I think that the NY Times has made a tactical mistake in their latest attempt to nail Bush.
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war….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 John Negroponte, 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.
Check out the full article: Web Archive is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer.
OK, what’s so ironic and funny about this story, at least to me? The NY Times has been slamming Bush for months claiming that he lied or misled the public as to whether Iraq under Saddam had WMD. Now they are assaulting Bush for putting up Iraqi documents on a public web site that they claim is too dangerous and too close to the full blueprints of a nuclear bomb. I’m uncertain how close the blueprints put Saddam to actually building a nuke, but from what I understand about the level of detail and understanding that existed in those blueprints, they were close enough to justify our aggressive military attention. So by trying to nail Bush today for “carelessly” publishing nuclear secrets on the web, the NY Times inadvertently undercut their primary argument against Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Hilarious.
And besides, since when has the NY Times been all about secrecy and maintaining the confidentiality of government documents?
I also have the feeling that this story should be bigger than what the MSM is currently making it, but ya know, there’s no liberal media bias, so I must be mistaken, right?