garbage? keep your libertarian (liberal) bullshit out of MY schools. ever hear a little thing called freedom of religion asshole?

Paul,
For you "baiting" people is discussing a relevant point to the topic at hand. Is it so strange to think that comparing RU-486, the abortion pill, to abortion is baiting. Of course, since you define baiting and you define troll, you're always right. Other longtime posters agreed with me that it was relevant, but you couldn't stand to see your point undermined, so that became baiting and I became a troll that had to be banned. I encourage everyone to go read that thread and see what you think. Of course, I'm not the first person to note this about you. (scroll down to April 12th, 2005 -- Carnival of the Coward.

As for Schaivo and "the motivated base", I guess we'll see how motivated they are in 4 days. Whenever I hear anyone bring this topic up now, it's not a Republican supporter. Thanks for getting it as wide an audience as you could.

As far as changing the topic, I did have a fairly good portion in there about the original post, which hasn't been addressed yet. What happend to going on offense? You got reduced to defense pretty quickly.

Joe Yang,

You still do have much to learn from being an effective liberal. Try reading some posts by muirgeo. They will move you emotionally.

Back to this issue again. The Times article says the following:

"European diplomats said this week that some of those nuclear documents on the Web site were identical to the ones presented to the United Nations Security Council in late 2002, as America got ready to invade Iraq. But unlike those on the Web site, the papers given to the Security Council had been extensively edited, to remove sensitive information on unconventional arms. "

So, you want to make a big deal out of documents that we had before the war, that US officials knew were sensitive, and that they recklessly posted anyway in full to satisfy the right-wing bloggers out there? That sounds like a great case. Please make it as loudly and often as you can. Remember, you can't lose.

D-Hoggs, If you are so morally weak that you need 6,000-year-old mythology to guide you through life, then god bless you, but I do not need a burning bush to tell me how to lead a positive and productive life.

I know you don't barney, you just need some whiney ass liberals to tell you that you can't play tag on the playground anymore. Pussy.

if they were less than a year away, there would be a large amount of physical evidence lying around in Iraq: various sub-systems in various stages of completion or testing, manufacturing facilities, material, etc.. you don't go from plans on paper to a bomb in a year, if you've never done it before.

so, where's all the physical evidence ?

Paul,

The question you posed to Lee way up in this thread was illegitimate. Rather I should say that one of the possible answers was illegitimate.

George W. Bush did not keep Saddam from getting nuclear weapons in any way. Just didn't happen.

That capacity was destroyed in the early 90's, and pressure was applied and maintained to keep him from reconstituting that program.

The real credit for keeping Saddam from getting nuclear weapons belongs to George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and the International Atomic Energy Agency and it's inspectors like Scott Ritter.

If you're really curious about this bit of history, I recommend you pick up Scott Ritter's book.

John

cleek: "you don't go from plans on paper to a bomb in a year, if you've never done it before."

March 1944...construction completed on research laboratory in Los Alamos, NM. Scientists begin arriving to attempt to design the FIRST atomic bomb in history...not knowing for certain if it is even possible!!

16 months later...July, 1945: having used sliderules and NUMBER TWO PENCILS the scientists succeed in construction the world's atomic bomb.

FROM SCRATCH!! With ZERO modern fabrication technigues, unproven theories and unknown results.

cleek...you were saying??

Wow! Wizbang is a parody site? Sort of the new Scrutator?

Hilarious!

A simple lesson in reality, not that it should get in the way of Paul's favorite theories:

1. The documents are pre-1991 and reflect the pre-1991 nuclear program, which was advanced.

2. The facts concerning the pre-1991 program were fully explored by the mid-90s, including the possibility that Saddam was an estimated year away from nuclear capability -- these documents do not reveal anything new.

3. The 2003 war, per Cheney, was justified in part because Iraq had allegedly reconstituted its nuclear program. The alleged nuclear threat was probably the biggest boost for justifying the war, and the one that was most deliberately false.

4. No evidence of any kind was discovered post-2003 to support the notion that the Iraqi nuclear program had been reconstituted in the years prior to the 2003 war. No labs, scientists, other personnel, equipment, documents, nothing, nada (unless you are a believer in the "fairies flew it all to Syria" argument, for which there is also no evidence, but at least that fantasy explains why there is no evidence -- the pinnacle of psychotic thinking).

Now, in a vain effort to resuscitate the brain dead argument that war in 2003 was necessary to prevent a nuclear Saddam, right wingers induce the Bush administration to post millions of unvetted documents on the web so that the 'Army of David' can do their Frankenstein work in order to revive the Saddam nuclear monster.

That careless posting results in sensitive pre-1991 nuclear records, conveniently written in Arabic, being made available to any jihadi with nuclear ambitions. Normal people think that is a bad thing.

But right wingers think this proves that the war was justified.

Look, liberals already understand that you don't need a good reason to advocate for war and cheerlead for the Bush administration. Don't hurt your head any more by trying to make these documents serve that purpose. It just makes you look silly.

Question to all the rear end smuchers, re-liberals and "mun-go"(what ever he calls himself)---If we had let Saddam alone, wonder what he would be doing right now? Hmmmmm

dmbeaster, if, as you say, "The facts concerning the pre-1991 program were fully explored by the mid-90s...these documents do not reveal anything new" then why would posting these documents hurt anything? You can't have it both ways kerry.

Di-Hoggs:

Do you seriously need your question answered? Do you not understand the difference between public confirmation in the 90s of the pre-1991 nuclear program and public disclosure of the technical details of pre-1991 bomb making plans as shown on these documents?

There are details of the 1945 bomb designs (the berylium/polonium nuetron initiator being one of the most sensitive ones) that remain classified even today. Yet there are libraries full of books about the Manhattan Project. Does that mean that it would therefore be harmless to release that classified info re the 1945 bomb design?

Hope that helps.
_______________

If we had let Saddam alone, wonder what he would be doing right now? Hmmmmm

Probably still writing bad novels, playing with his mistresses, oppressing his people and green with envy that Bush let N. Korea have the bomb instead of him. After all, from 1991 to 2003, he did not attempt to restart a nuclear program. That we do know.

Muirgeo, Hugh, BarneyG2000 and Lee have written hundreds of thousands of words on Wizbang and other conservatives blogs. They have accomplished absolutely nothing, just like the rest of their sorry lives, nothing accomplished and never will be, other than prove the failure of the entire liberal education system.

dmbeaster, I assume the dm stands for dumb. Who gave North Korea the two Nuclear reactors? Wasn't that Madam NotAllTooBright drinking a toast to Crazy Kim? Didn't she work for Slick Willie? To top it off Slick and Algore gave or sold him the plans for a nuclear bomb. Wipe after you sh** such garbage as you are doing. You stink. Are you over 15 years old so you have an excuse not to remember 8-9 years ago, because you were still in diapers?

So another Clinton associate dies under mysterious circumstances in South Beach in Miami. What is that, over 50 dead Slick and the Weasel associates?

Rusty said: "Muirgeo, Hugh, BarneyG2000 and Lee have written hundreds of thousands of words on Wizbang and other conservatives blogs. They have accomplished absolutely nothing,..."

We, along with thousand of other american democrats, have helped change the course American policy with the election of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

What did you accomplish, Scrappy? I'd say you helped make our task easier by proving repeatedly that the party in power is powered by ignorant lunatics.

And for that, in behalf of muriego, Hugh, Brian, Barney, and the rest of the brave liberals I say thanks, Scrapiron.