The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb.
so, um, there should've been a whole lot of physical evidence of this, while the inspectors were there. and even if it evaded the inspectors, we were there in 2003.
so, where is the physical evidence? where is the material, the manufacturing facilities, the partially-completed subsystems?
you don't go from a plan without anything to implement that plan to bomb in a year.
So, Cleek, which of these files is accurate? The documents the Times mentions describes:
1) Saddam being 12 months away from having a nuke.
2) Saddam's intelligence service harboring multiple Jihadi terror organizations
and the coupe de grace:
3) Saddam's intelligence service had multiple meetings with Al Qaeda/Bin Laden before and after 9/11.
So either the documents are real - in which case the Democrats are dead. Or the documents are fake - in which case the Times is dead.
Game. Set. Match.
The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb.
but that's not what the NYT actually said. read it again, slowly.
so, i will repeat my question: if they were a year away, where's the physical evidence ? you don't go from plans-on-paper to a bomb in less than a year. we were there, in 2003. if they were a year away in 2002, they should have been pretty much done in 2003. so, where is the physical evidence ?
They were a year a way in 1991, not 2002. In 2002 they had nothing.
Vote Republican, if you think things are going really well.
Click the sig for some of the physical evidence. Photos from 2001 (not 1991) that indicate Hussein's intelligence troops were worried the U.S. was going to discover their links to Al Qaeda.
It just keeps getting better and better for the Times.
I recently found a very interesting website:
http://alreadylinked.com/
There you can purchase ad space for your Blog etc.
best site
http://www.onlinecasino.org.in'
"...it revealed another classified program called SWIFT"
No, SWIFT is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transactions (www.swift.com), one of the major processors of financial transactions between banking institutions (especially in Europe). The NYT didn't reveal anything that Bush himself hadn't already said publicly--except that the program was being conducted without any judicial oversight. SWIFT itself is not secret, the fact that it processes financial transactions is not secret, and the fact that it has programs to detect money laundering and terrorism-related transactions is not secret.
thanks, mr. literalist, i mean mr. lippard! the new york times ombudsman later admitted that revealing the swift terrorist-tracking program was a mistake.
but thanks for pointing out the one-word omission, mr. franken!
Commenting by HaloScan
