Posted on 10/27/2007 4:38:01 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions By WILLIAM J. BROAD and MARK MAZZETTI
The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.
The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.
A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat.
In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program. But they have never publicly discussed what many analysts say appears to have been a long-running nuclear effort next door.
Yesterday independent analysts, examining the latest satellite image, suggested that work on the site might have begun around 2001, and the senior intelligence official agreed with that analysis. That early date is potentially significant in terms of North Korea’s suspected aid to Syria, suggesting that North Korea could have begun its assistance in the late 1990s.
A dispute has broken out between conservatives and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the administration’s pursuit of diplomacy with North Korea in the face of intelligence that North Korea might have helped Syria design a nuclear reactor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Give them enough time, Liberals can find a way to blame it on Bush.
Today they figured out the California wild fires - turns out the massive damage was really caused by Bush’s military helicopters not being ready to put out the state’s fires. Nevermind the Calif laws prohibiting them from taking part.
I suppose, in hindsight, we hould have filed a complaint with the UN as soon as the foundation was laid. <./s>
“In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program.”
“One way or the other, we are determined to
deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use
force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously
diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what
happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us
or our allies is the greatest security threat we
face.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress,
and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect
Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs.”
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI),
Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the
region and he has made a mockery of the weapons
inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces
for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies.”
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob
Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and
stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to deter and we should assume
that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in
October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked
on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear
weapons...”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Acute BDS.
You post that list of quotes to a bunch of rabid Lefties, and you wouldn’t believe the crap you get back. BTDT.
Inconvenient truths.
Well, the Times is right about one thing. We should have done a regime change on Syria as well as Iraq, and probably would have done if not for all the leftist opposition.
It’s still not too late. Thanks, Pinch, for giving us the go-ahead.
We can still make up for lost time.
Apparently the NY Times finds it inconceivable that the government doesn’t send them a news release with every bit of intelligence data it has. Who would assume that the President would publicly identify every potential target of military action? What purpose would that serve, other than to (a) make the New York Times happy, and (b) let the enemy set up air defenses?
I guess the guys at the Times are so arrogant that they assume they should know everything — after all they can be trusted to keep a secret right? (/sarcasm off)
Oh bite me, NYT.
If anything, this story makes it more likely that Saddam--who in 2003 was closely tied with the Syrians--was a collaborator in a regional nuclear consortium.
Or is the NYT advocating an invasion of Syria instead? Come on, you masters of geopolitics. Let us know what you would have done.
If the building was under construction in 2003, it’s likely that the nuke research didn’t start for a few years. So the Israelis bombed it at just the right time.
The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq..."
The NY Times is published by a staff of anti-American a$$holes who don't even pay attention to the MAJOR POLICY SPEECHES OF THE DAY:
http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Syria’s weapons of mass destruction and missile development programs. I understand that we will have a brief open hearing now and a closed session later today.
Syria remains a security concern on two important counts: terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I will focus on the latter, although the potential linkages are obvious. Specifically, our Coalition’s operations in Iraq showed that this Administration and the international community take the link between terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction] most seriously. There is no graver threat to our country today than states that both sponsor terrorism and possess or aspire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria, which offers physical sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hizballah, HAMAS, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and whose terrorist operations have killed hundreds of innocent people – including Americans -- falls into this category of states of potential dual threat. While there is currently no information indicating that the Syrian Government has transferred WMD to terrorist organizations or would permit such groups to acquire them, Syria’s ties to numerous terrorist groups underlie the reasons for our continued anxiety.
...
Before I address the specifics of Syria’s WMD programs, let me first discuss press reports that Iraq covertly transferred weapons of mass destruction to Syria in an attempt to hide them from UN inspectors and Coalition forces. We have seen these reports, reviewed them carefully, and see them as cause for concern. Thus far, we have been unable to confirm that such transfers occurred. We are continuing with the full breadth of resources at our command to seek conclusive evidence that any such transfer has taken place. We have raised with the Syrians on numerous occasions, even before military action against Iraq, the seriousness with which we would view any transfer of Iraqi dual-use or military related items into Syria.
We have seen Syria take a series of hostile actions toward Coalition forces in Iraq. Syria allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war. Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so. Syria continues to provide safe haven and political cover to Hizballah in Lebanon, which has killed hundreds of Americans in the past. Statements from many of Syria’s public officials during this time vilified the Coalition’s motives in seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the United States portrayed as an enemy is a consistent theme found in newspapers and public statements in Syria as it is in other states in the region. Although Damascus has increased its cooperation regarding Iraq since the fall of the Iraqi regime, its behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria’s WMD capabilities.
Nuclear
As I informed Congress last fall, we are concerned about Syria's nuclear R&D program and continue to watch for any signs of nuclear weapons activity or foreign assistance that could facilitate a Syrian nuclear weapons capability. We are aware of Syrian efforts to acquire dual-use technologies—some, through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Cooperation program—that could be applied to a nuclear weapons program. In addition, Russia and Syria have approved a draft program on cooperation on civil nuclear power. Broader access to Russian expertise could provide opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons. The Syrians have a Chinese-supplied “miniature” research reactor under IAEA safeguards at Dayr Al Hajar.
...
Conclusion
Of course, I will have much more to say on all of these subjects during the closed hearing and I look forward to a more specific and detailed discussion than we can have in an open hearing. As we all recognize, the importance of protecting and preserving vital intelligence sources and methods necessarily and properly restricts what we can say publicly. Nonetheless, the conduct of national security requires that we take all available information into account, which I believe we will be able to do in a classified session.
When the world witnessed the destructive potential of terrorism on September 11, we were reminded of the need to remain steadfast in recognizing emerging threats to our security. In Syria we see expanding WMD capabilities and continued state sponsorship of terrorism. As the President has said, we cannot allow the world’s most dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of the world’s most dangerous regimes, and will work tirelessly to ensure this is not the case for Syria.
Released on September 16, 2003
Bookmark to send to Morgan who is being indoctrinated at the americqn friends school(afs - does the f stand for fascist?) in Philadelphia.
Unless, of course, the Iraq program was in Syria.
Timeline:
1998-2001: Clinton administration, including Veep Gore, insist Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program.
2001: Tenet, Bush, Rice repeat Clinton's warning.
September 11: The world finally takes the idea of terrorist WMD seriously.
Late 2002, early 2003: Tenet calls Iraq nukes a slam-dunk. No western intelligence agency, many better-connected to Iraq than the US, voices disagreement.
February-March 2003: Heavy truck and air traffic out of Iraq into Syria, lack of resources prevents US from 24/7 satellite surveillance.
Followed shortly by the beginning of construction on Syrian Nuke site.
Anybody in the past forty years who's watched more than a couple episodes of Hogan's Heroes knows more of the strategy of sabotage than this guy does.
To wit: Let the Krauts, excuse me, the Syrians waste their time, resources, and money building their project for as long as is prudent. Bomb it just before it becomes operational.
ping
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.