Posted by
Saint Michael on Friday, November 03, 2006 5:03:09 PM
Excerpt from the NYT story on the Nuclear Web Archive.
"The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who said that the nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the March 2003 invasion. With the public increasingly skeptical about the rationale and conduct of the war, the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the documents — most of them in Arabic — would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr. Hussein had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the invasion. American search teams never found such evidence."
Here's the piece that I would like to focus on. We didn't go to war simply because Saddam had "resumed his unconventional arms programs" prior to the invasion. One additional reason was that he had violated UN resolutions for 12 years regarding the destruction of his previous WMD programs. Those allegations have been proven through WMD that has been found in Iraq (and subsequently discounted by the MSM) and made public by Senator Santorum. The MSM has disputed any WMD that has been found in Iraq since the war started by claiming that it was 1. not the WMD used as justification for the war or 2. that the WMD was degraded enough that it did not count as WMD any longer. Both arguments fail to recognize that the mere fact we are talking about WMD means, and this is important, that Iraq had WMD to begin with.
While the story claims that "American search teams never found such evidence." they are only referring to the premise that Saddam had started up his WMD programs again and discounts his previous programs, which we have in fact found evidence of.
This news from the NYT, as so many people have already pointed out, was a double edged sword for the NYT. Do they break the story to make the Administration look bad or do they hold it and get accused of covering it up. The Administration was in a win-win situation by allowing the NYT to be in the position of proving the Administrations previous assertions.
Once again the fallacy of the WMD "lie" has been debunked. How many times does the "lie" need to be proven to not be a "lie" before the MSM accepts reality.