New York Times unleashes Al-Qaqaa II: shoots self in foot

Oh, and about those WMDs and terrorists: Iraq had 'em, according to the Times

Remember Al-Qaqaa? This was the explosives site that American forces supposedly failed to secure after the invasion of Iraq.


Over an eight-day period leading up to the 2004 Presidential election, the New York Times published 16 articles and seven letters attacking the Bush administration for "incompetence."


The trouble with the story was, of course, that it was completely fabricated. As it turned out, less than four hundred -- out of 400,000 -- tons were unaccounted for. Oh, and the weapons may have been removed before the invasion.


In fact, the story was truly so unimportant that, after November 1st, 2004, the Times didn't bother to run a single article concerning Al-Qaqaa.


Al-Qaqaa became synonymous with "just another Times hit-piece".


In another attempt at a "November Surprise," the Times reveals today that Saddam Hussein was 12 months away from acquiring an atomic weapon.


Let me repeat that: The New York Times is confirming that in 2002, Iraq was one year away from building an atomic bomb.


The entire "Bush lied" meme -- which was obviously and patently false based upon statements by Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, John Kerry, et. al., -- has been utterly, completely obliterated by the Times.


Laughably, the Times hasn't yet quite recognized the damage it has done to the Democratic cause.


It over-analyzed the story, figuring the disclosure of Iraqi atomic- and terrorist secrets would aid the Democrats.


But instead it simply confirms the position of the Bush Administration on WMDs:


Hussein was both startlingly close to gaining access to an atomic weapon...


...and had documented, confirmed ties with global Islamofascist terrorist organizations!


Further, said disclosures pale in comparison with the litany of national security secrets disclosed by the Times that aided terrorists:


...it revealed a classified program that wiretapped international phone calls between suspected terrorist enclaves and the U.S....


...it revealed another classified program called SWIFT (an international bank reporting system that even the Times later admitted was perfectly legal)...


...and it leaked yet another classified data-mining program that analyzed phone-numbers called (which, again, no one has claimed was illegal)...


...and it released (while selectively censoring) the classified NIE report in order to damage the Bush administration.


Now the Times has provided the ultimate fuel for a GOP victory. It has bolstered the Bush administration's arguments and burnished President Bush's reputation for blatant honesty. The net result as revealed by the Times:


The invasion of Iraq prevented Hussein from gaining access to a nuke -- and providing it to his terrorist cronies.

Thank you, New York Times.


Vote Republican.



Oven-fresh good readin', just like Mama used to make:
7.62mm Justice: Times is worried about leaks
Anchoress: NY Times: Bush told truth! Saddam a threat! Yellowcake!
Blue Crab Boulevard: The November Surprise
Captain's Quarters: FSMO documents are legit!
Gateway Pundit: NYT: Saddam Was a Year Away from Building A-Bomb!
Fausta's Blog: Saddam was a year away from having a nuclear bomb
Flopping Aces: Grey Lady discovers Saddam had nuclear intentions
Hot Air: November Surprise!
Hugh Hewitt: Calling Rick Santorum, calling Pennsylvania and Grey Lady's November Surprise
Michelle Malkin: Suddenly, the Times is worried about disclosures
Q and O: Almost Nuclear Iraq
Rick Moran: Irony so thick you can bathe in it
STACLU: Saddam closer to a Bomb than anyone thought
Wizbang: Someone owes Dick Cheney an apology and Heads GOP wins, Tails Dems Lose