The new National Intelligence Estimate was released and it was front-page news. It stated with "high probability" that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
But when Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was on the program on Oct. 30, he said Iran does not have a nuclear weapon so there is no reason to speak of force.
Here is a part of that conversation:
ElBaradei also talked about the Bush administration and the West's distrust of the government of Iran.
Here is what he said:
Nice try Charlie. The program cited in the NIE report was covert and hidden, i.e, undeclared to the IAEA or anyone. The IAEA only has knowledge of declared programs, and as none of Iran's declared programs were military all that El Baradai can say is that none of them were weapons programs. However, as I recall the IAEA was singing the same tune before the alleged suspension of the illegal program in 2003. And it was this same IAEA that denied in the early 90s that Saddam had such a program-the one uncovered by David Kay to the everlasting embarrassment of the UN.
nuclear energy in exchange for Euros. So the US does not like it and is fabricating this threat. Surely, our billion dollar intel apparatus would have some kind of clue of what is really going on. And we have international inspectors checking into. But we don't like their answers just like we did with Scott Ritter and Hans Blix and then tried to discredit those inspectors. Seems our adminstration is very immature and it shows.
Thank you, Senator Biden (tellmethetruth) for
standing up for us. Now if Hillary would just do the same.
Sen. Thompson said that invading Iraq was the right thing to do because 1.) Iraq had weapons worse than WMDs, and 2.) Saddam and his sons had defeated the United States, and the United Nations. As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction.
What is the American government to do if a pro-Taliban regime lands in power in Pakistan? Is it really that far-fetched? Once again we are busy chasing regimes we don't like, as in Iraq's Saddam and not really paying attention to where a potential threat can develop in a rapid fire fashion, as in 9/11 and Osama.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is overshadowing the real problems in the Middle East. We need to pay much greater attention to Pakistan and pour our resources there to stabilize the country and ensure that Islamic fanatics don't get the upper hand.
There will be a lot more body bags coming home if we end up having to secure the nuclear sites in Pakistan to keep them away from the fringe elements. You can bet on that.
Serious and frank conversations with the candidates on issues of importance have been sorely lacking in much of the media. The series that you have provided has been an invaluable tool in gaining insight into the candidates. Thank you!
Rose did not need to nail the coffin on Rove. Once Rove opened his mouth, he committed political hari-kari.
This is as outrageous as it is irresponsible. It's exactly what he did in the run up to the war in Iraq in consistently exaggerating intelligence suggesting that Iraq had WMD while failing to tell the American people about intelligence concluding that it did not.
For many reasons, war with Iran is not just a bad option, it would be a disaster. So I want to be crystal clear on this: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.
The President's actions further undermine America's credibility around the world -- and the government's credibility here at home -- at a time when that credibility is at an all time low. And it injects more tension and instability into the Middle East at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to prevent that region from spiraling out of control.
Yesterday I gave a major address in Iowa outlining a plan to keep Iran from producing the material that could one day be used for a bomb -- without using force. I encourage you to take a few minutes to read that plan on my website:
http://www.joebiden.com/getinformed/speeches?id=0091
Why do you say "But" when the NIE report, and the statements by Mr. ElBaradei support each other. Both statements are in agreement. Your "but" should be a "futhermore" or "Mr. ElBaradei's assertion is back up by the new NIE report..."
It is clear that everyone but Bush and the media understand clearly that Iran is not a threat, and that the U.S. oligarchy is spewing lies, and trying confuse, mislead, and obfuscate.
I am not saying we should start bombing Iran, but they are nowhere near out of the woods with clarifying and becoming transparent about their nuclear activities. Until they do, they should be treated as a threat.
The NEOCON agenda is scary.
Mr. Rose,
'But'?? What's with that? The NIE totally confirms ElBaradei's conclusions!
Bush lying, ElBaradei telling the truth. Get it? Your language seems chosen to imply that the NIE contradicts ElBaradei. What it shows instead is that GWB and RBC spent the last year lying through their teeth once again in another attempt to gain support for another insane attack. Bush at this point has no credibility. He should be given no respect whatsoever! His efforts to start a second unnecessary war amount to high treason, which is a capital crime in this country. THAT'S the story Mr. Rose! You are astonishing in your relentless defense of the arsitocracy regardless of the evidence.