Zombie lies: 101st edition

By now everyone is familiar with the New York Times article stating that the 101st fighting keyboarder's favorite gem, the Santorum-Hokstra inspired release of raw, untranslated, unread documents on the internet for bloggers to translate to show that Saddam was indeed a bad boy with tons of WMD, was dangerous to international security.

Not content to just leave it at that, the 101st retorts that this proves Saddam was just 1 year from a nuclear bomb and Bush was right to invade Iraq. Problem is, the year in question wasn't 2002. No matter to the 101st; because this lie is just too good for them to pass up...

Gateway

So now the New York Times says that Saddam was a year away from building an atom bomb!

Captain Ed

That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it.

Right Wing Nuthouse

Ed points to this excerpt that seems to explode a few cherished myths of the left about how close Saddam was to building an atomic bomb

Strata-Sphere

But I guess the NY Times is also now admitting Iraq had WMD capabilities! I mean, if Iraq had designs helpful to Iran then Iraq was ahead of Iran in gaining a nuclear weapon. Therefore, it is a good thing we grabbed this information before Saddam shared it with Iran and Al Qaeda.

Hugh Hewitt

The “news” in the story is how far along Saddam was in his bid to acquire the ultimate WMD.

Red State

only had the article already, in the name of showing the incompetence of the Bush administration (and, by extension in this election season, of the Republican Party as a whole) to maintain America’s national security, admitted that Saddam’s government had been actively pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but in that one brief paragraph they pulled the rest of the “Bush lied” and “Iraq was no threat” house of cards completely to the ground, with the contention that in 2002 – on the very eve of the Iraq invasion – Saddam was less than one year away from building an atomic bomb. America seems to have made it there just in time.

Confederate Yankee

The Times may have set out to attack Bush, but instead, they have justified the rationale for the 2003 invasion.

Political Pit Bull

Was Saddam A Year Away From Obtaining A Nuclear Weapon in 2002?: There's some talk about that because of this from The Times' report

Powerline

Did the Times just say that Saddam's Iraq was a year away from building a nuclear weapon? I guess so. Good thing Saddam's no longer in power

Tigerhawk

Wait a minute. Iraq had WMD programs?!? Iraq was "on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away"? You're 'shittin' me! And here I thought Bush lied.

Jim Geraghty

Is this sentence referring to 1990, before the Persian Gulf War? Or 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq? Because "Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war.

The list goes on. I seem to remember some mention of blogger ethics...