Skip to comments.Israel Presents Aerial Photos of Iran Nuclear Sites to Bush
Posted on 04/12/2005 5:04:38 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Ariel Sharons military attache presented aerial photos of Iranian nuclear installations during the Israeli prime ministers summit with US President George W. Bush, Israeli public radio reported on Tuesday.
General Yoav Gallan, who accompanied Sharon to Mondays talks at Bushs Texas ranch, presented the photos as well as information gathered by the Israeli intelligence services on Teherans nuclear programme.
The radio, which did not give details on how the photos were taken, said the images proved that the Iranian nuclear programme was at a very advanced stage.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed the two leaders had talked about their shared concern about Irans intentions with their nuclear programme but denied they had discussed the possibility of a preemptive military strike by Israel, aimed at ensuring Iran does not acquire atomic weapons.
The United States and Israel have both accused Iran of using its atomic energy programme as cover for a plan to develop nuclear arms, a charge denied by Teheran, which says it needs nuclear power as an alternative energy source.
Israel itself has never publicly acknowledged that it maintains a nuclear arsenal but foreign experts say it has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads.
Israel photos of Iran nuke sights given to Bush - Ping!
The recent report on Iraq intelligence failures. Don't you read the news?
I think we have the same picures.
Pres. Bush's own commission on intelligence failures in Iraq told me so.
The administration did not have to wait for Israeli intelligence to show him those photographs. Bush and Cheney could simply have read "Atomic Iran," in which surveillance photographs of multiple Iranian nuclear facilities are printed and discussed in detail, making the exact same point.
Thanks for pointing out both points: that our intelligence sucks, and that the cause of it are the very politicians who today are complaining about the fact our intelligence sucks.
We know Iraq possessed WMD because they used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. The UN reported that Saddam had unaccounted for stocks of WMD with no documentation that they had been destroyed. Hence the need for inspections.
The corrrect question should be where are those WMD. I suspect that they were transferred out of Iraq into Syria during the runup to the war or they are still hidden somewhere in Iraq. The idea that Saddam had no WMD is the kind of crap the Dems foist on the American public.
You're preachin' to the choir, kabar. (I'm well aware Saddam was up to his eyeballs in WMD). I was merely debunking oolatec's assertion that Israel gave us phony intel in order to get us to "do their dirtywork for them" (take out Saddam).
Not on this deal, partner. News and itel commentary more and more reveal Russia is supplying, not only Iran, but other elements hostile to U.S. efforts through the whole region. It's looking like the cold war all over again, Bush and Putin as "drinking pals" notwithstanding.
I think you're right...
If that's so, it puts even greater pressure on Putin to destroy the nuke sites.
I wonder if the Cold War ever really ended. To me, it just moved to a different phase where the hostilities were less obvious to the average American. Putin and Bush seem almost a modern version of FDR and Stalin. Cozying up to "uncle Joe" in 1944-45 didn't work, and cozying up to his neo-Stalinist successor 60 years later won't work either. Russia, under whatever name has never been our friend, only a temporary ally of mutual convenience.
<< ...and your Clearance is to what level that helps you qualify that statement? >>
We're right up there with former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger.
Only a maroon would construe a comment suggesting someone was smart enough to get another someone to do some heavy lifting for them as an insult.
But then in your zeal I guess you are blind.
Sod off swampy.
Boy someone musta pissed in your cornflakes this morning.
"It's looking like the cold war all over again"
A cold war might be the best course of action. Containment isn't as messy as shooting hot lead and dropping high explosives. Changing your enemy's mind about an ideology doesn't necessarily mean using a bullet to disfigure the brain. The Soviets never had a real parity with the US (but, no doubt, they were quite powerful). Because containment worked, it became quite obvious over the decades, and especially in the end, who had a better system for living life and creating wealth. The same might be said of what Iran suffers and what her neighbors don't.