It's the November surprise that backfires right onto the NYT, just as they thought it was the move of checkmate on that lying President Bush. The NYT got a little greedy about publishing national security secrets, giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war and now they look like the buffoons they are on the editorial pages.
A website put up by the U.S. Dept of Intelligence has been shut down today after claims that sensitive weapon making techniques are published on it. Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency were upset about the public disclosure.
The New York Times published findings from some of the 48,000 boxes of documents captured in Iraq by our soldiers and coalition forces. The government shut down the website due to information on the Iraqi nuke program put together by Saddam. In the course of disclosing the information about the program, some info was published that is better off left out. This info is readily available from other sources on the internet, to be sure, but there is no need for our government to be publishing it for anyone to see.
Remember the argument that all the documents found were not important? Remember the argument that the old weapons left in Iraq and buried in the desert were old and not important? Remember the argument that Saddam sent weapons out of the country just before the war began?
The New York Times has validated those believing the President, his advisors and the members of the intelligence community concerning the nuke program underway by Saddam. He was probably a year away from the atomic bomb, according to the documents.
In order to validate the "Bush lied" crowd, the war conspiracy would have to include our country's administration, the administration of all the coalition countries and all major intelligence gathering agencies worldwide.
The New York Times wanted to continue on with the theme of bashing the Bush administration and giving aid and comfort to our enemy. Their continued theme of sedition.
We are a nation at war.
The timing of this article says it all. This website has been up since March. This once respected newspaper hates President Bush more than they want our soldiers to complete the mission.
Our military hasn't lost a battle in Iraq. Those killing each other are Iraqis and outside insurgents.
If President Bush had not continued on with the settled policy of our government, which was regime change in Iraq and established in 1998 under Clinton, and the coalition of the willing agreed with the impending war, and the U.N. gave Saddam 17 resolutions before the war began which he never lived up to, and our pilots were being shot at in the no-fly zone created at the end of the first Gulf War, then what do you suppose the voices would have said in this country? They would have accused him of incompetence and not acting in the best interest of our country when the atomic bomb was developed in Iraq.
It can't go both ways. Tough decisions had to be made. Clinton kicked it all down the road and we were attacked on our own soil on September 11, 2001. We were all lulled into thinking it was all about the economy, stupid, throughout the emergence of radical Muslim forces in the world. They were determined to make a move.
Saddam has been removed from power. He will be convicted from his first trial, maybe on Sunday.
Our economy is still going full tilt. Lowest unemployment numbers ever. Dow at a record high. More minorities are homeowners than ever before. Low interest rates. All of this as we are a nation at war.
Have you seen the commercial made by Kurdistan thanking us for freedom and democracy? If it doesn't bring a tear to your eye, well, you're a tougher person than me.
"If you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
"The fact that the fighting is tough doesn't mean our effort isn't worth it." - George W. Bush