A U.S. government website intended to prove that the preemptive Iraq war was justified published pre-1991 documents from Iraq that weapons experts say are a blueprint for would be atomic bomb makers, according to the New York Times.
According to Times reporter William Broad’s story,
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 issues sensitivity. One diplomat said the agencys technical experts were shocked at the public disclosures.
Early this morning, a spokesman for Gregory L. Schulte, the American ambassador, denied that anyone from the agency had approached Mr. Schulte about the Web site.
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 nations nuclear arms program. Theres a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.
The website, known as the Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal, included documents culled from some 55,000 boxes seized from the offices of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial regime after the 2003 invasion.
While I hate to criticize the government for opening documents to the public, there’s just something deeply ironic about teaching the world how to build the bomb in the process of trying to justify a war that didn’t turn up the promised smoking guns.
Also, isn’t it the government’s job to be investigating the New York Times for publishing sensitive information, not the other way around?
– Ryan Singel
Photo: Life on the edge; Big Ups: RC
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
This is what happens when you cut corners and don’t do your homework. I hope JFCOM learns a lesson from this mess.
I will give them credit for pursuing an open source solution, but they obviously didn’t think the whole thing through.
I have nothing against JFCOM uniforms and employees, but they should probably stick to generating whiz-bang powerpoint presentations. They’ll do less damage that way.
Remember that the most effective disinformation campaign against Saddam came from his own ranks- from people who didn’t want to be blamed when their efforts to gain WMD fell through.
Tragic for sure.
Agreed entirly there Kaltes with your comments. Somehow i doubt this rather large, well monster of a story will get any real media coverage though, infact i was extremely suprised when i saw it here on Defense Tech. Suprised only because this such a kick in the teeth for the anti bush, anti war crowd. Well i guess maybe some people are waking up to reality……
ooooh! fun stuff!
please note folks, that this alleged WMD info in Saddams hands is written as “pre 1991″.
Hussein had WMD in the works at the time of the, then, “Gulf War”? well, duh….
point is…those were found, destroyed, dismantled, disabled in TOTAL, at that time. In the intervening YEARS between then and 2003, no further concrete evidence was ever found of any other Iraqi WMD capabilities. Wants? Intents? yes, but that is not the same as capability, either to produce, or, more importantly, to deliver same.
This war is now older than Nam. Stretching from 1991, through years of real aerial combat and engagement in enforcing the “no fly” zones, with related combat fatalities, to the present time.
all for WMD vaporware.
Please also note…..this revelation smacks of double disinformation..wherein, if the Administration engineers a mild slap on the wrist because they supposedly allowed sensitive information to get out about Iraqi WMD….then it can be read backwards to justify thier initial invasion of Iraq.
is there ANYONE that can reasonably argue that this is not timed politicaly?
its’ all BS
First I’d like to point out that, while there were several particular criticisms I had for the DefenseTech post, most of what was in my comment was broader, and intended as a criticism for the NYT article in general. You said, however:
“No WMD or evidence of an active nuclear program or WMD program were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.”
Hundreds of WMDs have been found after the 2003 invasion, just not large stockpiles, so your statement is incorrect.
In addition, the ISG established that, while Saddam did not retain stockpiles, he went to considerable lengths to retain capabilities, and he had the INTENT to restart these programs as soon as he had defeated the sanctions regime.
He was well on his way to defeating the sanctions regime as well, having used oil-for-food corruption to engage in mass bribery.
So the point of all the “No WMD” criticisms is that Saddam was not really a threat, when he actually was. Bush did not sell Saddam as an imminent threat, that was not the reason for the invasion. Rather, Saddam was a threat that was on the verge of becoming far more dangerous once the sanctions regime was defeated and Saddam both restarted his WMD programs and further developed his ties with terrorists.
The sanctions and inspections regime was successful in suppressing Saddam’s WMD, programs, but was an utter failure when it came to eliminating his capabilities. As soon as they were gone, Saddam had both the means and the inclination to rapidly reconstitute them.
“Also, isn’t it the government’s job to be investigating the New York Times for publishing sensitive information, not the other way around?”
I thought it was supposed to be both ways.
Now that both sides of the Isle even the NYT
And heres another edition of simple answers to stupid questions:
“Did Saddam have any kind of current WMD program that in any way justified the invasion or the lies used to sell it?”
“No.”
Thus concludes another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
I find it difficult to believe that the WMD argument is still going on. This story is all the more ridiculous when one considers that a ‘C’ average college student designed a functioning nuclear weapon using readily available public data back in the 1960′s.
This is classic misdirection – keep them fighting about WMDs while we pour billions into no-bid contracts, subsidize already hugely profitable oil giants by destabilizing the Middle East, use resulting fears to justify removal of civil liberties, secret prisons, torture, domestic survellience programs, etc.
Apparently it is still working despite no WMDs, $350 billion in direct war costs, untold hundreds of billions in increased energy costs, 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians, over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed and 12,000 wounded, etc.
MAX: “These same costs are far lower than ANYONE expected.”
Rumsfeld:
The Other Noah-the act of demoguaging is-
to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
This is exactly what you’re doing, by throwing in the security actions that were taken post 9/11 and attaching them to the War in Iraq. They are not completely related and these actions would have been taken even if the US didn’t invade Iraq.
As for costs, the anti-war movement argued that invading Iraq would cost trillions in the first year, that tens of thousands of Americans would die and the cost of gas skyrocket to several dollars a gallon. That has not happened. Amazingly, democracy has spread to several other Middle Eastern Nations and terrorist actions have not been directed at the continental US.
Ignore if you want the victories of the past few years.
You can continue to quote out of context if you like and ignore the fact that the anti-war movement has destroyed any crdibility it might have had with crazy predictions.
Let’s get something straight. Based upon earlier posts on this site, everyone knows you don’t care at all about the troops and you’re fairly anti-US. You’d rather lose the war on terror to satisfy your own agenda. So go ahead and babble if you want.
I agree with Aaron.
Did Saddam have plans to aquire WMDs?
Probably
Did Saddam actually have WMDs?
No
Was Saddam’s possession of WMDs used as casus belli to invade.
Yes
If everyone agrees this is a fair statement, than it doesn’t matter if they find an invoice for 400 nukes from WMDs ‘r’ Us, he still didn’t actually possess them (as we were lead to believe).
At best it’s deception, at worst it’s just plain lying.
It doesn’t matter what “side” your on, let’s all try to be partisan and use our common sense. Hopefully reason will prevail, but somehow these days it never seems to.
-oz
Don’t forget that chemical weapons are considered WMD’s too… and stockpiles of those (albeit old, and possibly ineffective), were found. Not to mention he even used them in the past.