Comments: CIA Chief: Obama and Clinton Lying About Iranian Nuclear Program

Iraq's huge oil reserves PROVE two keynote things, oil and oil.

Posted by Mike Meyer at January 15, 2009 11:24 PM

Obama must be beginning his campaign for the next presidential election. If he escalates the war in Afghanistan which is a given while remaining in Iraq which must be still costing us astronomical amounts of money where will the money come from to start a war with Iran? Perhaps we are on the verge of the end of empire as the money runs out. I certainly hope so. But then it is never wise to underestimate the stupidity of the urge for U.S. leaders to try and mold the world to their liking. On the other hand Afghanistan has been the downfall of more than one empire.

Posted by Rob Payne at January 15, 2009 11:58 PM

Mar 2, 2007. . .Obama: The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons

National Intelligence Estimate, Dec 4, 2007 . . .. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program

IAEA Report, May 26, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

July 25, 2008 . .Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, nearing the end of a fast-paced international campaign trip, warned Iran today, "don't wait for the next president" to take office before yielding to Western demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. . .Iran poses "an extraordinarily grave situation." He said the world must send "a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."

NPT: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."

Sep 6, 2008 ...Iran is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, Barack Obama said

IAEA Report, September 15, 2008: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."

Oct 2, 2008 . . .Obama: "The American people weren't just failed by a President - they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts. . .I will always tell the American people the truth."

Nov 7, 2008 ... U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in Chicago on Friday that Iran's development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

IAEA Report on Iran, Nov 19, 2008 -- "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."

Dec 7, 2008 . . .Obama: "We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable"

Jan 11, 2009 . . .Obama: "[Iran is] pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race."

Posted by Don Bacon at January 16, 2009 12:28 AM

When Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA say Iran's violating the NPT then credible concerns will be warrranted. Not before and not from any other source. Hayden, Clinton, Obama & Co. have as much credibility on the subject as the dipshits who still sport W'04 stickers on their car.

Oh, and when will India, Israel and Pakistan, America's plucky democratic nuclear armed allies in the GWTF, stop flouting international law, sign the NPT and admit IAEA inspectors to their nuclear facilities? When will the American government honor its responsibilities under the NPT to eliminate these instruments of state sponsored terror?

Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 16, 2009 09:20 AM

Well done, Mr. Bacon. I'm stealing that.

Posted by SteveB at January 16, 2009 09:35 AM

I don't understand why the quantity of low-enriched uranium is being indicated as if that's some sort of milestone. You can't make a bomb with that; you need highly-enriched uranium. If they were making highly-enriched uranium, we would know about it. What does low-enriched uranium have to do with anything?

There was a nice discussion on Meet the Press about this a few weeks back (Jan 4), where David Sanger said why it was important that Iran not get the bomb: "Because, as we saw with the Iraq invasion, it's a lot easier for the United States to go in after a dictator who it says may get the bomb than against one who has one."

He also ties in Gaza neatly to the question of Iran: "Because the Israelis need to show that they once again have their deterrent capability back. That is what their bombing of the Syrian reactor that the North Koreans helped the Syrians build was all about a year and a half ago. It's what this is about. It's about saying to the Iranians, 'We have a way to get out and reach you.'"

Control, control. You must learn control!

Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493781/page/4/

Posted by saurabh at January 16, 2009 12:41 PM

Don Beacon: thanks!

I am going to post that on my blog one day soon.

Posted by Susan at January 16, 2009 09:17 PM