Oliver Willis (among others) is going bananas over allegations in the NY Times that the Bush administration put Iraqi documents on the web that supposedl gave third world nations the atomic bomb. He has an article here on Democrats reacting……

Well, you knew this was coming, based on the world’s complete inability to keep rogue states like North Korea and Iraq from gaining nuclear technology and weapons. From The UK Times Online:The spectre of a nuclear race in the Middle…

Then you have some Democrats that actually mean well, they say we want a winning strategy…ummmm don’t we ALL? Isn’t that what we have been trying so hard to do in the last few years? WIN!! Easy to spout a bunch of bull about what you want, but we h…

Ever wondered what was in the cache of captured Iraqi documents (besides the plans that indicate Saddam was months away from having an atomic device)?…

Or could it be that the “private protests” of IAEA officials are overblown?

Politics over substance.

Syria? Or in a sealed bunker under the flowing Tigris? Or…?

(The NYT will probably reveal that they exactly knew where they were all along …right after the 2008 election.)

Oliver Willis (among others) is going bananas over allegations in the NY Times that the Bush administration put Iraqi documents on the web that supposedl gave third w……

That’s right RightWinged.

MSNBC is still running it as a Bush screwed up on releasing the info.

No mention of the proof of a year away.

BobK on November 3, 2006 at 4:30 PM

I’m actually iffy on that part BobK, it’s unclear what they meant about that (when they were a year away)… However the larger point the media needs to be asking, which I have to say I now saw John Gibson tackle, is “why is this stuff a danger to put up on the internet, I thought Saddam wasn’t a threat?” If it’s a threat for us to put this information on the internet, it was a threat in Saddam’s hands, plain and simple. But the even larger point than that is this document dump slow trickle of documents… I’d be willing to bet a tiny fraction of the public is even aware of what has been revealed in the few that have been released and translated. Head over to Captain’s Quarters if you need to catch up everyone. Saddam – Al Qaeda ties, ongoing WMD programs, etc. etc.

By the way, anyone seen the tabloids in the grocery store lately? I was at the store earlier and while waiting in line say “The Globe” (or one of those stupid things) and it had George and Laura on the front with giant headline announcing their impending divorce… I think it was Laura who “just couldn’t take it anymore” or something.

*****UPDATE – BUMPED 11/3 1:29 PM ET***** Hoekstra Responds (via Malkin) and AllahPundit house the Round II Round-UP. SCROLL FOR MORE & FOLLOW LINKS. ***UPDATE – ARTICLE POSTED – A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING. SCROLL FOR ANALYSIS*** *****UPDATE 11/3 8:41……

It’s been all over Fox all day, and I can only assume everywhere else. I’m sure the evening news programs will pick it up, etc. etc. That’s the problem. NY Times just sets the stage and the rest run wild with it, and outside of the right-side of the blogosphere, no one is getting the proper framing.

RightWinged on November 3, 2006 at 4:20 PM

True – Good post, RightWinged. As Laura Ingraham always points out, to the average working person who only has time to watch the nightly MSM news, this kind of story only gets played from the NYT’s point of view.

So, the NYT brought a November surprise today. I guess with circulation plummeting, they figured they better delay the date of their bi-annual attack for maximum effect. The Al-QaQaa dust-up of ’04 happened in late October.
But let’s take a look at….

From the 2002 NIE: How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several mo…

MSNBC is still running it as a Bush screwed up on releasing the info.

No mention of the proof of a year away.

But the real question is: Does anyone who isn’t already voting “D” take the NYT seriously anymore? It’s one thing to argue that the NYT might be on the wrong side of certain statutes regarding the disclosure of classified information, but in terms of influence – really, isn’t the NYT (like Fox News) just preaching to the choir?

Enrique on November 3, 2006 at 2:57 PM

Again the problem, first of all is that the average American isn’t aware at just how bad the liberal bias in the media is, though they increasingly know there is one to an extent… But the main point is that it doesn’t matter that this is the Times, because everyone else picked it up. It’s been all over Fox all day, and I can only assume everywhere else. I’m sure the evening news programs will pick it up, etc. etc. That’s the problem. NY Times just sets the stage and the rest run wild with it, and outside of the right-side of the blogosphere, no one is getting the proper framing.