Ok Kossacks! Before you go crazy with the
new piece in the NYTimes you need to be asking more questions before you jump the shark on this one- this is, after all Judy Miller's newspaper, and it looks like she's writting under a pseudonym now:
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing, that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency's technical experts "were shocked" at the public disclosures.
How does this not set of flags for us? We've been through this before!
Does anyone remember just a few weeks ago the IAEA berating the Admin for putting out the Fleitz Document?
U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel Paper on Nuclear Aims Called Dishonest
U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.
Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.
...
Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.
...
"This is like prewar Iraq all over again," said David Albright, a former nuclear inspector who is president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. "You have an Iranian nuclear threat that is spun up, using bad information that's cherry-picked and a report that trashes the inspectors."
If I recall correctly, in another article someone at the UN specifically referred to the terms 'shocked' and feared' as well.
Over the past few days the Iran rhetoric has increased. Whether or not this plays well for a domestic audience regarding the elections is one thing, but in creating a climate and setting the stage for more war is another.
For those of us who read the WaPo article Air Force said to seek $50 bln emergency funds the other day:
...the Air Force plans said the extra funds would help pay to transport growing numbers of U.S. soldiers being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thompson, who has close ties to U.S. military officials, said the big funding request was fueled by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. England told the services in a October 25 memo to include the "longer war on terror," not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in their emergency requests.
It is too easy to dismiss the Admin as incompetent, making bad decisions, etc., and it is even worse not to consider the possiblity that these people may genuinely have no regard for the losses. There is a calculated logic in what they are doing: it does not involve morals, democracy nor consideration for the lives of those involved- which surely is why when Iraq 'seems' to be going so horribly that we have already turned our attention to Iran. Why?
When we listen to Bush's words we should honestly listen to them, again, he said he was not into 'nation building' and look at Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, as Afghanistan has to some degree become back page news, NATO forces have moved in and in seperate instances killed large groups of 'suspected' insurgents, one number was 200 in one series of strikes, and perhaps around 80 in two other instances. (no links, sorry.)
In the WaPo again more 'be scared of Iran propaganda': Iran fires missiles in war games: TV:
Iran's Revolutionary Guards fired missiles carrying cluster warheads to shouts of "God is the Greatest" at the start of 10 days of military maneuvers on Thursday, state television reported.
Tehran had said the maneuvers, which will include drills in the Gulf and Sea of Oman, were to show off "defensive strength." Days earlier, navies led by the United States practiced blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction in the Gulf.
And it goes on talking about some of their capabilities in third person... but the interesting part which they happen to gloss over- hope you are listening LondonYank:
Iran's maneuvers follow U.S.-led naval exercises involving 25 nations in the Gulf on Monday to train forces to block the transport of weapons of mass destruction and related equipment.
And there were the recent threats/accusations of Syrian involvement in a possible overthrow of the Lebanese gov., in full text of the US Admin statement, (since it is only 3 paragraphs):
Support for a sovereign, democratic, and prosperous Lebanon is a key element of U.S. policy in the Middle East. We are therefore increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hizballah, and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically-elected government led by Prime Minister Siniora.
Any attempt to destabilize Lebanon's democratically-elected government through such tactics as manufactured demonstrations and violence, or by physically threatening its leaders would, at the very least, be a clear violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 1701.
There are indications that one goal of the Syrian plan is to prevent the current Lebanese government from approving the statute for an international tribunal that would try those accused of involvement in former Prime Minister Hariri's assassination. Any such effort to sideline the tribunal will fail, however, for the international community can proceed with establishing it no matter what happens internally in Lebanon. The United States is committed to working with its international partners and the legitimate Government of Lebanon to ensure that the tribunal is quickly established and that all those responsible for the assassinations of Rafiq Hariri and other Lebanese patriots since 2005 are brought to justice.
However, the Washington Post is claiming that this is bs, or is it?
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States is "increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government."
Snow warned that any attempt to destabilize Lebanon through "manufactured demonstrations" or "physically threatening its leaders" would constitute clear violations of U.N. resolutions. He singled out Syria, charging that it has devised a plan "to prevent" the Lebanese government from approving a U.N. tribunal to try the killers of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, who was assassinated in February 2005.
White House and State Department spokesmen declined to characterize the evidence used to support the claim, implying that it was based on classified information. And some U.S. intelligence officials and U.N. diplomats said privately that there was no sign that an armed overthrow of the government is in the works.
It goes on further to describe, more or less, that the real threat is a functioning democracy:
Intelligence officials said they think the White House statement was referring to Nasrallah's threat of widespread protests if Lebanese leaders fail to create a unity government. One official said that although U.S. intelligence officials think Nasrallah would like more power and Syria would like a friendlier Lebanese government, there are no signs of an impending coup.
This is a bit of a paste up of a few recent comments and I know there is so much I've been saying recently that I could add, but that may be a future book.
I'm just saying be more critical, some of these points have been missed by quite a few of you and Bush is saying these things rather openly and from that we can begin to understand what his intentions are and where we are moving as a nation.