Are they this desperate? The dumbest RW spin EVER (re: NYT Nuke story)

[troublemaker]

Here is National Review Online's try at preemptive spin (marching orders to the RW media shock troops):

"I'm still kinda blown away by this paragraph: Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq 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.

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."

http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=

Note: NRO's "The Corner" bloghag K Lopex has already signaled that this is a good line of attack.

The RW may make a kamikazee effort to spin the NYT nuke data story (link below) as proving that Iraq had a nuclear program. That spin is not spin, interpretation, opinion or anything else. It is a flat lie. (But has that stopped them lately?)

The NYT story is quite clear that the documents in question were about Iraq's well-known pre-1991 nuclear program. But I swear to God, Rush Limbaugh is going to read this tomorrow and trumpet that "even" the New York Times has admitted that Iraq was on the verge of nukes when Bush took us in. That's the level of desperation they are at. He will say, "we're tlking about events as late as 2002!"

It is important that if any RW nut tries to offer this interpretation he or she be met with nothing but derision. I doubt anyone will try this on TV because even a FOX host might feel obliged to call them on it. It's that lame. But this will be radio talk-show and internet blog and comment fodder.

There is no ambiguity whatsoever. The article refers to an historical document from 2002 about pre-1990 Iraqi data. It does not refer to any Iraq nuke program in 2002. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not making a political point. They are lying. (Or illiterate or insane... take your pick)

NYT Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp=&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[troublemaker]

1. re: Kathryn Jean Lopez's assent

"NYTimes Scoop My first thought was TKS's"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

It is chilling that anyone could have that "first thought"

("The Corner" is a incubator for RW internet group-think)

[troublemaker]

2. They are realllllllly stupid. It has spread to "Instapundit" (link)

http://instapundit.com/archives/033723.php

[BootinUp]

3. Another Urban myth begins.

How do you stop them? answer: you can't

[Oilwellian]

4. The mighty Wurlitzer is in full spin mode!

We are watching it unfold before our very eyes! But they will have to answer this one nagging question....if indeed Saddam had the blueprints to build an atom bomb, why oh why would Bush and the republican congress publish those blueprints on the internet? :rofl:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. You know freeperdom can't stand truth Troublemaker... thanks for the post :-) n/t

[troublemaker]

6. Update & link: They're going with it. Condi Rice and Bartlett have adopted the big lie > > >

Secretary of Hack

by digby


Wow. Andrea Mitchell just reported that the Secretary of State went on Laura Ingraham's wingnut propaganda show and said the "Army of Davids" documents proved that Saddam was working on a nuclear program. Lucky for us that Mitchell pointed out that the documents were from before the first Gulf War.

I understand that hacks like Limbaugh and Instapundit would try to pass this nonsense off to the neanderthal base, but for the Secretary of State to lower herself and her office to say such a thing is shocking. Even for these people.

Update: Dan Bartlet's out there right now saying exactly the same thing. Mitchell corrected him, but this looks like the official party line. They really do think their base is completely braindead. They would know.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116257314001896631

[Guaranteed]

10. We have a response directly applicable to this election. See below. nt

[mhatrw]

7. potential cost vs. potential benefit analysis

Potential Cost: Terrorists get an A-bomb and use it on US citizens.

Potential Benefit: Helping a few true believers like NRO to unconvincingly argue that the fact the Iraq was a legitimate nuclear threat in 1991 was a great reason to invade and occupy an Iraq that was no longer a nuclear threat in 2003.

Once again, everything this administration does is about politics and nothing that it does is about competent governance.

[librechik]

8. The Puglies do nothing but "mishear" and "misinterpret" and make strawmen

that's all they can do t=since none of their real issues have any integrity. It's shameless. I hope most can see thru their BS by now.

[Guaranteed]

9. In other words, the Administration has become so absorbed in justifying the Iraq War

that they are willing to put our cities at serious risk of being destroyed by a nuclear bomb.

Even with their spin, it shows a serious weakness and lack of judgment on their part. It points to the fact that the Republicans can't govern efficiently or correctly with all of the mistakes that they've made, and that it's time for them to step aside.

[troublemaker]

11. Update: Sean Hannity radio show is all about this now... it is spreading

Has any RW type tried to trot this out on TV yet, or is it just talk radio so far?

[walldude]

12. Uh.. I think even if they weren't lying we could let the air out

of their arguement. Here: "Ok I was wrong, Saddam was within a year of having nukes. And now so is Al-Quaeda and Osama thanks to you giving out his information." Heckuva job. Medals all around.