Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Iran War: Been there, done that - about to do it again?

Group Says Iran Has Secret Nuclear Arms Program by Douglas Jehl New York Times 11/17/04

An Iranian opposition group says it has new evidence that Iran is producing enriched uranium at a covert Defense Ministry facility in Tehran that has not been disclosed to United Nations inspectors.

The group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, is planning to announce its finding in Paris on Wednesday. The group says that inspection of the site would demonstrate that Iran is secretly trying to produce nuclear weapons even while promising to freeze a critical part of its declared nuclear program, which it maintains is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The Iran connection by Edward Pound US News and World Report 11/22/04 issue

With the Pentagon's stepped-up efforts to break the back of the insurgency before Iraq's scheduled elections in late January, Iran's efforts to destabilize Iraq have received little public attention. But a review of thousands of pages of intelligence reports by U.S. News reveals the critical role Iran has played in aiding some elements of the anti-American insurgency after Baghdad fell--and raises important questions about whether Iran will continue to try to destabilize Iraq after elections are held. The classified intelligence reports, covering the period July 2003 through early 2004, were prepared by the CIA; the Defense Intelligence Agency; the Iraq Survey Group, the 1,400-person outfit President Bush sent to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction; the Coalition Provisional Authority; and various military commands and units in the field, including the V Corps and the Pentagon's Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force. The reports are based on information gathered from Iraqis, Iranian dissidents, and other sources inside Iraq. U.S. News also reviewed British intelligence assessments of the postwar phase in Iraq.

Many of the reports are uncorroborated and are considered "raw" intelligence of the type seldom seen by those outside the national security community. But the picture that emerges from the sheer volume of the reports, and as a result of the multiplicity of sources from which they were generated, leaves little doubt about the depth of Iran's involvement in supporting elements of the insurgency and in positioning itself to move quickly in Iraq if it believes a change in circumstances there dictates such action. [my emphasis]

Ah, yes, an exile group with insider information.  Raw intelligence reports.  I wonder if there is anything about yellowcake from Niger in any of this stuff?

And this program that may exist might someday be used to produce weapons that Iran might someday give to somebody that might eventually try to use them against the US.  And Iran has connections with Al Qaeda and The Terrorists.  And there about the evilest, most nastiest dictatorship on the planet, worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin, worse even than Saddam Hussein.  So we have to git 'em.

As Laura Rozen asks, "This is all so familiar, isn't it?"

Indeed it is.  As Dear Leader Bush once said, "fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."

Then there's this: U.N. Sees No New Nuclear Signs in Iran by Douglas Frantz Los Angeles Times 11/16/04.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog said Monday that inspectors had uncovered no new evidence of concealed nuclear activities or an atomic weapons program in Iran, though it cautioned that the agency could not rule out covert activities.

The findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency were contained in a confidential report revealed the day after Iran's new pledge to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

The report's findings and Iran's promise to suspend enrichment could block U.S. attempts to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic sanctions when the nuclear agency board meets later this month, diplomats said.

No, look, pay no attention to those UN guys!  You know, appeasement, Munich, France, driving around in the desert in country the size of California, or Alaska, or however big Iran is.  WMDs all over the place, terrorists, 9/11, Al Qaeda, a day of horror like none we have ever known!!!

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Whew!  Here we go again!

Anonymous said...

Your hero, Bill Clinton, spoke the magic words to you in the far-left Democrat crowd far better than we in the Oxycontin crowd could have:  "Stop whining."  Face it.  You lost.  You have to live with it.  Reading your drivel on this site for the last couple of weeks would lead one to believe that focusing on the family, having moral values, and desiring freedom for Mideastern people are bad things.  These views are ill becoming to a "transplanted Mississippian."  Maybe it's sniffing the ocean air of California that warped your views, or maybe it's too much hanging around with the deviants that inhabit part of that state.  That reminds me, is the "Old Hickory Weblog" nomenclature a circumlocutionary way of suggesting that you are a "Log Cabin Democrat"?  Since you are so fond of demeaning nicknames like "Chuckie" and "Rummy," perhaps you should refer to yourself as "Brucie."  All your rantings and whinings are a waste of time.  You are convincing no one, just preaching to the far-left choir and pissing into the wind.  A transplanted Mississippian should know better.  --Oxycrowd

Anonymous said...

"Oxycrowd" - now *there's* a perfect screen name for a Republican Values fan!

Let me get this straight - you think that the presidential election was a referendum on war with Iran?

Of course, once the Republican Values echo chamber gets going on the terrible awful danger from Iran, I'm sure we'll be hearing that was part of the The Mandate, too.

Recalling that in the runup to the war with Iraq, war fans said anyone who questioned the need for the invasion was supporting Saddam, what's your stand on invading Iran, Oxycrowd?  Do you support immediate invasion and regime change?  Or are you defending "Islamofascism" in Iran?  Good/evil, it should be a simple choice. - Bruce

Anonymous said...

Atrios also weighs in on the heavy feelings of deja vu:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/11/groundhog-day.html

- Bruce

Anonymous said...

You are almost as adept at sidestepping questions as John Kerry.  Maybe that's one of the reasons why he lost.  --Oxy

Anonymous said...

Bruce,

I think you are connecting with the "Moron Values" segment now -- judging by recent remarks posted in the Comments section.  One senses an unintended irony in the deliberate association of the abuse of an addicting narcotic with the rant that suggests you are the one who has lost touch with reality.  Increasingly the lack of any rational moral basis to the positions taken in the name of "moral values" suggests the term itself is nothing more than an oxymoron.

Neil

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to see how the manipulation and misrepresentation of "intelligence" in the run-up to the Iraq war has undermined our ability to evaluate the possible nuclear hazard of Iran.  If Bush came out tomorrow and declared that Iran had WMD's, who would believe him?  

The fact that we are in this position today is entirely the fault of George W. Bush and his cronies Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld.  Together they have led us into the perilous situation in which we are bogged down fighting the wrong war in the wrong place.

Not that we need to go to war to deal with Iran, but we can't even make a credible threat to use force.  The laughter in Tehran would be louder than was heard when Reagan sold them weapons to raise money for his illegal war in Central America.

If it weren't so pathetic, I might laugh too.

Neil