home

U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Days

The propoganda never stops. Bloomberg reports a State Department official is saying Iran could produce a nuclear bomb in 16 days, "if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant."

Josh Marshall:

Now, I'm pretty new to this issue. But even I can spot that Stephen Rademaker works for Robert Joseph. And that's the same Bob Joseph who was charged with muscling the CIA into letting President Bush use the Niger bamboozle in the 2003 State of the Union address. And he actually managed to get it done, even after the Alan Foley and others at the CIA told him repeatedly they didn't think it was true. So he certainly speaks with a lot of credibility on this issue.

Remember Robert Joseph from PlameGate and the "16 words" in Bush's SOTU? Robert Joseph was the force behind the inclusion, winning out over the CIA's Alan Foley, then the head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (and Valerie Plame's boss.)

When the State of the Union speech was being prepared, NSC official Robert Joseph faxed a paragraph on uranium from Niger to CIA official Alan Foley. Foley told Joseph that the reference to Niger should be taken out. Joseph insisted that a reference remain in the speech, so they compromised: Niger was changed to Africa; they did not include any specific quantity; and the source was attributed to the British rather than to U.S. intelligence. [33] Thus there was high level doubt about the wisdom of including the dubious claim about Niger in the president's State of the Union message, particularly since the same claim had been deleted from the president's October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati.

[33] Matthew Cooper, "Pinning the Line on the Man," Time (28 July 2003), p. 31. See also Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, "U.S. Had Uranium Papers Earlier," Washington Post (18 July 2003), p. 1, A12.

< Colin Powell Speaks: Never Believed Iraq a Nuclear Threat | The Election's Over, But Will the Ballots Be Counted? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#1)
    by Linkmeister on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    Yeah. What's left out? Step One: Acquire fifty thousand centrifuges.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#2)
    by Linkmeister on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:49:32 AM EST
    Should have added: I was told on the news yesterday that Iran has 164 centrifuges. Big jump to get to 50,000.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    Does that mean we have a date set for the invasion?

    Iraq, Iran, distinction without a difference, right?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#5)
    by norbizness on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    As it so happens, the SuperTarget in East Tehran has a special on centrifuges. Didn't Rademaker also announce that every day is Christmas, insofar his ifs and buts had been converted to candy and nuts?

    This report (2 pages) published yesterday contradicts the administration's latest claims re: Iran's announcement: "Iran Marks Step in Nuclear Development," by Nazila Fathi and Christine Hauser (New York Times). (See bottom of page 1 and rest of the article for the full qualifications.)
    David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private research group in Washington, said that the announcement that Iran was able to produce that level enrichment of enrichment had been expected, but that the quantities were probably very small. "They need to learn a lot more to produce it in significant quantities and they need to build a lot more centrifuges," he said.
    The "propaganda" that TL refers to is yet another instance of the Bush administration's playing "the fear card," and we are must call their bluff and not be duped (again). Iraq's Saddam Hussein in effect brought himself down by claiming to have greater nuclear capability than he had, which gave the Bush administration the argument that it could play into full-scale preemptive invasion of Iraq, basing its own lies upon such lies, even though it knew the truth (e.g., Plamegate). Iran appears (apparently suicidely) heading in the same direction. But we don't have to take the bait. We can use diplomacy and world pressure (UN sanctions, further isolation from world economic markets) to stop nuclear endgame. The procedures already are in place via the IAEA and nuclear disarmament treaties. The U.S. needs to work within the legal bodies of the world community to prevent going to war, not to promote going to war. Join voices of sanity and join in the campaign against war. (Don't Nuke Iran.)

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    Iraq's Saddam Hussein in effect brought himself down by claiming to have greater nuclear capability than he had, I disagree. Invading Iraq was the PNAC plan since the late 90's. It didn't matter what he said. We can use diplomacy and world pressure (UN sanctions, further isolation from world economic markets) to stop nuclear endgame. Not as long as Bushco is in charge.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#8)
    by Punchy on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    What happens to our cred when we get in there nad discover their centrifuge is really just some guy swinging a bucket around in circles and their "3% U" is a only a shiny piece of quartz taken from the Gulf? OT: 3 more US soliders dead today. Not that you'd even hear about it on the news or anything.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:54:33 PM EST
    A complete crock. This moronic meme that we'll have em but nobody else can - or will, was completely myopic and bankrupt from the beginning. The Pandoras box has been opened and instead of making a commitment to reining it on all sides the number one priority, we've continued on the same hypocritical course. Like a drunk driver courting disaster.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    Che's Lounge
    I disagree. Invading Iraq was the PNAC plan since the late 90's. It didn't matter what he said.
    Yes PNAC did have a plan, but Saddam helped it along. Just like Ahmadinejad is doing now. I think Susan's point is valid. Saddam was too embarrassed to admit that had no WMD's so he egged Bush along. Ahmadinejad couldn't give a sh*t about the West thinks because an attack would help him politically and proove all his rhetoric true.

    If Iran explodes a nuke somewhere it will be one that was smuggled to them via AQ Kahn's network, thanks to the outing of Valerie Plame and Brewster-Jennings, who were about in the business of breaking up such networks. IOW, the Bush/neocon cabal and their counterparts in Iran are conspiring to have a nuke exchange in some form or fashion.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    a State Department official is saying Iran could produce a nuclear bomb in 16 days A nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb. This is probably a lie - 5 to 10 years maybe. Either way, big effing deal. Someone (I can't recall who) here made a comment the other day that I'll paraphrase: Does anyone with even a minor working mind think that Iran would be suicidal enough to invite their own annihilation through nuclear holocaust by using one nuclear bomb offensively? I doubt it. But apparently bush is willing to use nuclear weapons offensively & preemptivley... Where does the insanity lie?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    narius-aren't you still on a short leash? Seems to me you are overlimit already. Where is the air freshener.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:33:58 PM EST
    Do you really want to bet your life on the rationality of people who belief they will be better off AFTER they die? narius, you're finally making sense. ;-) You're right, betting your life on the likes of bush is a losers game. You'd have to be completed off your nut to do something so psychotic.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    "After they die"? Thank God nobody in the U.S believes that.

    Thanks, Squeaky. Today's follow-up article by the same New York Times writers is worth reading too for further update re: Security Council & IAEA diplomatic avenues purportedly being pursued. One hopes (urges) that these diplomatic avenues are really being pursued; that Condi is not just performing like Colin Powell (contrary to his own better judgment) in a replay of the Bush administration's insincere pre-Iraq war mere going through the motions as a prelude to an already-determined course of war. (For anyone who hasn't read or seen or heard of the play, I recommend David Hare's Stuff Happens, now at the Public Theater, sold out through April 30th, extended through May 28th, in New York.)

    Jaun Cole has the inside information on Iran's nuclear capabilities on his web site right now.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    edger- thanks for recontextualizing our resident bloodluster's quote. It made me laugh as I remembered the late Spalding Gray quote He won't fly on the Balinese airline, Garuda, because he won't fly on any airline where the pilots believe in reincarnation. What a tragedy it was to lose him.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    You're welcome Squeaky. I know it keeps getting harder for him, so I thought "recontexualizing" might eaase the pressure on him. ;-)

    I agree with the assessment that it will take Iran somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-10 years to develop a nuclear weapon. Right now we have the option of "wait and see." At what point does that option cease to be real? 2 years out? 6 months? And given our notorious intelligence failures, why are we so quick to trust CIA estimates now? My understanding of Agency insiders is that we know even less about Iranian weapons programs than we did about those the Iraqis had in development. And finally, is the diplomatic path ( via sanctions and UN efforts) a realistic option given Russia and China have both expressed their opposition to sanctioning Iran?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    What the "State Department official" seems to be saying is that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon within 16 days once it has 50,000 centrifuges set up. Since they now have 164, that could take a while. So the question the media should be asking is, how long does the State Department think it will take for Iran to acquire 50,000 centrifuges? And how do they come up with the number 16?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    SHM, Squeaky, I never believed SH and I don't really believe the Iranians. Only a fool or a liar would. I draw my conclusions from the objective reports of the IAEA, not the bellicose rhetoric of individuals playing a game of nuclear chicken. That's exactly what Bush wants.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    Chase, So now you think we should start up with Iran? This is crazy, man. And who do you want to trust if not the only people with expertise? People all through the CIA knew what a fiasco Iraq would be, they know what a disaster Iran would be. Tell me, do you simply think scattering nuclear fallout all over the middle east is going to be a solution? Imagination is the key. Right now, our leadership has zero. We are run by people of such uncreative nature it's almost astonishing. And trusting Bush on ANYTHING right now, or his administration, is not something any rational human should do. Unless they like to trust entities without an ounce of track record for being trustworthy. We have nothing but violence to offer right now. Nothing. We talk about diplomacy like it's something we have to do in a closet. We need to do it out in the open, with a good deal of humility and the ability to say, "Boy have we f'd you over in the past..." The world is littered with REAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and we're going to go to war over NON-EXISTENT ONES? Amazing. Fear of the unknown and the other is so capable of making us do stupid things. And we're doing them now, over and over and over.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    Dadler-
    We talk about diplomacy like it's something we have to do in a closet.
    Not even in the closet. An envoy has come over from Iran and the WH says no go.
    A senior Iranian official, Mohammad Nahavandian, has flown to Washington to "lobby" over the issue...... But the White House insisted on Thursday that its own offer of talks with Iran, extended several months ago by Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Baghdad, was limited to the subject of Iraq.
    link via laura rozen

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#26)
    by aahpat on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    Bovine excriment!

    Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden should be coming out with a new tape soon urging all Iranian's to build nuclear weapons and to use them Jihad style against Bush.

    Dadler: I re-read my post just to make sure I didn't advocate, or even infer, that I think we should "start up" with Iran. I merely asked what the limits of our patience should be. Putting words in my mouth--man, that is crazy. So if the CIA announced tomorrow that Iranian nukes are imminent within 6 months, would you change your tune on our relations with Iran? Probably not. In all likelihood, you would change your position on the CIA. However, this is purely hypothetical and doesn't warrant a response. You mention the need for "imagination" (presumably not the kind of imagination" Sen. Reid displayed on the Senate floor) but you do so only to criticize the current admin for having none. What "imaginative" strategies for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons are out there? I have yet to hear anything, save the Hawkish "preventative plan" and the Dovish "ignore-it plan", that is actionable. I agree that more options are better, but what, from your perspective, do those options entail? Finally, I'm pretty sure fear, in this case, is of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Iran, more than the US, is opposed to diplomacy. Will you condemn them, just as you have condemned the US?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:27:28 PM EST
    Chase-So what is the big worry that Iran develops the bomb in 5-10 years? Do you think that they may attempt pre-emptive attacks on other country's nukes? Hmmm.....

    Do you really want to bet your life on the rationality of people who belief they will be better off AFTER they die? Ironically, these same people elected Bush

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    billmon has been quite active lately. Worth reading. All about the Iran war drums. Artios suggests pouring a stiff drink first. And if you don't have the patience to read all the posts here is the link for the one atrios recommended a stiff drink for.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#32)
    by john horse on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:41:47 PM EST
    The problem with any Bush plans for Iran is that they must take place in the context of what has happened in Iraq. As a result of Iraq, Bush lacks the credibility that he would need in order to get public support for a war with Iran. As a result of Iraq, we would go into this alone, the UK is probably the only ally that would join us in any military operation. As a result of Iraq, we don't have the military manpower to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran. As a result of Iraq, we cannot afford another war economically. Finally, because of Iraq, the only conclusion that countries like North Korea and Iran can come to is that their only guarantee from invasion is to actually possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has left our country in a weaker position in relation to countries like Iran and North Korea. Before you threaten another country, you need to have an answer ready to the question "or what?" Since I believe we cannot launch another invasion and occupation like we did in Iraq, the only actions we can take are economic sanctions or to launch missile or air strikes. Of course Iran could then retaliate. For example, many of the Shiite government leaders in Iraq are close allies of the Iranian government. What would happen if that community turned on us?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    Finally, I'm pretty sure fear, in this case, is of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Iran, more than the US, is opposed to diplomacy. Will you condemn them, just as you have condemned the US?
    we don't live in Iran; we don't vote in Iran; Iran couldn't possibly come up with an actual weapon before 5 to 10 years, (16 days is a lie that even bushlickers can't believe.) chase, consider, just maybe, in the realm of possibility, in the next 3 years the world might be able to convince Iran to stop enriching plutonium? That's still a 2 year margin at the worst case. Besides, we just encouraged India to develop more nukes than they already have, outside of the non-proliferation treaty. India is not the most stable country in the world, [/understatement] The whole world knows we knowingly lied about Iraq, they aren't going to fall for it again. Even if it was true. (See Peter and the Wolf, et al.)

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:53:20 PM EST
    Yeah if Iran had nukes it sure would screw up the old PNAC game plan wouldnt it? Thats what theyre really worried about. Not this what-if-they-nuke (very nuclear) Israel b.s.

    Sailor said:
    chase, consider, just maybe, in the realm of possibility, in the next 3 years the world might be able to convince Iran to stop enriching plutonium?
    It's a definite possibility. I hope it happens. What do we do if it doesn't, and Iran is still as bellicose as it is today toward Israel, the US and the UN? Then what? Hopefully there will be an internally induced revolution that will overthrow the Ayatollah and install a more moderate, liberal government. Whatever the case, a nuclear Iran is plainly unacceptable (are you listening, Jondee?).

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    Chase - Is a nuclear U.S (I know its the greatest country that ever was or will be), Great Britain, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, China etc "acceptable"? Grow up and quit drinking the kool-aid; its about deterence. If Iran wanted to consign thier entire nation and all the "holy sites" to martyrdom, they would've done it by now.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:54:25 PM EST
    And you can trace the Ayatollahs rise to power back to when we expedited a coup that overthrew a "more moderate" elected president and installed a dictator in the 50s. Maybe we'll ( the hell with them) get it right this time.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:55:15 PM EST
    Chase, What do you THINK I mean by imaginative? You oughtta be able to at least predict SOME of my reply. But I'll get back to that in a second. As for inferring you wanted to start up with them, I admit that's my take on the subtext of your message. That you don't think talking serves any point and that we're ultimately gonna have to go military on them. Sorry, just my take. Now, back to the first part: We can think and imagine and engage on a human level with humility and self-awareness and self-criticism, or we can go the military violence route. Example: You start by telling the president of Iran, in response to his implication the holocaust never happened, that this would be like the president of the U.S. saying no no, we didn't support the shah and hinder democracy in your country for so long; or that we also didn't prop up Saddaam; or there was never slavery in the U.S.; Or that the Russians never invaded Afghanistan. Or that the Japanese didn't commit atrocities in China in WWII; or that those same Russians didn't suffer more war dead than anyone. Facts must be faced, ugly realities, and if that means both sides have to admit they can both be full of sh*t, then good. You show the opposition a humble, self-aware side that I doubt any foreign power is used to dealing with in a situation like this. That's how you start, and you play to your opponents' humanity by evidencing your own toward them. But that, of course, requires evolved leaders with senses of history and humility and humor we just ain't got right now.

    Jondee: Iran is a staunch supporter of terrorism and there's no reason to believe that will cease in the near future. No to mention Iran having nukes upsets the balance of power in the ME with regard to Israel. Rumminate on that one.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:14:42 PM EST
    Chase-were you born yesterday or just have led a sheltered life. Bush is a staunch supporter of terrorism, contrary to what he says. Some of it openly recognized as terrorism, i.e. the PKK. and, don't forget about those Mojahedin-e Khalq fighters at Ashrafiyah Base in Iraq, Iranian terrorists of whom the Pentagon just doesn't seem able to let go.. and some of it is referred to by euphemisms. Did you think that we are different than others, somehow more civilized. Ha ha ha.

    Squeaky, you're right. You're absolutely right. There is nothing that separates our human rights record from that of Iran. Who's drinking Kool-Aid now?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    Chase- It all depends who is writing the record. Here is a bit about the history of car bombs. Guess who started using them in the mid-east 1948? Ever hear of theStern gang? And in terms of human rights, dear leader says "we don't torture" meanwhile he refuses to follow the McCain anti-torture bill after it is watered down, by his infamous signing statement. Yes our human right record is great if you are going by the presidents lies. I could hear people like you say 'it depends on who you call human' You are living in a self righteous bubble. Ethnocentric to the max.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#43)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 10:23:20 PM EST
    Yeah Squeaky but Chase can cut and paste the talking points real neat like. Here's a dollar kid. Go play some video games.

    The 16 days to a nuclear weapon is as phony as the 16 words Bush used in his SOTU to suggest Iraq was seeking yellow cake Uranium from Niger.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#45)
    by Aaron on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:58:09 AM EST
    This has got to be some seriously distorted propaganda because even the US couldn't produce a new nuclear device in 16 days. Not possible.

    Clearly Iran, Saddam, Osama,Taliban and other Islamocons want to fight and we just keep taking the bait. Never wrestle in the mud with pigs because you both get filthy and the pig LOVES IT. I hear Osama laughing everyday.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#47)
    by john horse on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 03:46:52 AM EST
    Aaron, re:"This has got to be some seriously distorted propaganda because even the US couldn't produce a new nuclear device in 16 days." The source of this claim, Stephen Rademaker worked for Robert Joseph, the Bush administration official who helped get the infamous 16 words into Bush's State of the Union address. When you consider the source, you have reason to be wary.

    Che: Instead of attempting to diminish my arguments by posing substantive responses, you claim I merely "cut and paste talking points", presumably GOP/PNAC/"Reich-wing" talking points. Nice try. I'm a conservative (not a neo-conservative, though their platform is intriguing) but I'm certainly not at Plug-and-Vote Republican. I guess you're incapable and unwilling to actually debate the topic and instead regurgitate the threadbare "neo-con!" shrill cry. Typical.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:34:58 AM EST
    et al - The statement is easy to understand. IF, and let's say it again, IF Iran installs enough equipment they can then produce enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon, probably within the time frame indicated. What you have is the time to assemble something after you have the parts. I see nothing inaccurate on incorrect in that statement. Now, dloberk writes:
    The 16 days to a nuclear weapon is as phony as the 16 words Bush used in his SOTU to suggest Iraq was seeking yellow cake Uranium from Niger.
    Actually, Bush's comment was also correct.
    ...former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki....said, however, that in June 1999,(name deleted) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.
    I assume you understand the difference between a purchase, which the MSM and various Leftist pundits have falsely attributed to Bush saying had occurred, and an attempt to purchase. And I ask. What did Iraq need yellowcake for? The answer is clear. Saddam wanted to get back into the WMD business, as reported in the Kay Report. Of even more interest, given the attention now on Iran, and the excuses many here use regarding Iran's attention, is this from the same intelligence report.
    Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran.


    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#50)
    by peacrevol on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 07:20:07 AM EST
    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH I see...it was a typo...IraN is the country with the nuclear weapons...not IraQ. oops

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#51)
    by peacrevol on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 07:40:15 AM EST
    Does anyone with even a minor working mind think that Iran would be suicidal enough to invite their own annihilation through nuclear holocaust by using one nuclear bomb offensively?
    Maybe, Maybe not, but if they build nuclear weapons, are they inclined to sell them to al zarqawi or someone else with his mindset? More importantly, are they able to competantly and effectively secure them so that they cant be stolen by someone like that? Those are additional problems with Iranian nuclear weapons possibilities. But...another Iraq would be dumber than the first. Why cant we have intel and let Iran continue with their nuclear research? It may just so happen that they stumble on a really good alternative energy source that is efficient enough to make gas/oil obsolete. Why cant we just put a satellite up there and watch them to make sure thy dont make nuclear weapons? I think we should do that and tell them they can continue with their research, but we'll be watching and if we see anything that resembles a nuclear weapon, we'll send in the cavalry.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#52)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:17:15 AM EST
    Hopefully there will be an internally induced revolution that will overthrow the Ayatollah and install a more moderate, liberal government. Whatever the case, a nuclear Iran is plainly unacceptable Iran is a staunch supporter of terrorism and there's no reason to believe that will cease in the near future. If you ever come up with an original thought, we'll debate.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 09:45:30 AM EST
    Christ ppj - Is there ever anything these people say that you dont take as a missing section of the Sermon on the Mount? And I see youve taken to sneaking your posts in during cease fire hours. Guess youve become a champagne unit poster - thats consistant. Btw, How does "expanding commercial relations" become automatically "understood" to mean the purchase of yellow cake? Maybe because massa was gonna go ahead and do whatever he wanted to even if Iraq placed an order for Girl Scout cookies.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:25:24 AM EST
    A nuclear Iran is nore more frightening than a nuclear China, India, Pakistan, Russian. Zero. Unless you're in the businss of forging opinions on the back of nothing but prejudice. Iran has supported terrorism and so have we, except we call it justified. If you think you sh*t doesn't smell, then anyone else's whose does is going to make you very incapable of acting in genuinely enlightened self-interest. Simple question: why are we allowed, along with other nations, to have enough nukes to destroy the planet a thousand times over? Answer: rank hypocrisy and the lust for power. We are the only nation that has ever used one, or continues to talk about it.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    Once a company yes-man, always a company yes-man.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    IAEA says cannot confirm Iran's enrichment claim
    Gosh, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran may be lying. So we nuke anyway. Makes sense as we have just seen Moussaoui blatantly lie under oath so that he can be put to death and made a martyr. The bunker busters were touted as being designed to penetrate the hiding places, deep caves in Afghanistan. Now it is clear that they were designed to attack Iran. They can not wait to try them out. Iran may well have been the target all along. First take out the 'easy' target Iraq and then Iran would be a piece of cake. These guys are not to be trusted. I am glad that the Military is waking up and forcing the issue into public debate. This makes it harder for the WH to execute the plan, but I would not doubt for a second that, even if Congress, the American Public and the Pentagon said no to attacking Iran, they would not do it anyway.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    Chase, I-M-A-G-I-N-A-T-I-O-N. Always a solution, but in short supply.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    Should read I would not doubt for a second that they would do it anyway.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    Well, it wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans bombed Iran tomorrow. Getting more information, stressign accuracy: not their strong suit. On the other hand the Republicans are going to have a (slightly) harder time getting the corporate media to beat war drums for them to the point where all ther Joe Six-Packs and Soccer Moms get enthused and take invasion as an inevitable given. They'll have a harder time in this regard, not because the corporate media has a conscience (dare to dream!), but only because they may not want to look so obviously stupid a second time. It's bad, as they say, for business. The little boy crying wolf syndrome may prove annoying to the Republicans this time around. But oh, they'll find a way to get that much closer to their ultimate vision: a world with no people in it.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    Its very simple: they dont want Iran to have a nuclear detterant because they (PNAC psychopaths & thier ilk), have eventual designs on "regime change"(again) in Iran. These warmongers need to be put through the Mussolini steeple chase in the streets of D.C. And my sh*t smells like a certain timberline area in the Rockies in late spring.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    Glanton-You underestimate the gullibility of the American public. When presented with the tough talk of Ahmadinejad against the US and Israel, it is a cakewalk for Bush to get popular support to nuke them. Fear response is a relfex action that comes from a deep part of the brain not tainted by reason or recent memory. Bush/Rove/Cheney know how to push that button all too well.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#62)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    Glanton-You underestimate the gullibility of the American public.
    It wouldn't be the first time. ;-) But remember, I only said the Republicans would have a (slightly) harder time getting the drums up for their next war. Not that they couldn't, or wouldn't get the complicity they need from the media and from the populace at large. But largely because of the boy crying wolf syndrome, Squeaky, there is now a golden opportunity for a great leader to stand up in front of every camera possible and say what needs to be said. To say truths about what you rightly dub "Fear response" But don't expect such leadership to emerge from the Democratic Party. They're all too busy quoting scripture, worrying about the anti-abortion crowd, telling us how much they love their spouses and about how when they once climbed a tree to rescue their kids favorite cat. They're too busy meeting with lobbyists and defense contractors, and appearing on Fox News for paparazzi interviews. The saga continues.

    Dadler said:
    Iran has supported terrorism and so have we, except we call it justified.
    This is plain silly. The current Iranian regime systematically and institutionally supports anti-American and anti-Western terrorists. Big difference, can you see that? And we are allowed to possess them because, well, we can. We have shown an ability to secure them and there is no real threat of anyone selling one off on the black market--unlike what the case would be in Iran. And with regard to our using one--it saved somewhere between half a million to a million American service member's lives that a ground invasion of Japan would have cost. Not an ideal solution, but the best solution. But I'm sure you don't see it that way. And imagination is wonderful and all, but it's the solutions, real-world solutions that are what we need. Using YOUR imagination, what are some? I'm truly interested. Che: What standard of originality are you imposing on me that you're not imposing other posters? Your "blame the PNAC" rhetoric is hardly original, yet you have no problem spouting off that mumbo-jumbo with every comment. Jondee said:
    Its very simple: they dont want Iran to have a nuclear detterant because they (PNAC psychopaths & thier ilk), have eventual designs on "regime change"(again) in Iran.
    No, a nuclear Iran is dangerous for the entire world. And yes, I desire a regime change in Iran. You should too. I would hope that everyone who enjoys the freedoms of liberal democracy wishes it upon the rest of the world. I don't think the best way to induce a revolution in Iran is by outside force. But, as soon as the student uprising beings, we should be there to support them--because it's the right thing to do.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    Glanton - Yeah I get it. But, tell me this, why are the repugs so seemingly terrified of them? The names Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton cant be invoked here without the usual suspects going into conniptions about "socialism" and Chappaquidick!! and "winter soldiers". Is it just a deluded expression of the need to have imaginary enemies; or, a big charade?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    Jondee, Well, I think there's an imagined rubric out there that helps ensure the status quo gets preserved. I remember, for example, during the lead up to the 04 election and watching O'Reilly (know your enemy!). O'Reilly made this really big deal about how VASTLY DIFFERENT the visions were between the Dems and the GOP. For goodness sakes, can't you see how framing the uber-corporate John Kerry as a socialist helps protect corporate dominion of this nation? Since Kennedy and Clinton etc. get represented as so "progressive," that pretty much ensures that anyone with a real vision for change in America automatically comes across as some kind of unelectable communist. p.s. Don't let Chase, PPJ, and the like get you down. Try to understand this is what gets them aroused. They must protect their little narratives at all costs.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    Chase - Dont waste your breath kid. And dont "should" all over me. If Iran desired complete obliteration, they'd be obliterated already. And if you think for one second that Im buying into this trillion dollar upper class foxhunt, with all the mutitudinous problems in need of redress in this country, you need to up your meds. Sorry.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    Glanton - Our little narratives; what would we do without them?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    Chase-
    The current Iranian regime systematically and institutionally supports anti-American and anti-Western terrorists. Big difference, can you see that?
    What do you think we do? Have you been hiding under a rock for the last sixty years? Seen this from TL.
    No, a nuclear Iran is dangerous for the entire world.
    The rest of the world is much more afraid of Bush the cowboy using nukes than the potential of Iran possessing them. You are deluded.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Chase, First, try reading up on the thread, WHERE I YESTERDAY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ABOUT IMAGINATION!!! What surprises me is that you cannot seem to even be able to predict some of my reply. I don't get the sense you've even thought about the word imiagination or what it can mean beyond drawing a pretty picture or building a nice roller-coaster. And my other post was silly, huh? Have you looked at the new post on TL. Did we not support Saddam's terror for decades? Did we not support the Apartheid government of South Africa? Did we not throw Africa under the bus by assasinating leaders all over the continen in the post-colonial period? Are we not still supporting Nigeria's government becuase of oil (the president of Nigeria just visited the White House last week), allowing them to do whatever violent crap they to the Nigerian people who actually LIVE on the land the oil is drilled from. Ever heard of Ken Saro-Wiwa? Did we not support IRAN'S DICTATOR, helping lead directly to the mess there today? Or the tryrannical Saudi Royal family, whom the Bush's are personal friends with??? Did we not SUPPORT THE TALIBAN until 9/11??? (Hint: we were PAYING the Taliban for help in our other useless war, the drug war.) DO...YOUR...HOMEWORK!!! You can talk all you want about "the other", and believe our sh*t doesn't stink, but until you want to face the fact that your own nation hasn't come close to living up to it's creed, that awful things are done all over the world in your name, and mostly because of money, power lust, and that ol' lack of imagination, then I can't help you. If you choose to put your head in the sand about your own nation, that's your right, it's a free country. Personally, I don't use Iran as a standard for what to accept in my own nation. I use AMERICAN standards. Disappointed by your post. Not the kind of intellectual rigor I'd expect from a judicial official. No offense intended, I just cannot tolerate Americans who think the bad things we do are somehow erased by the bad things others do. We...must...be...better.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    Add Chase, Taken a look at the loose nuke problem in the former USSR lately? Your notion the Iranians would just willy-nilly use a nuke, or hand one to a terrorist group, is really the kind of paranoia I'm talking about. We have armed just as many groups who kill innocent people as they have, you simply choose not to accept those realities. I can't stand the mullahs that run Iran anymore than you, and I OBVIOUSLY realize the differences in our nations, but I'm also aware of the other crap we engage in, and I prefer not to behave like mullahs in dealing with a problem. Paranoia is there game, not ours. And, "well, because we can" isn't an answer. It's a bully's justification. Right or wrong, you do understand it makes us seem like rank hypocrites and thugs, yes? And makes it impossible for us to expect anyone else to listen unless we want start killing/bomging en masse. And is that what you want to do? China and Russia aren't exactly the company we want to keep on the morality of the nuclear weapons issue, is it? But our reasons for having them are the same as theirs. How does that help us? Answer: It doesn't.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    "He who would do Good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: General Good is the plea of the Scoundral, Hypocrite, and Flatterer; for Art and Science cannot exist but in minutrly organized particulars." William Blake

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    On December 22nd, 2004 PPJ told us this:
    And the strategy is really simple. Regime change in Iraq. Establish a democracy. Put pressure on all the other ME dictators to quit supporting terrorists, and eliminate those who do not. So far Saudi Arabia appears to have caught on, as you can see by the battles going on within SA. Libya, small but dangerous, has decided to get out of the game. That leaves Iran as the biggest player.
    How is that democracy working in Iraq and more importantly why aren't all the ME countries lining up to embrace it?????

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    In Saudi Arabia, it's tyrants battling, what, anti-tyrants, pro-what? It's a mess there, too, just a slightly more orderly one, but simmering nonetheless. Not exactly a success. Unless we're happy simply when our assorted favored tyrants are cracking down the way we like. That we still HAVE our favored tyrants is inarguable. We're merely playing a slightly different version of the same, tired, bloody game.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    Dadler writes:
    In Saudi Arabia, it's tyrants battling, what, anti-tyrants, pro-what?
    It is a mess, eh? Democracy is like that, births are messy. The baby is crying, the father is stunned and the mother is both happy and fearful. You write:
    Right or wrong
    No, that doesn't work. We are either right or wrong. Choose one so that we can know who you are. Of course it is possible that you don't know who you are. Jondee writes:
    Glanton - Our little narratives; what would we do without them?
    Have a life?? You write:
    If Iran desired complete obliteration, they'd be obliterated already
    Could you explain that comment? You write:
    Simple question: why are we allowed, along with other nations, to have enough nukes to destroy the planet a thousand times over?
    Because we developed them in response to an attack. There was no program prior to 12/7/41. BTW - Your question is essentially the same one asked by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg..... Snap..crackle..pop! Dadler writes:
    A nuclear Iran is nore more frightening than a nuclear China, India, Pakistan, Russian
    Yes. Because Iran's leaders have demonstrated that they are not rational. That is a very important point. Rational people can, and are, dealt with. The others get killed by the SWAT team. Although I would give you that N Korea is pushing the envelope. Jondee writes:
    How does "expanding commercial relations" become automatically "understood" to mean the purchase of yellow cake?
    I really can't answer that question. You might try asking it to the person who said, the ex-PM of Nigeria. Of course he might punch you in the nose for implying that he, after years and years dealing in the diplomacy world, didn't know what was going on. He might even consider you dumb and not informed. BTW - You still don't seem to understand the claim, which undoubtedly causes your inability to react logically. Repeat after me. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE. There now. See the difference?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#75)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 07:56:05 PM EST
    Jim provides one of his top ten most ironic, hypocritical comments on TL ever, right here on this very thread. Here 'tis: Jondee writes: Glanton - Our little narratives; what would we do without them? Have a life?? "Have a life?" Are you kidding us? Can you of all people posibly have written that? As if everything you post didn't depend upon a handful of very simple Talking Points. Sad that there are no mirrors in your neck of the woods.

    In addition to bein' the usual Jim's gibberish, shrub-shillin' slop, the nitwit in chief has proved that he couldn't/can't/shall never even learn to pronounce nuclear in 16 days.

    IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE.
    Big WOOO!!!!! To me this makes Bush look worst. We invaded a country because they might have attempted to purchase. This is a lame reason. It would have been better if we invaded a country for actually purchasing.
    Snap..crackle..pop!
    What???? Oh, I forgot according to Jim we should not hold Bush to a high standard. It is OK if Bush makes the wrong decision because it is not his fault that he gets bad info from the people that he has appointed. Of course it makes no sense for a president to really soul search and try to get good info before sending our troops to war. Jim, thinks the president shouldn't give it much thought. Naa!!! Just blindly believe anything people tell you. I do not understand why people like Jim do not hold Bush responsible for anything. Bush is either a liar or extremely incompetent. HE MADE BIG MISTAKES.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:43:33 PM EST
    Yeah, Jims sneaking out late at night these days so he can still earn his brownie points without getting caught in the cross fire. Plus he's gotta make sure he and Sean are on the same page before he opens his mouth and soils himself- figurativly and literally.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    Anyone that calls the guy that sold black market wmds to Iran "an American hero", has no business getting his Depends in a bunch about what the Rosenbergs did 50 years ago.

    Ollie "Milo Minderbinder" North. When you look slimy up felon who beats the rap because he's got a slick, sleazy defense lawyer, you'll find his picture. OJ's not even in Ollie's league.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 07:27:03 AM EST
    Peacrevol writes: Some of these are pretty funny:
    Why cant we have intel and let Iran continue with their nuclear research?
    We tried that with Iraq, and it didn't work out well.
    It may just so happen that they stumble on a really good alternative energy source that is efficient enough to make gas/oil obsolete.
    And I may hit the Lottery.... So one of your excuses is that we need Iran doing R&D? Well yes, they are very well known for technical breakthroughs......There was that Flying Carpet thing... But wait! Wasn't that a Disney movie? Oh well, you can never trust a Mouse.
    Why cant we just put a satellite up there and watch them to make sure thy dont make nuclear weapons?
    Repeat after me. Underground bunkers. Underground labs. You can't see through dirt.. Do a little reading about the Church Committee's gutting of the CIA and the touted use of electronic versus human intelligence. And then look at the results and say "Iraq." Glanton - Some of us do. charlie - Nice idiotic response. Were you trying to make a comment, or just your usual venom? Note how I use non-vulgar language in the following response to debbie, and through The Power Of The Link, refute her claim by using Joe Wilson's very own words. debbie - I know that you have difficulties focusing on complex subjects, but let's try again. I reminded us that Bush said that England said that Saddam/Iraq attempted to purchase, not purchase, just to keep the facts straight. The MSM and others have claimed that Bush said Saddam purchased. Not true, and if their grasp of what was said is as poor as that, then the rest of their claims are suspect. For example we have this bit of nonsense from Joe Wilson's NYT article.
    I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington
    Now, I would like to ask the ambassador if she actually said "sales," or did Wilson misquote her? Because that statement is factually incorrect. "Sales" is a word describing an actual event. "New car sales are up." What else was misquoted? And why?

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 07:39:11 AM EST
    Jondee - These two spies allowed the Soviets to skip years of R&D and did incredible harm to the country. This had a great effect on the world. Because of it we were not able to prevent Red China from invading Korea. God knows how many millions were killed because of their perfidy. It allowed them to consolidate their seizures in Eastern Europe unchallenged. This too killed millions. It institutionalized 20 years of Mutually Assured Destruction and billions spent on defense that otherwise would not have been needed. The "snap crackle pop" was in reference to their electrocution. And a fine day it was.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#83)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 08:16:34 AM EST
    Glanton - Some of us do.
    Pass off Talking Points for thought? Yes, you're right. Many of you do.
    The "snap crackle pop" was in reference to their electrocution. And a fine day it was.
    It's interesting that you direct that last little narrative to jondee, whose comment about "little narratives" you mocked earlier. Oh, well, don't confuse Jim with facts. His mind's already made up.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#84)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 08:19:55 AM EST
    And folks, if you look closely at Jim's little soundbite description of the Rosenbergs and some fifty years of global politics, you can see the very nature of Republican thinking at work. Oh, if only we had Democrats worth a nickle, Democrats who would call these people and out for what they are.

    No Jim, I am not the one with the problem. If you read my post, I also said ATTEMPTED not PURCHASED. ATTEMPTED is even a lamer reason to go to war than PURCHASED. Don't ya think? Wilson implied "attempted" also:
    Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
    Bush made the decision to go to war. You claim it is not his fault because he got faulty info. I say it is his fault because he is the BOSS. Before killing over 2,300 of our men and women, he should have done some more thinking, investigating, and researching.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#86)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    Jim, If you think real democracy is what we're about in Saudi Arabia, guess again. Then you'll get the Islamic government you don't want. So...propping up the tyrannical royal family and Bush best buds is WRONG. Same thing that got us in trouble in the past and lead to the trouble we have now. Supporting thugs now is a good thing? You're supporting a repeat of the same corrupt history that got us into this in the first place.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    And if we wanted to foster real democracy, the U.S. would need to foster a great deal of its own humility, which we've got little to none of right now.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    ppj - I dont see any place where Charlie used "vulgar language" to describe your hero Ollie, so quit whining in the hopes that mommy will hear. As for your "Snap,Crackle,Pop", I wish I had a nice, comfy, seat big enough to accomadate Ollie and the rest of your favorite team of warmongers. And remember, eatern Europe just "came in contact with a more advanced civilisation" and the rest, as the fella said, is history; nothin we can do about it now. Btw, the Rosenbergs were also a mother and father with young, innocent, children; or, as you like to call them, "collateral damage". Maybe you should send them a commemorative box of Rice Crispies. Snap, Crackle, Pop.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    And Jim, about the Church Committee: five words: tough t*tty and get over it. Chump.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    Does anyone remember Mr. Gorbacev and his perestroika? And as long as we are on this analogy let us please remember that Gorbacev wanted to end the cold war and a shot was never fired. I remember 2 years ago listening to PPJ telling us how the democratizing was going to change the ME blah blah blah. What we have, which I stated on thise very site more than 2 years ago is a training ground for terrorists. Now as long as we are analyzing "history" why don't we discuss how wrong you were PPJ, and how right I was?????? Or do we have to wait an additional 20 years for everything to shake out? I for one do not have the stomach for 100 billion a year for 1 year, let alone 10 more. I would like to see that money moved to national healthcare or college funds for needy kids as opposed to the mobsters in Iraq and Iran.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#91)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    I would like to see that money moved to national healthcare or college funds for needy kids as opposed to the mobsters in Iraq and Iran.
    But, jondee, you know, that's not very sexy. And besides, if we went around doing things like that, what would happen to Ollie's television career? You can't make a War Stories episode about feeding homeless people, after all. Get a life, stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    Ya gotta love that "Snap, Crackle, Pop." That from the hypocrite who practically turned himself inside-out to "save" Terri Schiavo (subsequently dropped like a bad habit).

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#93)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    (subsequently dropped like a bad habit).
    Yes. But Jim isn't alone, here. What should be a major point of issue in the midterm election will instead receive only a whisper, if that. We'll be too busy saber-rattling over Iran, worrying about the "war on Christmas" and the "gay agenda," and--most important of all!-- learning about more missing white females. Priorities, people, priorities.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#94)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    Oh, I forgot the race-baiting "crisis of immigration." That will be even bigger than missing white females. Ideality for the GOP would be finding a way to tether Iran, Mexican immigrants, and missing white females all into one synthesized plot against Christmas.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 10:56:32 AM EST
    Glanton - Im a patient man, but, dont assume sir, that I will simply stand at post and allow you to besmirch the name of that pure, white, blossom of American womanhood Natalee.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#96)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    Sorry, jondee. To atone for my sins against the altar, I'll make sure and go read about what a great man Custer was, boycott Aruba, send a donation to Greta van Sustern, etc. :-) That was fun.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    Jondee - Although Terry Sch1avo's husband made various claims, spying for the Soviet Union and giving away secrets on how to build atomic weapons was not one of them. Jlvngstn - We have more democracy than was there before. So what is your point? Jondee - Whine? About charlie? Perish the thought. If you and he did not exist the Right would have to invent you. So don't try to turn a thoughtful comment into a personal attack, it really just reveals how inept you are. debbie - The quote I gave was from the article. It implies nothing. It says "sales." BTW - From the article:
    Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own
    Now if he meant the above, remember the ambassador said "sales." So what he is saying is he found no evidence of "sales." He doesn't address the issue of "attempt," instead choosing to act as if the two acts are the same. They aren't and Wilson knew the difference. And my link shows that there had indeed been an attempt to purchse. This whole issue is phony and dishonest.

    Re: U.S.: Iran Could Build Nuclear Weapon in 16 Da (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 11:43:03 AM EST
    ppj, "The Right would have to invent you." The one thing youre good at.

    Is PPJ the only person left on the planet still trying to justify Bush's deceitful 16 words in the SOTU? PPR, let's have your comments on "More on Unclassified State Dept. Memo Showing 16 Words Were False"...