| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
ABC Blotter sources: Iran could have nukes by 2009
Brian Ross and Christopher Isham at ABC’s Blotter are citing anonymous sources as saying Iran may have enough material to make a nuke by 2009:
Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.
The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.
The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.
A spokesperson for the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, declined to comment citing the “extreme sensitivity” of the situation with Iran.
“Sensitivity” over the situation with Iran has never stopped the IAEA from commenting on their nuke capabilities before. From this December 5, 2005 Jerusalem Post piece:
IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel’s assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.
If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only “a few months” to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.
Iran does not pose an immediate nuclear threat and the world must act cautiously to avoid repeating mistakes made with Iraq and North Korea, the head of the U.N, nuclear watchdog agency said on Tuesday.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the world shouldn’t “jump the gun” with erroneous information as he said the U.S.-led coalition did in Iraq in 2003, nor should it push the country into retaliation as international sanctions did in North Korea.
“Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat,” the winner of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize told a forum organized by the Monterey Institute of International Studies south of San Francisco. “We still have lots of time to investigate.”
With contradictory quotes like those, it’s probably a good idea that the IAEA is keeping its trap shut right about now. They don’t seem to know which end is up. In fact, if you read ElBaradei’s comments, you’ll see that he sounds suspiciously like certain Democrats in the Senate who recently accused the President of overhyping the threat from Iran “just like he did Iraq.”
Birds of a feather …
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
16 Responses to “ABC Blotter sources: Iran could have nukes by 2009”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
BDS kills and kills and kills.
These disgusting buffoons have given maggots a bad rep. Turncoats the lot and when facts are surrounding them piled higher than the desks they hide behind, they sing. It use to be la la la la la la but now with their newer progressive version flip flop as their standard norm, it’s alla alla alla. Koeenky deenk?
And then there’s this……be sure to read the commenter after the post.
THIS IS NUTS!
Why don’t you post what El-Baradei really told The Independent?
Huh? –ST
Full quote describing what Baradei said in Dec 5th 2005 Independent (the source for the Jerusalem post atricle snippet posted above):
“[a]lthough IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for [the underground enrichment plant at] Natanz to become fully operational, Mr. El-Baradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be ‘a few months’ away from a nuclear weapon.”
The Jerusalem Post clearly mischaracterized what ElBaradei said.
Nice try? The post snippet you posted implies Baradei said Iran could be two months away, when in fact, it was at least 26 months.
Nice try yourself.
I see we have a clear case of another liberal visiting this blog who either can’t read or only sees what he/she wants to. From what I quoted:
Gosh, it appears that the JPost did indeed get it right. One minute El Baradei acts like Iran is an immediate concern and the next he’s not.
They need to be stopped. Now. “How?” is up for debate, but “should we?” isn’t.
Next time you want to try to “catch” me in something, ME, try reading what I post first. Then maybe you won’t come off looking so silly.
Also as if 26 months is such a long period of time. President Bush “rushed” to war after almost 12 years of Hussien’s antics and breaking the surrender agreement he was under.
If in Dec of 2005 the Iranian’s were “at least” 2 years away, that means now they are only 8 months away. Seems to me that it is time to deal with this threat once and for all. – Lorica
Amen, Lorica.
Furthermore, I notice that ME has convieniently ignored the main point of this post, which was to point out that yet another source is saying that Iran is on track to produce nukes – soon, thereby solidifying even more the administration’s assertions that Iran is a hostile threat to this country as well as the international community, contrary to assertions by the ‘usual suspects’ that Bush has been ‘overstating’ the threat from Iran.
The part of this that stands out to me is the “annonymous source”. Why run with this kind of info. Are you not tired of this lame stuff. Wasn’t it the same source for Drudge/Ware yesterday? Or was it the Niger/Yellowcake guy?
I also wonder where Iran would be had the USA excepted thier offer of diplomacy back in 2003. I am certainly no expert on diplomacy, but I have a nose and can smell a cow pie when in the vicinity.
Buhbye. –ST
No need to wonder T Ray and Iran was not an exception.
The results would be a bit like these jerks, except for the cheap price tag.
I can only imagine what ME said, so like a snottynosed right winger, I am gonna have abit o’ fun.
Why is it when confronted with facts our friends on the left usually resort to saying something will get them banned?? Yet these guys actually want us to take what they have seriously. Riiiiighhhhtttt – Lorica
Why is it when confronted with facts our friends on the left usually resort to saying something will get them banned??
Because of two reasons:
One, they can’t actually think, and respond emotionally at their natural level of maturity, and
Two, because that way they can run to their fellow liberal dolts and say that those evil conservatives banned them because they spoke truth to power. They want to be banned as it’s some kind of perverse badge of honor to them.
Well, this way the left, and our media (as if there is a difference) can have it both ways. If Iran does develop a nuke and uses it to unleash a war in the middle east, they can say “But there were signs that they were developing a nuke, why didn’t Bush DO anything?!”
On the other hand, if we bomb their nuclear facilities and it turns out they were, indeed, years away from a bomb they can say “See! Bush is a warmonger!”
They win either way.