Yeah ... yeah, right. Nice headline in the NY Times tonight. I love the plausible deniability they obviously feel it needs for this non-story.
The New York Times Says: U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide
Please take note - and don't think it isn't important, because the NY Times wouldn't want to squander it's remaining shred of credibility. The headline does not say: US Web Archive Revealed Nuclear Guide - now does it?
Why not? The Times appears to have had plenty of time to confirm that assertion, were it true. But, obviously they didn't, or they wouldn't qualify it. And an assertion is all this amounts to - five days before an election.
Riehl World View says Dan Riehl says the NY Times is full of crap.
Oh wait, sorry, that's been confirmed so many times, I've lost count.
I'm filing this baby in media bias and moving on.
Maybe an editor was in a hurry and inadvertently left out the word "getting" as in "getting bombed." Well, what the hell, old news anyway. Unless the US military is getting sick of the bullshit they have to put up with and are planning to bomb the dump again. This probably sounds insane, but turning the damned place into a giant parking lot is beginning to sound like a great plan.
Posted by: hobo | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 12:16 AM
Who are you to say anything? Who cares what you think?
Posted by: TJ | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 12:38 AM
"The New York Times Says: U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Guide.."
Oh look. Passive voice again. How handy it is. It's not the NYT's fault... no way...
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 01:24 AM
I hear a low rumbling. I wonder what it could be.
Posted by: Sadly, No! Research Labs | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 01:48 AM
"I wonder what it could be."
Hackers.
Posted by: jaime | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 04:27 AM
Fox just gave this 15 seconds. The question/talk centered around criticism that these documents gave too much information about how to build a bomb. The answer - no big deal. It is nothing you can't find on the Internet.
Just read all the updates.... By the time this gets figured out, we'll be in the presidential elections.
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 09:59 AM
This story revealed that the public STILL hasn't gotten the full story on Saddam's WMD, the reasoning has been fear of revealing too many details about how to make WMD but this story is quite clear in that postwar findings, via documents, show that Saddam had advanced know how for making nukes and chem weapons QUICKLY!!!
Very important.
Posted by: mark | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 10:32 AM
The press embargoed the 04' story about all the uranium DOE removed from Saddam's former nuke weapons research facility. Saddam had over 1.5 tons of first stage enriched uranium. Another pass through the cascades and he's have had enough for a couple of bombs.
2+2 = 4
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 11:01 AM
"via documents, show that Saddam had advanced know how for making nukes and chem weapons QUICKLY"
#1 These documents were from before the FIRST gulf war.
#2 You can't make Nukes quickly, moron.
Posted by: jaime | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Iraq Was On Verge Of Bomb: Thank God For Bush!!
To which 'god' would you suggest we offer our gratitude?
Allah?
Posted by: anonymous | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 03:54 PM
Iraq Was On Verge Of Bomb (In 1991): Thank God For (George Herbert Walker)Bush!!
Posted by: jaime | Friday, November 03, 2006 at 04:35 PM