Documents Show NYT and Washington Post Shilling for US Government on Iran Missile "Threat"

punditman says...One can still be distrustful and indignant towards the Iranian regime and its buffoon-leader while also recognizing that a) there has been a campaign of US-led hysteria and distortions of known facts surrounding their nuclear program, including the supposed complicity of North Korea; and b) these tall tales are aided by the big media. 
Here is a clear example of how the mainstream media distorted a key Wikileaks document. They hope we wouldn't notice. Fortunately, Gareth Porter did.

Wikileaks Exposes Complicity of the Press

By GARETH PORTER 

A diplomatic cable from last February released by Wikileaks provides a detailed account of  how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the U.S. suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or intends to develop such a capability.

In fact, the Russians challenged the very existence of the mystery missile the U.S. claims Iran acquired from North Korea. 

But readers of the two leading U.S. newspapers never learned those key facts about the document. 

The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the U.S. view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the U.S. side. 

The Times, which had obtained the diplomatic cables not from Wikileaks but from The Guardian, according to a Washington Post story Monday, did not publish the text of the cable.

Keep Reading

Clinton: US Won’t Hesitate to Use Military Against Iran

punditman says...She's at it again. Everyone's favourite iron lady. As the article notes, the IAEA has pointed out no evidence for the accusation exists, and America’s own National Intelligence Estimate says they don’t believe Iran has an active weapons program either. But facts don't matter. Hilary wants to kick some mullah butt and most sheeple will go along with it, because they are too lazy and stupid to look into issues past the shallow, biased, sycophantic reporting in the mainstream media. Damn, I feel like I'm in a worse mood than Peacenik today. But at least I didn't swear.

Not a Threat, It's a Promise, Secretary of State Tells CFR

In a high-profile policy address before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the US wouldn’t not hesitate to use its military to “defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people” during the segment discussing Iran.

She elaborated on the declaration with “this is not an option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise.” Clinton also warned Iran that the US offer to hold talks, which she had previously said she didn’t expect to work to begin with, would not be open-ended and that “our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness.”

Today’s comments are the latest in a long line of bellicose rhetoric coming from the Secretary of State. Last month during a television interview she said that Iran was risking the possibility of a US invasion, citing the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq as a model.

Keep Reading...

Clinton Threatens to Attack Iran ‘The Way That We Did’ Iraq

punditman says...Thanks Hilary. Is this the new beginning with the Muslim world that your boss Obama was calling for last week? Can someone tell punditman exactly what is going on inside the Obama cabinet when it comes to the middle east? Given the facts as they are known, any first strike on Iran would be based on lies, half-truths and distortions.

by Jason Ditz
http://news.antiwar.com

Citing the disastrous 2003 US invasion of Iraq as an example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today warned that by continuing to refuse to abandon its civilian nuclear program, Iran was risking the possibility of an invasion by the US or “some other enemy that would do that to them.”

The comments came during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program, and when asked by interviewer and former Clinton-era official George Stephanopoulus, Secretary Clinton reiterated “that’s right, as a first strike.”

The bulk of the interview emphasized US opposition to the Iranian program, along with unquestioned claims that the nation was pursuing nuclear weapons. Secretary Clinton also extended the American nuclear umbrella over Israel in the event that Iran attacked them.

Considering it was no more than 72 hours ago that President Obama made his historic call for a “new beginning” to US relations with the Muslim world, it seems incredible that his administration is already raising the prospect of an Iraq-style invasion of Iran.

Already six years in, the Iraq occupation has killed thousands of US soldiers, sucked trillions from the American economy, and is stretching the military to its limits. It is unfathomable that with this war still far from over, the Obama Administration is considering an Iraq redux in its larger neighbor to the east.

Clinton: US Doesn’t Expect Diplomacy to Work With Iran

Iran Again Insists Charges About Nuclear Program Are Baseless

www.antiwar.com

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she has serious doubts that Iran would respond to the Obama Administration’s interest to engage in diplomacy on its nuclear program, and that “our eyes are wide open on Iran.”

Secretary Clinton apparently did not believe that the Iranian President’s remarks during last month’s 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution celebration that his nation was ready to talk with the United States constituted a response. Nor apparently did the numerous other times since President Obama’s elections in which the Iranian government spoke of its eagerness to improve relations.

But Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi again told reporters that the repeated US claims that his government was attempting to make a nuclear weapon were “baseless remarks, even from the technical viewpoint, and just for political propaganda.”

The spokesman pointed to the fact that the latest accusations, made by Admiral Mullen, were immediately contradicted by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, adding that his government is neither capable nor willing to begin enriching uranium to the levels necessary to make nuclear weapons. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that the uranium enriched so far to only the low levels needed for its upcoming nuclear power plant has not been diverted to any other use.

punditman says...This type of rhetoric does not bode well. Let's hope that it is just posturing by the Obama/Clinton team and that they are actually seriously pursuing back channel contacts with Iran. The problem with this issue is that the level of propaganda is immense. Let's hope that it is mostly propaganda and that an Israeli-US/Iran showdown doesn't plunge the world into the abyss.

One More Time!

The Intelligence is Wrong

By TERRY LODGE

Iran has zero nuclear weapons capability! Worse still, for the Chicken Littles in the media and government, they don't intend to have nuclear weapons!

Federal officials are frothing over the disclosure by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has underestimated the amount of low-level enriched uranium (LEU) it has produced. This is ignorant melodrama, replete with warnings from the State Department that certain unspecified measures must quickly be taken against Iran.

The IAEA says the underestimation of Iran’s production of LEU results from a technical measuring error, and that it has been carefully recorded with remote cameras installed to supervise the stockpile. If the Iranians intend to transport enriched uranium to a secret location for further processing, the IAEA's inspectors will find out immediately. Moreover, Iran has slowed down its uranium enrichment program.

Those plumping for another American war once again have their facts completely wrong when alleging threats of WMDs. Low-enriched uranium CANNOT be used in a nuclear bomb. LEU is 4% enriched, while weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) must contain a 90% or greater concentration of uranium. Significant major further enrichment is required to have a nuclear weapon, which would require 2 to 5 years. Iran has not chosen that path, which requires construction of massive new centrifuge facilities that would be detectable by our satellites. Iran would have to buy centrifuges on the international black market, which the CIA would quickly discover if they chose divulge their intelligence.

The new Israeli government warmongers and its sycophants in the White House and Congress are ginning up for war against Iran which will destroy what's left of the global economy. It is being built on groundless speculation and lies and will be fought from the depths of the Second Great Depression, using our unemployed children.

Be forewarned.

Terry Lodge is an attorney in Toledo, Ohio. He can be reached at tjlodge50@yahoo.com.

Who's Telling the Truth About Iran's Nuclear Program?

by Muhammad Sahimi

Since February 2003, Iran's nuclear program has undergone what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself admits to be the most intrusive inspection in its entire history. After thousands of hours of inspections by some of the most experienced IAEA experts, the Agency has verified time and again that (1) there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and (2) all the declared nuclear materials have been accounted for; there has been no diversion of such materials to non-peaceful purposes. Iran has a clean bill of health, as far as its nuclear program is concerned.

This is not what Israel, its lobby in the United States, and its neoconservative allies had expected. Such a clean bill of health deprives them of any justification for advocating military attacks on Iran. The illegal act of sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council and the subsequent, highly dubious UNSC resolutions against Iran have also not been effective. So what is the War Party to do?

It has resorted to an international campaign of exaggerations, lies, and distortions. This campaign involves planting lies in the major media and on the Internet, making absurd interpretations of what the IAEA reports on Iran, and issuing dire – but bogus – warnings about the speed at which Iran's uranium-enrichment program is progressing. Such warnings have been around for over two decades. In 1984, West German intelligence predicted that Iran would make a nuclear bomb within two years.

The campaign uses all the instruments of the U.S. political establishment to advance its agenda. The Bush administration routinely talked about "Iran's nuclear weapon program" or "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons," without ever bothering to present any credible evidence for their assertion. Iran's drive for nuclear weapons has become an article of faith even to President Obama, who, in my opinion, is not pro-war. LeonPanetta , the new CIA director, recently said, "From all the information I've seen, I think there is no question that they [Iranians] are seeking that [nuclear weapon] capability." What information, Mr.Panetta? Enlighten us, please.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...I would guess that the vast majority of people out there, despite their political affiliation, would simply assume that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and is playing a game of Monty Python's Olympic Hide-and-Seek with the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency. You, dear reader, may be one of these people. The only problem is that there is no evidence for such an assumption. None.

Punditman also makes the safe assumption that most people do not know that even the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 said Iran "halted" its nuclear weapons program in 2003; and, if they don't know that, then Punditman would bet his fictitious dividend cheque that most also don't know that this same report did not present any evidence that an Iranian nuclear program has ever existed (none, ever)–so it couldn't be "halted" in the first place!

This speaks to the power of media- and political-propaganda, working in tandem.

Is Punditman defending Iran? Not at all. Does Punditman trust Iran? Punditman does not trust any State. Punditman is simply defending the facts.

Obama Administration Accuses Iran of Pursuing Nuclear Weapons

Accusations Show New Administration's Clean Break From Intelligence Estimate

www.antiwar.com

It has been 15 months since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which determined that the Iranian government had halted all efforts to create a nuclear weapon, and the outgoing chairman of the National Intelligence Council reaffirmed those findings only two months ago. The Obama Administration didn’t seem to read those reports, however.

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference. Incoming CIA director Leon Panetta declared during his testimony that “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

While the Iranian government continues to express its desire to improve relations, Obama and associates just keep hurling accusations at Iran’s civilian nuclear program. There’s one thing the administration is missing though, and that’s evidence. Officials concede there is no evidence that undercuts the 2007 findings, but like the Bush Administration, the newcomers don’t seem to want fact to get in the way of good rhetoric.

punditman says...This does not surprise Punditman in the least; unlike a common assumption out there amongst the sheeple, there is no structural change in US foreign policy just because Obama is in charge.

So long as there is no fundamental change at the institutional level, it appears impossible for a US President to not huff and puff and threaten Iran. It's been going on since the CIA organized the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed the Shaw in 1953.

Current tensions between the US and Iran are far from resolved and have the potential to become a very hot crisis. Or, the Obama administration can stop misleading the public and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton can save the day by taking Iranian overtures seriously and open a serious dialogue that could lead to detente.

What scenario is more likely, the former or the latter? Punditman is unsure but the former will make financial armageddon look like a picnic.

White House Dismisses Report of Iran Letter

Attacking Iran Still on the Table, Obama Spokesman Insists

www.antiwar.com

Yesterday it was reported that the Obama Administration was looking at sending a reply letter to the Iranian government which would signal a willingness to improve ties and perhaps hold direct talks between the two. The move would have been the most significant move toward normalizing relations between the United States and Iran in 30 years.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was quick to dismiss the report. “Neither the president nor the secretary of state has seen such a letter,” according to Gibbs. He also added that many issues needed to be addressed with respect to Iran, including their illusory “illicit nuclear program” and their “threatening of peace in Israel.”

So just one day after the possibility that the Obama Administration might actually make a positive move toward peace with Iran, the White House is again raising the specter of a US military strike against Iran. The Iranian government has expressed repeated willingness to improve ties, and while President Obama has spoken of rapprochement as well his official policy has so far remained that of President Bush: barely restrained hostility.

punditman says....We shall see.

'Hotline to Iran' Aims to Head Off War

Alison Raphael
OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, Jun 10 (OneWorld) - Members of Congress joined religious and civil society leaders today in an urgent call to stop the "drumbeat of war" with Iran and open up diplomatic talks to resolve growing tensions between Washington and Tehran.

At a previous 'hotline' event. © Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran

"We hear the same people who supported a disastrous war in Iraq now steadily beating the drum for war with Iran," said Congresswoman Barbara Lee, adding: "We have been down this road before."

Lee joined Reps. Ron Paul and Sheila Jackson Lee in a "Time to Talk to Iran" event on Capitol Hill, organized by the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI), along with groups such as Physicians for Social Responsibility and the American Friends Service Committee.

The event featured 1960s-style red "hotline" telephones that enabled people to speak with ordinary citizens in Iran, including Washington, D.C. tourists attracted by the outdoors event.

Keep Reading...

Scott Horton Interviews Ray McGovern

www.antiwar.com

Former CIA analyst and antiwar activist Ray McGovern discusses his open letter to Adm. Fallon and the probability of a U.S. attack on Iran, the history of Robert Gates and his weak influence on Bush, the corporate media’s corrupt relationship with the state, the Pentagon’s bogus Iranian arms expose and the near total indifference of the press, Adm. Fallon’s firing for speaking out against attacking Iran, the Air Force’s role, the insanity of John McCain, the unconstitutionality and illegality of our aggressive wars, Congress’s impotence in deterring the White House from attacking Iran, Bush’s life-long lack of accountability, how The Project For The New American Century blueprint for world domination and neocon “Israel first” foreign policy has made the U.S. and Israel less secure, the role of Elliot Abrams and Dick Cheney in fomenting the next war, possible disastrous consequences, the Israeli government’s attack on the U.S.S. Liberty to hide their war crimes in 1967 and the U.S. government’s role in the cover-up.

MP3 here. (50:45)

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years – from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush and is a co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Charles Goyette Interviews Scott Ritter

www.antiwar.com

Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and author of Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, discusses the Chicago city council’s attempt to bring attention of the possibility of war with Iran
to the Illinois congressional delegation, the effectiveness of city council’s antiwar resolutions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ attempt to focus attention on Iraq instead of Iran, Cheney’s role, the chances he’s giving that the U.S. will attack Iran, Iran’s influence in Iraq, the bad Ho Chi Minh Trail analogy, Iran’s possible response to a U.S. military attack, the scenario of a what a war between the U.S. and Iran would look like, Iran’s air defense system, why a U.S. strike on Iran would be the worst thing for Israeli national security, the president’s lack of constitutional authority to go to war, and takes questions from callers.

MP3 here. (24:50)

Scott Ritter is the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement.” Scott Ritter has been noted for his criticism of United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Ritter publicly argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction. He has become a popular anti-war figure and talk show commentator because of his stance.

The Iranian Chessboard: Five Ways to Think About Iran Under the Gun

By Pepe Escobar
TomDispatch.com

More than two years ago, Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker how George W. Bush was considering strategic nuclear strikes against Iran. Ever since, a campaign to demonize that country has proceeded in a relentless, Terminator-like way, applying the same techniques and semantic contortions that were so familiar in the period before the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq.

The campaign's greatest hits are widely known: "The ayatollahs" are building a Shi'ite nuclear bomb; Iranian weapons are killing American soldiers in Iraq; Iranian gunboats are provoking U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf - Iran, in short, is the new al-Qaeda, a terror state aimed at the heart of the United States. It's idle to expect the American mainstream media to offer any tools that might put this orchestrated blitzkrieg in context.

Here are just a few recent instances of the ongoing campaign: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insists that Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" when it comes to Iran. In tandem with U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus, Mullen denounces Iran's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq, although he claims to harbor "no expectations" of an attack on Iran "in the immediate future" and even admits he has "no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership [of Iran] is involved."

But keep in mind one thing the Great Saddam Take-out of 2003 proved: that a "smoking gun" is, in the end, irrelevant. And this week, the U.S. is ominously floating a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf.

But what of Iran itself under the blizzard of charges and threats? What to make of it? What does the world look like from Tehran? Here are five ways to think about Iran under the gun and to better decode the Iranian chessboard.

Keep reading about how to decode the Iranian Chessboard...

Consider the Consequences of Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Power Plants, and Pray

by Floyd Rudmin

www.globalresearch.ca

The US government has recently increased the belligerence of its tone towards Iran.

A string of reports in a variety of newspapers suggest war is on the way: the Mail & Guardian April 1, the Rutland Herald April 4, the Telegraph April 7, the International Herald Tribune April 11, the Washington Post April 12, the Washington Times April 16, the Progressive April 24, the Santa Monica Mirror April 24, Asia Times April 25, the International Herald Tribune April 25, the Toronto Star April 25, the Christian Science Monitor April 25, the Washington Post April 26, the Washington Times April 26, First Post April 26, Los Angeles Times April 26, the Washington Times April 26, and the Telegraph April 26.

Two offensive aircraft carriers fleets are now on station near Iran and another is reportedly en route. In late March, Saudi Arabia practiced how it will cope with nuclear fallout following a US attack on Iran. In early April, Israel practiced how it will cope with retaliatory missiles following a US attack on Iran. Everyone in the region is getting ready for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear power plant and enrichment facilities. Iran, too, is ready for war.

The US is said to have 10,000 targets in Iran. Primary among these are all nuclear facilities, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast near Kuwait, and the nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz near Esfahan. Bushehr is an industrial city, with nearly 1 million residents. As many as 70,000 foreign engineers work in the region, which includes a large gas field. Natanz is Iran’s primary enrichment site, north of Esfahan, which also has nuclear research facilities. Esfahan is a world heritage city with a population of 2 million.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor has 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) now loaded into it, according to Israeli and Chinese news reports. The plant is scheduled to become operational this summer, producing electricity. The Natanz enrichment facility is operating a full capacity, enriching uranium for use in reactors according to IAEA reports.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the uranium 235 used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 700 million years. As nuclear reactor fuel is used, it turns into uranium 238, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. These radioactive isotopes are dangerous to health because they emit alpha particles and because they are chemically toxic. When inhaled, they damage lung tissue. When ingested, they damage kidneys and cause cancer in bones and in liver tissues. According to a recent review of medical research, uranium exposure causes babies to be deformed or born dead.

Never in history has it happened that nuclear power plants and nuclear enrichment facilities have been deliberately bombed. Such facilities, everywhere in the world, operate under severe safety conditions because the release of radioactive materials is deadly, immediately and also long after exposure. If the USA or Israel deliberately bomb a fully fueled nuclear power plant or nuclear fuel enrichment facilities, containment will be breached; radioactive elements will be released into the environment. There will be horrific deaths for families in the surrounding vicinity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...File this one under the "Kiss our collective asses goodbye file." Unfortunately, I believe, as outlined in this article, that even the worst nightmare scenarios are possible as long as the Bushite criminals remain in charge of US ship of state. The word needs to go out: No War on Iran!

Report From Iran: Should We Really Bomb These People?

By Larry Beinhart, AlterNet.

The author explains, "Iranians are among the most gracious and hospitable people I've ever met."

I'm in Shiraz, on the way to Esfahan.

It's good to get out of gray, smoggy Tehran, one of the least photogenic cities in the world, where black is the new black, from the hejabs on down.

One of the attractions of Shiraz is the tomb of Hafez, a Persian poet from the 14th century. It's thronged at night. Iranians bring flowers, then stand or kneel beside the sarcophagus and recite his poems. My personal reaction is, this is how writers should always be treated.

Iranians are among the most gracious and hospitable people I've ever met.

The question, of course, is whether we should bomb these people?

In America today, we tend to see things in Manichaean terms. That is, we divide things into absolute opposites, light and dark, good and evil, us and them.

We could, if we went back far enough, blame that on them. The word Manichaean refers to the Persian prophet Mani (from around 250 AD). The whole notion of good and evil, with man in the middle, having to make a choice, then rewarded and condemned in an afterlife, goes back to an even earlier Persian prophet, Zoroaster, from around 1,000 BC. Those ideas entered Judaism during the Babylonian exile and the liberation of the Jews by Cyrus the Great of Persia, and from there into Christianity.

There are still Zoroastrians and Jews in modern-day Persia, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

These are people with a rich and varied history. A very humanistic history.

The question is, why should we bomb these people?

The answer is that they are part of the Axis of Evil!

Iranians are somewhat confused by that designation.

The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by a ragged group of conspirators called Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, headquartered in Afghanistan, where they were protected and nurtured by the Taliban. The Taliban were, and are, fanatical, fundamentalist Sunnis. They're the ones who put women in burkhas, those full-body coverings and veils; required men to be bearded; and banned all music, television, movies, photographs, statues, stuffed animals and dolls.

The Taliban came to power in 1996. They were supported by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

They were opposed by the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was supported by Russia, India and, most of all, by Iran.

Full Article..

punditman says...From the article link above:

Iran is, ultimately, ruled by the Supreme Leader. He is deemed to be infallible. In 2003 he issued a fatwa, a ruling of holy law, against the development and use of nuclear weapons. This is when, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Iran stopped such developments.

Iran claims it only wants nuclear energy...At least 56 countries have nuclear research reactors.

If they had nuclear weapons and used them, especially if they used them aggressively, as a first strike, then Israel and the United States would retaliate with far more force and effectively destroy Iran. What we are likely to have in reality is the sort of mutual stand-off we had with the Soviet Union for 50 years.

punditman further says...

So we are supposed to believe that this is Iran's intent; we are supposed to believe that an ancient civilization is engrossed in the notion of collective suicide. Ah...unlikely, Sherlock! Do your flipping homework.

Worried Yet? Saudis Prepare for "Sudden Nuclear Hazards" After Cheney Visit

by Chris Floyd

I. One Tick Closer to Midnight
Last Friday, Dick Cheney was in Saudi Arabia for high-level meetings with the Saudi king and his ministers. On Saturday, it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based dpa news service relayed the paper's story.

Simple prudence -- or ominous timing? We noted here last week that an American attack on Iran was far more likely -- and more imminent -- than most people suspect. We pointed to the mountain of evidence for this case gathered by scholar William R. Polk, one of the top aides to John Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to other indicators of impending war. The story by Okaz -- which would not have appeared in the tightly controlled dictatorship without approval from the top -- is yet another, very weighty piece of evidence laid in the scales toward a new, horrendous conflict.

We don't know what the Saudis told Cheney in private -- or even more to the point, what he told them. But the release of this story now, just after his departure, would seem to be a clear indication that the Saudis have good reason to fear a looming attack on Iran's nuclear sites and are actively preparing for it.

punditman says...Keep Reading ... (but you may want to grab a stiff drink).

The Iran Charade

So They Lied Again

By RON JACOBS

So they lied again. And again. Despite the fact that the Bush administration knew quite well that its very own intelligence estimate stated quite clearly that the Iranian government had halted its work on building nuclear weaponry, Mr. Bush told the world not more than two months ago that Iran was risking World War Three if it continued said work. On Monday, December 3, 2007, a report from Mr. Bush's own government said quite clearly that its intelligence proved that Iran halted nuclear arms work four years ago. Despite this knowledge, the Bush administration and its enablers in Congress have continued to move the United States closer and closer to war with Iran.

Of course, the fact that the White House has been lying for at least four years about the dangers of Iranian nuclear weaponry comes as no surprise to many of the world's citizens. After all, it was this very same administration that invaded Iraq on the basis of lies regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions and its long lost weapons of mass destruction. What is somewhat surprising is the response to Monday's news from the White House. According to national security adviser Stephen Hadley, everything that the White House has said up to now about Iran's nuclear intentions was not wrong. Indeed, according to Hadley, it only proves that gathering intelligence is "notoriously difficult." Furthermore, in the White House's estimation, this revelation proves that the White House was right and that the US is correct to continue threatening war and encouraging sanctions. You know, just to keep Iran in line. Now, I don't know about you, but this argument sounds very similar to Bill Clinton's line about what constituted having "sex with that woman." In other words, they got caught in a lie and now the Bush White House and its allies in the government and media are using facetious arguments to justify those lies.

Full article...

punditman says:

Bush said in his December 4 press conference: "I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze."

Are we supposed to believe that the President of the United States is not given detailed briefings on important national security developments on a regular basis? Or that he doesn't ask follow-up questions? Or, is it simply the case that he is a bold faced liar?

Well, judging from his record...

Debunking Iran's Nuclear Program: Another 'Intelligence Failure' -- On the Part of the Press?

Iraqi WMD redux: The release of the NIE throwing cold water on oft-repeated claims of a rampant Iranian nuclear weapons program has chastened public officials and policymakers who have promoted this line for years. But many in the media have made these same claims, often extravagantly.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (December 04, 2007) -- Press reports so far have suggested that the belated release of the National Intelligence Estimate yesterday throwing cold water on oft-repeated claims of a rampant Iranian nuclear weapons program has deeply embarrassed, or at least chastened, public officials and policymakers who have promoted this line for years. Gaining little attention so far: Many in the media have made these same claims, often extravagantly, which promoted (deliberately or not) the tubthumping for striking Iran.

Surely you remember Sen. John McCain's inspired Beach Boys' parody, a YouTube favorite, "Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb Iran"? That was the least of it. You could dance to it and it had a good beat. Not so for so much of the press and punditry surrounding the bomb. Who can forget Norman Podhoretz's call for an immediate attack on Iran, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal last May, as he argued that "the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force -- any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938."

As I've warned in this space for years, too many in the media seemed to fail to learn the lessons of the Iraqi WMD intelligence failure -- and White House propaganda effort -- and instead, were repeating it, re: Iran. This time, perhaps, we may have averted war, with little help from most of the media. In this case, it appears, the NIE people managed to resist several months of efforts by the administration to change their assessment. If only they had stiffened their backbones concerning Iraq in 2002.

For the rest of today and this week, media critics will be offering up all sorts of reminders of the near-fatal claims by many in the press relating to Iranian nukes. Sure to get attention are the scare stories in the summer of 2005 after "proof" of an Iranian nuke program somehow surfaced on a certain laptop, proudly unveiled by officials and bought by many in the media then as firm evidence (and now debunked, like much of the "proof" of Iraqi WMD provided by defectors a few years back).

With much effort, I've already found this beauty from David Brooks of The New York Times from Jan. 22, 2006, when he declared that "despite administration hopes, there is scant reason to believe that imagined Iranian cosmopolitans would shut down the nuclear program, or could if they wanted to, or could do it in time - before Israel forced the issue to a crisis point. This is going to be a lengthy and tortured debate, dividing both parties. We'll probably be engaged in it up to the moment the Iranian bombs are built and fully functioning."

As recently as this past June, Thomas Friedman of The Times wrote: "Iran is about to go nuclear."

Full article...

punditman says:
This shows how much America's mainstream media is part of an elite consensus. Despite their abysmal failings to hold the Bush administration to account before and after the Iraq invasion, on Iran, they nevertheless started following a familiar script of kowtowing to power -- the only one they know.

Nuclear Weapons Bombshell for Bush

TheStar.com - World - Nuclear weapons bombshell for Bush

AP PHOTO

Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility is seen in a June satellite photo.

U.S. spy agencies insist Tehran scrapped arms bid in 2003, despite White House rhetoric

Toronto Star
December 04, 2007

Tim Harper
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON–Iran scrapped its pursuit of a nuclear weapon four years ago, according to a declassified security document released yesterday, contradicting the bellicose rhetoric aimed at Tehran by U.S. President George W. Bush.

Just six weeks ago, Bush linked Iran's nuclear ambitions to a potential World War III, but the National Intelligence Estimate painted a picture of an Iran guided by sober cost-benefit analyses, not the wild-eyed rush to destruction often described by the White House.

Although the report says Iran has left the door open to pursue a bomb, it now estimates it is unlikely to have the wherewithal to develop such a weapon before 2015.

Critics who had been fearful that Bush and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney were weighing military strikes on Tehran stressed yesterday's report now offers an opening for a "diplomatic surge" with the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The National Intelligence Estimate represents the consensus of 16 separate American spy agencies and is provided to U.S. military and political leaders to help craft strategy or respond to perceived threats.

A full report was provided to Bush last week before a declassified version was given to U.S. legislators by Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence.

The review, which represents a complete about-face from a 2005 report on Iran, brought memories to the fore of the botched 2002 intelligence on Iraq which led to the U.S. invasion the following spring.

Full article...

punditman says...
White House to intelligence community: "What? Don't you know yet that we make the intelligence fit our policy, not the other way around?"