The document is dated 1995. So is the reprint made by the IAEA for the UN in 2002.

Sheesh. Faith based reading comprehension.

Regards, C

In short, as of 2003, Saddam Hussein was approximately one year away from having nuclear capability.

*sigh*

"At that time" refers to the closest antecedent. So start from that phrase and count backwards to find the nearest "time." See "Persian Gulf War"? See how it's closer to "at that time" then "2002"?

Good lord. I could never be a teacher; dealing with the children on the internets is trying enough.

And you guys are seriously still supporting these boobs?

Katrina non-response, Iraq train wreck, endless spending, endless red ink...

It will take decades to repair the damage to our country, assuming anyone can even figure out HOW to repair the damage.

Yeah - what’s a little genocide amongst friends.

You'll have to ask Rumsfeld that.

In short, as of 2003, Saddam Hussein was approximately one year away from having nuclear capability.

Bithead, you're living up to your screen name, as usual.

you're right, in that neither side is paying attention to the meat of this particular story. Look about fourteen paragraphs down into the story on the New York Times and you'll find this little tidbit;

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.

In short, as of 2003, Saddam Hussein was approximately one year away from having nuclear capability.

But as Dave says, some myths die hard; The left is never going to admit that he was about to become a very serious threat indeed.

Same thing he was doing before we invaded, jack-squat.

Yeah - what's a little genocide amongst friends.

the real point is the Bush administration complete incompetence in losing the peace
and strengthen our enemies.

has any President done more damage to US interest then this incompetent?

i have no problem with the war. But it have a massive problem with losing the war through sheer incompetence.

You forget that the inspectors did not get back into Iraq until there were a 100,000 plus troops on his borders.

You're right, and the appropriate thing to do would have been to bring them home when the inspectors didn't find anything, rather than send them into this debacle. And don't give me the inspection interference nonsense.

You display a charming amount of naive faith with that quote. Saddam invaded Iran in 1980, and then invaded Kuwait in 1991. Of course he had not done jack-squat between those actions so that obviously means he would not do something like that again.

Right, Saddam was in the exact same position in 2002 and 2003 that he was in 1980 and 1990 and was just as capable of launching invasions of neighboring countries.

What a remarkable thing to read, in the week of the "stuck in Iraq" press frenzy.

And here’s my $.02 on this kerfuffle…

Appropriately priced...

...where did the Times put all of those “Martha Burke protesting Augusta” stories?

Say it aint so!
You mean that the NYTimes caters to those predisposed to perpetual (and manufactured) outrage?
What's next?
A story how global warming caused the sun to rise an hour early this past sunday?

GW tried to finish what his father started, only to find out that the elder Bush had wrapped things up quite nicely.

Yes, Saddam was a monster - was that enough?

Even Kuwait protested about the invasion, and they'd been invaded by Saddam not long before. Iran protested, yet had the most to gain. Every other U.S. ally in the region other than Israel, even though all disliked Saddam, stood aside and gave faint praise rather than welcome regime change. Why?

There is a major difference between pre-emptive and preventive war. While the former is still considered aggressive the latter opens a Pandora’s Box the likes of which one must needs look to the Roman Empire of old to justify. If tomorrow the U.S. decides that Jordan's monarchical government is also not well suited to her people, does she have the right to overthrow that regime as well? Suppose the U.S. decides that Saudi Arabia is in need of “liberation?” Russia? China? Or that some other nation decides it should follow America's example (I'm thinking Russia and Georgia as a possibility here)?

The point is that even though this argument was probably the strongest case the Bush administration could have made (and is now pretty much the only one, outside Cheney's ravings), it is also one of the most flawed outside of a vacuum (i.e. when applied on a broad range in international politics). International politics is less like tiddliwinks than you seem to think.

Regards, Cernig