Rice confronted over Iran evidence of Nuclear Weapons
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, has been
confronted in congress over the US administration's failure to provide firm evidence for Iran's alleged nuclear weapons development.
Ron Paul, a Republican congressman, said: "Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made
against Iraq." Continue Here
Again we may have the US government crying WMD without proof. Will US attack Iran and then we find out they wasn't trying to make nuclear weapons?
US says they are not planning an attack. yeah right!
posted on 9-2-2007
First things first, YCON, I asked for an elaboration in the thread discussing the alleged plan to attacxk this month. You haven't bothered. Would
you please clarify your position for me?
posted on 10-2-2007
OK TC, I posted a response for you in the other thread. Now here's more for you to chew on.
Bush administration delays rollout of intel showing Iran's help to Iraqi militias
After the damage to its reputation caused by using faulty
intelligence to justify the invasion in Iraq, the Bush administration has been more cautious about publicly presenting evidence of Iran's assistance
to Iraqi militias, according to a report in the National Journal today.
Reporter and blogger Laura Rozen reports that twice in the past month, the Bush administration has delayed presentation of PowerPoint slides making
the case that Iran is assisting Shi'a militias in Iraq's simmering sectarian conflict. While US officials in Baghdad are ready to present the
slides, the White House is wary that "the press will scrutinize the information intensely, that the intelligence 'dots' that the administration has
assembled about Iran in Iraq can be connected multiple ways."
Rozen explains that while the White House sees "damning" evidence of Iran's engagement with the Shi'a side of Iraq's hostilities, "the
intelligence community is quietly indicating that the case purporting to prove Iran's involvement in Iraq is murkier and less decisive than the
thrust of recent administration statements suggests." Continue Here
So TC, is it possible that they don't have total evidence against Iran? Is it possible that they have exagerated the amount of involvement?
"But that evidence, the official conceded, doesn't tell exactly why it was sent, or who sent it."
Isn't this the same thing Bush did to Iraq before they attacked them?
posted on 10-2-2007
Well nuclear weapons isnt the only thing they want to go after Iran for. There is the support to the Iraqi Shia militants, support to Hizbullah and
I was just reading this article in the New York Times about the Iranian support that has helped the Insurgents aquire more dangerous IEDs.