Pelosi for President
 

Damn, just when we were on the verge of convincing Elorocks, Harry Boy, Real World, QuiGon, Patsfan13, FTW, etc. to become flaming liberals, the server goes down. Now, for sure, they all had a relapse, and we have to start all over. Oh, well, maybe in 2008. :)

Re: Pelosi for President
 

:D :D

I was having withdrawl symptons.

BTW I hope you saw the story in the Times about the Iraqi docs the translated, you know the ones I keep referencing that you libs think aren't real. So how do you feel about the sainted NYT's validating them?

:singing:

Re: Pelosi for President
 

I didn't see the article, but I'll see if I can find it tomorrow at the NYT site. My issue with those docs was not that they were real, but whether they represented anything more than an obscure connecton between Al Qaea and Iraq. Let's face it, in a bureacracy the size of any government, there are bound to be some unlikely connections, but whether they represent official policy is far less clear. Hell, we've had some unholy alliances in our time too, but it doesn't represent American policy.

Re: Pelosi for President
 

Not bein' able to poke fun at any netwitcons since yesterday morning has not been easy.

Re: Pelosi for President
 

The Times reported that Iraq was close to having Nukes in 2002 and that dos ( about a half dozen) showed diagrams and tech info for their nuke device design.

Their spin was that this info in the wrong hands was athreat to our securoty (I agree, but perhaps they believe that in Saddam's hands they weren't a threat? LOL).

The legislation putting the docs on the web specified that no docs with narl sec implications should be published, appapently someone in the intel community screwed up. Or perhaps an October suprise. The conservative bloggers are all over the Times acknowledgimg that they docs are important, while ignoring the docs documenting the Saddam Al Queda connection.

Re: Pelosi for President
 

This is funny. I guess your right. Googled the article. Here's an excerpt.


Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.



And another excerpt.

In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier.

The Iraqi document is marked “Draft FFCD Version 3 (20.12.95),” meaning it was preparatory for the “Full, Final, Complete Disclosure” that Iraq made to United Nations inspectors in March 1996. The document carries three diagrams showing cross sections of bomb cores, and their diameters.

On Sept. 20, the site posted a much larger document, “Summary of technical achievements of Iraq’s former nuclear program.” It runs to 51 pages, 18 focusing on the development of Iraq’s bomb design. Topics included physical theory, the atomic core and high-explosive experiments. By early October, diplomats and officials said, United Nations arms inspectors in New York and their counterparts in Vienna were alarmed and discussing what to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/wo...ref=technology

Re: Pelosi for President