Distorting intelligence on Iran - sound familiar?
blackredyellow
Posts: 5,889
On Meet The Press, Cheney defended our intelligence on Iran's nuclear capability, but pointing to IAEA's information....
MR. RUSSERT: Is there a problem with our country and the world if the president came forward and said, “I have intelligence which says Iran is this far advanced,” and people in the world and the people in the country say, “Is that the same intelligence that you had on Iraq, Mr. President?”
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the—of course, much of the information that’s been available on what Iran is doing is the result of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors have been kicked out of Iraq. Obviously, here you’ve got more access from an international body that I think most people wouldn’t question.
MR. RUSSERT: But you rejected their intelligence leading up to Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: I asked you on this very program...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s correct.
MR. RUSSERT: ...about ElBaradei and you said he’s wrong.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. It wasn’t consistent with our report.
MR. RUSSERT: But he was right about Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I haven’t, I haven’t looked at it. I’d have to go back and look at it again. But your point, Tim, in terms of the credibility of the reporting, there’s not much dispute within the international community—and that includes the Russians, that includes the Europeans—that in fact the Iranians are pursuing capabilities that would allow them to produce nuclear weapons.
But, it turns out that our Government's report on IAEA's findings has "distortions" and "misleading assertions".
IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran
By Mark Heinrich2 hours, 47 minutes ago
U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.
The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.
Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.
The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.
It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.
"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.
The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.
Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.
The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."
Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc
MR. RUSSERT: Is there a problem with our country and the world if the president came forward and said, “I have intelligence which says Iran is this far advanced,” and people in the world and the people in the country say, “Is that the same intelligence that you had on Iraq, Mr. President?”
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, the—of course, much of the information that’s been available on what Iran is doing is the result of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors have been kicked out of Iraq. Obviously, here you’ve got more access from an international body that I think most people wouldn’t question.
MR. RUSSERT: But you rejected their intelligence leading up to Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: I asked you on this very program...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s correct.
MR. RUSSERT: ...about ElBaradei and you said he’s wrong.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yes. It wasn’t consistent with our report.
MR. RUSSERT: But he was right about Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I haven’t, I haven’t looked at it. I’d have to go back and look at it again. But your point, Tim, in terms of the credibility of the reporting, there’s not much dispute within the international community—and that includes the Russians, that includes the Europeans—that in fact the Iranians are pursuing capabilities that would allow them to produce nuclear weapons.
But, it turns out that our Government's report on IAEA's findings has "distortions" and "misleading assertions".
IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran
By Mark Heinrich2 hours, 47 minutes ago
U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.
The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.
Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.
The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.
It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.
"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.
The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.
Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.
The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."
Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060914/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
They are still 8-10 years away from being possible to having a nuclear bomb. That means we will be far into Obamas second term as President before we really would need to put high pressure on them. I say play the sanctions game for a while, maybe this government could get eliminated from power by their own people in 8-10 years.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I dont think 8-10 years is fact. they kicked out any inspectors so no one has any idea what progress they are making. sanctions is a great option but even that could do more harm then good by putting oil at $100 barrell. but its worth the pain at the pump to prevent a nuke from going off. and i'm with ya, having that government eliminated would be ideal. Not too sure though how much different the next one will be.
Everything I have read, and I believe even seen on Meet The Press, is that they are still quite a distance away from being able to actually make a nuclear weapon.
I will try to find some links
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I seriously don't understand this oil threat. Why is it we are obligated to these guys for thier oil? Canada is number 2 in the world for oil resourses yet we have to bow to the Middle East for thier oil? Doesn't it make more sense for Canada to sell thier oil to the States at a far more reasonable price that would inevitable drive the price down and in turn drive the gas prices down? Is there a difference in the oil? Would that not make more sense? I have never understood that. If someone could please enlighten me on this. It seems the whole war for oil theory falls short for this reason alone for those people who think that is the only reason they are in Iraq etc.
Iran hasn't kicked all inspectors out of the country. They are not totally cooperating, but the IAEA is still allowed in Iran.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
truth be told, we dont buy ANY oil from Iran. its called supply and demand. if the world imposes sanctions on Iran that could cut off countries like china and russia. they in turn would buy it elsewhere driving the price to go up.
Great lets buy all of our oil from Canada. I dont know if they are number 2 in the world. if they are, then they are really missing out.
o really?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11105378/
Maybe I don't understand why Canada is bowing down to the rest of the world for oil prices....We should obviously be protecting our own asses...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
That is a bit old... I don't know, you might be right, but I was going off of stories like this:
http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=irannukes&slug=Iran+not+cooperating:+IAEA&id=93063&callid=1
According to it, they are having trouble with cooperation, but there are still some inspections going on.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
thanks for posting that. its interesting. I really dont understand either. does Canada not have the resources of the middle east in terms of oil production? I think every american would be more then happy to stop buying mideast oil and get it from our neighbors
well we are probably both right. they may be within the borders of Iran, but they are not given access to much
Yes we should be protecting our asses...now think of this....why I am I therefore paying more at the pumps than Americans when we produce the majority of the oil between the two countries...that to me is just as outrageous as bowing to OPEC......we should sell our oil FIRST to Canadian consumers to give our citizens the best price then export.....
I believe this country needs to slow down exporting the USA, build more refineries north of the border to avoid the stupifying aspect of first selling our crude oil to the USA and paying more on the return back across the border...that to me is un-needed.....
with that much oil in canada and nothing to show for it, yes I would say your country has issues.
What is Canada's refining capabilities? I have no idea what they are, but without being able to refine a lot of oil, you would definately have to sell oil and buy gasoline back.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Hence my point of building more refineries...which would therefore give back 1000's of high paying jobs to Canadians therefore lowering the unemployment rate, increasing money in the pocket (men and women who work at these facilities make better than average money), and the ultimate goal cheaper gas at the pumps because we would avoid exporting....that is where I would love to see my country go......
sorry... I guess I didn't really read your second paragraph
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
great plan, make it happen
Very good point...Alberta is recruiting in BC to fill jobs out there, I guess they can;t get enough people fast enough...If only I was single I would be there in a second...
It frustrates me as a Canadian (much it would you if the situation was reveresed)...my whole point was to say from Pickr's point of view our exportation of oil and importing of gasoline is hurting us just as much as any Middle East policy....
Here is another frustration point...when Katrina ripped through the Gulf Of Mexico oil prices (and subsequantly gas prices) sky-rocketed...now why the hell should I have to pay more for gas because of hurricane in the south when my nation provides more than enough oil to satisfy it's own consumers....that to me drives me nuts.....like I said build more refineries and take care of your people first then your neighbours next....
Alberta is not as great as you may think.....yes we have a crazy amount of jobs from the lowly fast food worker to Presidents of large companies.....BUT housing is very very inflated right now....Alberta is running on a thin edge right now...especially Calgary...Calgary unlike other large urban Canadian cities such as Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver bases it's success on a single commodity...and when that commodity drops there are going to be a lot of unemployed and very in debt people.....don't let the success fool you that much....on the flip-side Saskatchewan is posed to become the next Alberta as large oil companies (I am in the business) are buying very large parcels of land.....this will further the worker shortage in Alberta as currently a large portion of the employment force came from Saskatchewan (main reason for the provinces population decline IMHO) which will return as housing is much cheaper....
Put it this way an average 1200 ft2 house in Saskatoon will run you $180,000 compared to Calgary where it is close to $400,000+....I am one just waiting full of anticipation and hope that there is boom in Saskatchewan...would love to leave Alberta in an instant.....
One day I may....:)