Republicans set up website to help Iran build nuclear weapons

Thorgrim · 11-03-2006, 02:04 AM

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 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.

U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide - New York Times

This should be some nice fodder for the weekend, one of their big evangelical anti-gay leader is a raging homosexual who pays for anal sex, and their national security party is helping Iran build nukes, I can only imagine what's next, maybe the Majority Leader and de facto #1 Congressional Republican will blame the US military instead of the administration for the setbacks in Iraq

Oh wait, he already did that as covered by the Army Times:

Rumsfeld, Boehner said, has been pushing the military to transform, but the uniformed military leaders have resisted.

"You have to understand that the generals who have been in charge of the Pentagon have been very resistant to change,"

Army Times - Boehner refuses to apologize for faulting generals

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-03-2006, 02:14 AM

Let me guess, Republicans will try to argue this is evidence Saddam was pursuing WMDs, even though it's pre Gulf War one.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 09:41 AM

Wow. How stupid can you be to publish nuclear secrets on a website.

And Boehner should issue an apology for insulting our brave troops. But I don't expect any conservatives to call for it. They are fine with Republicans saying hateful things about the military since they are still under the illusion that they support them while everyone else hates them.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-03-2006, 09:58 AM

Nice spin

Nonphixion · 11-03-2006, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Let me guess, Republicans will try to argue this is evidence Saddam was pursuing WMDs, even though it's pre Gulf War one.

That's actually true, it was pushed out by conservative right-wingers (much to the disdain of the intelligence community) to let the "common internet public get a crack at it" and "to prove there actually were WMD's". Against the will of John Negroponte (intelligence cheif) the conservative right fervently pushed these "thousands" of documents out as early as September of this year.

They were HOW-TO GUIDES on building a nuclear weapon, including a confirmed blueprint and technical diagram(s).

AVengeance · 11-03-2006, 10:13 AM

The Democtrats say "show us the evidence".

The Republicans show the evidence.

The Democrats say "you're showing the evidence!!!1!"

Now what?

Stupid double-speak commies.

WickedLou9 · 11-03-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

The Democtrats say "show us the evidence".

The Republicans show the evidence.

The Democrats say "you're showing the evidence!!!1!"

Now what?

Stupid double-speak commies.

What evidence? Evidence that Iraq had weapons before the first gulf war? Well we already knew that didn't we... we already went in and destroyed them.. why would we need to go in again to do something we did in 1991?
This is proof that we made a mistake.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

The Democtrats say "show us the evidence".

The Republicans show the evidence.

The Democrats say "you're showing the evidence!!!1!"

Now what?

Stupid double-speak commies.

Is that sarcasm?

There were no WMD in Iraq. The blueprints aren't the reason we invaded. It was to eliminate their stockpiles on WMD which they didn't have.

Putting those blueprints up on the internet isn't "presenting evidence" either, it's just stupid.

Nonphixion · 11-03-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

The Democtrats say "show us the evidence".

The Republicans show the evidence.

The Democrats say "you're showing the evidence!!!1!"

Now what?

Stupid double-speak commies.

One can easily presume these how-to guides on building a nuke is from 1992 when the title "Saddam Buys Nuclear Reactor From France" was on all the newspaper headlines.

We knew all of this shit 14 years ago, and none of the documents are relevant now, since the CIA intelligence information said he lost the WMD (of any kind) capability in the mid-ninties.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:50 AM

lolz

I have no doubt that whatever information Saddam had in the 90s is nothing new to Iran in their quest for nuclear technology. There are far more recent and willing people in the world from whom they can acquire this information.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-03-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

lolz

I have no doubt that whatever information Saddam had in the 90s is nothing new to Iran in their quest for nuclear technology. There are far more recent and willing people in the world from whom they can acquire this information.

It isn't anything new.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

lolz

I have no doubt that whatever information Saddam had in the 90s is nothing new to Iran in their quest for nuclear technology. There are far more recent and willing people in the world from whom they can acquire this information.

I would leave an assumption like that up to the experts like the IAEA who citied Iran as a reason not to have this information available.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I would leave an assumption like that up to the experts like the IAEA who citied Iran as a reason not to have this information available.

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms

It might, it might not; sure, I agree it's better to be on the safe side.

But let's be realistic here; is it likely to provide any new information? No. Is it worth getting our panties in a bunch? No.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It might, it might not; sure, I agree it's better to be on the safe side.

But let's be realistic here; is it likely to provide any new information? No. Is it worth getting our panties in a bunch? No.

I prefer not to make an assumption like that. They said it was a reason and I believe them.