Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program Demanded in US Congress [Ron Paul asks Condi]

ShortNews ^ | February 9, 2007 | ShortNews

[Cvengr]

"Why is Iran different?"

Glad you asked. Iran is very different because the leadership in Iran at present has a continuous history of violating international law regarding the respect of other nations, ergo the US Embassy being held hostage for over a year, and more ominously has proclaimed he has a spiritual destiny to usher in Armageddon so that the 12th imam may arrive with the mahdi, thereby bringing paradise sooner to earth.

Unlike other nations which prefer to not see nuclear weapons used in angst, Iran's current leadership believes it is their duty to detonate them when they are unprovoked.

Considering mutual assured destruction has lapsed a bit with this new strategic direction, our only real course of action os to prevent their procurement of the systems in any sustainable fashion.

I like Ron Paul, and I applaud his request for justification, but his association of lack of public info on Iraqi WMD involvement with an absolute nonexistence of Iranian WMD programs is IMHO foolish at best.

[Zeon Cowboy]

Hey, Mr. Paul, let me introduce you to my friend Mr. Newspaper...

[rogue yam]

...false charges made against Iraq.

There were no false charges made against Iraq. There was an overestimation of what evidence would be found but Saddam was guilty nonetheless.

[M. Espinola]

This latest proof of Iran's deep involvement in the murder of Americans dates back to when the Shah was sold out by Carter White House and replaced with the 7th century Islamic madness of fanatical Shi'ite Khomeinism.

The entire nuclear weapons crazed, terrorist exporting Iranian dictatorship needs to be ousted and quickly.

[musician]

What part of "Death to America" doesn't Dr. Paul understand?

Not to say that there isn't reason to exercise caution. For one thing, President Ahmadinejad is tight with Hugo Chavez. In the event of an American or Israeli assault on Iraq I would expect Chavez to take retaliatory economic action, perhaps to the extent of interrupting Venezuelan petroleum exports to the U.S.

[rlmorel]

With the exception of England (who also helped us develop ours) who did we HELP to develop nuclear weapons? Can you name one and provide proof of that? The only way we helped the Soviets was via the Rosenbergs.

"Why is Iran different?" Boy. You don't read much, do you? Maybe because they have already said they will use them to wipe another country (Israel) off the face of the earth if they get them?

If you and I were face to face, our exchange might sound like this:

ME: "Did Iraq have WMD before we freed the country?"

YOU: There is no PROOF of that."

ME: "Do you deny the evidence, both pictoral, archival and via personal accounts that Iraq not only possessed WMD, but had large stores of them, and actually used them against both its wartime opponent Iran and its own citizens, the Kurds?"

YOU: Yes.

ME: I present this photographic and documentary evidence of Iraqi use of WMD against Iraqi Kurds. Thousands of people, dead, in mid flight, with no visible signs of physical harm such has this mother and child picture here.

YOU: Okay, they had them but they didn't have them anymore after that.

ME: How do you know that?

YOU: They said they destroyed them, and I believe them.

ME: Do you really? I present documented eviidence by inspecting teams that the Hussein regime engaged in obstruction of teams, deception and outright lying. There is documented evidence that from a multinational team, many members who opposed US action against the Iraqi regime.

ME: So, here is a country that admitted that it had WMD and had used them, had the infrastructure, equipment and training of personnel to use them, and as a condition of a cease-fire was required to make full, unobstructed disclosure of all WMD in their possession and destroy them. As a prerequisite to joining the world community again and being allowed to sell its oil on the world market, all it had to do was comply. A multinational team documents their obstruction extensively.

ME: In light of that, janetgreen, do you think Iraq was being truthful or were they hiding something?

YOU: (In loud voice) IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE! WE HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE! THEY WERE A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND POSED NO THREAT TO US!

ME: Well, many would disagree with you on that. Iraq refused to comply with the statutes of the cease-fire which was necessary because they invaded a neighboring oil producing country and would be on the border of another oil producing country which could have been conquered in a day or two. All three, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia produce the majority of oil in the Middle East. Now we couldn't have that, janetsmith, could we? You don't like to admit it, but oil does not come from the "Oil Fairy", and a hostile power in control of that country could cut off the oil for your SUV, right?

YOU: So, you admit it is all about oil then?

ME: janetsmith, YOUR views are on trial here, not mine. Anyway, only children think oil doesn't matter. Adults don't have that luxury. Yes, it was about oil, but it was also about 9/11 and terrorism.

YOU: There was NO link between the Hussein regime and terrorism! The Bush Administration LIED to us when they said they were working with Al-Queda!

ME: You are mistaken, janetsmith. The Bush Administration was very careful NEVER to draw a link between Al-Queda and Iraq, even though they could have if they had been prepared to present circumstantial evidence that was strong enough in the eyes of some. But they chose not to go that route, and to concentrate on the ties with terrorism.

YOU: THERE ARE NO IRAQI TIES TO TERRORISM!

ME: You are misinformed. Did you know that there were many prominent terrorists living under the protection of the Hussein Regime? Terrorists such as Abu Nidal

and Abu Abbas

who were both directly responsible for the murder of Americans? Additionally, there was a fully functional training camp at Salman Pak

Of course, this does not include the $25,000 paid to suicide bombers in the West Bank that came directly from Iraq which Saddam Hussein's regime boasted of. The explosive vests were manufactured there as well.

YOU: It is lies, all of it.

ME: Perhaps. But let me explain how I see it. ?On 9/11 we had 3,000 of our fellow citizens slaughtered in cold blood. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandparents, pregnant women, brothers, sisters, friends, co-workers, Americans. Some of them were pulverized to a fine mush under the weight of collapsing buildings. Some faced the choice of burning alive or plummeting a thousand feet to die on the pavement below. Others died screaming in terror as the planes flew past skyscrapers before hitting their targets.

I had an acquaintance of mine who died on one of those planes, American Flight 11. His name was David Kovalcin.

My last memory of him is sitting up on a porch until 2 AM on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee drinking beers talking about life long after all the other people had gone to bed.

My new boss was a Colonel in the Army who had just retired weeks before. I was having my first interview with her in her office, when her phone rang. It was one of her former subordinates calling to tell her that a plane had just hit the Pentagon. After she hung up, she looked at me and said "I have a lot of close friends in that building."

If those people who perpetrated the horror of 9/11 had weapons that could kill a million people, they would have used them. They intentionally rammed those planes into the WTC to try to trap as many people in the top of the buildings as they could. If they could get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they would use it without hesitation.

We are at war. We have been at war, and people in this country and around this world have not fully come to that realization. This is not a legal matter. It is not a law enforcement matter. This is war. This is a matter of life and death, and I am not prepared to bandy words about sovereignty, the "rights" of terrorists or whatever. I do not give a flying crap if we stomp over their "rights", whatever those are.

In summary, I have enough proof to justify the actions my country has taken.

[elhombrelibre]

The Libertarian Cindy Sheehan is just a pest.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Apart from his position on Islam.....oops....er....terror he has no financial/budgetary similarities to the "Typical" Republican....nor is his immigration/border security position in line with most republcan thinking....so much so that many who call themselves conservative have distanced themselves from Bush...."

Was it Reagan or Bush senior that granted amnesty for the illegals?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Ron Paul is a joke and a career politician to boot. Perhaps he should take his own advice, save some taxpayer's money and retire.

[Abcdefg]

It was Reagan.

[Almondjoy]

It seems Ron Paul may killed off a few too many brain cells.. perhaps he needs to go to rehab to avoid the moronic comments he just made.

Even if we never find proof that Saddam shipped his weapons to Syria we certainly have a ton of evidence that shows they would have started creating banned weapons as soon as inspectors were off his back.

[BUSHdude2000]

Ron Paul at it again Ping!

[janetgreen]

With the exception of England (who also helped us develop ours) who did we HELP to develop nuclear weapons?

Clinton to China, 1996. China to Pakistan after that.

You ask if Iraq had WMD before we "freed the country". Iraq had a cruel dictator, just like many third world countries have. I don't think we've freed Iraq at all. Hussein is gone, but chaos remains.

We've done nothing but make the situation worse, and more importantly, over 3000 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives. Iraq didn't invade us, we invaded it, and we have no right to invade any country to obtain oil.

You ask if there are any Iraqi ties to terrorism. Yes, most likely many more than there were before we invaded Iraq on a false premise.

You speak of 9/11, an American tragedy for all of us. My friend who worked for Cantor-Fitzgerald lost over 20 of her friends in the attack. Iraq did not supply the supposed "pilots" who drove those planes into the WTC buildings, yet we invaded Iraq.

In my summary, yes we are in a war we didn't need to be in, and lies were told by our leaders to get us into that war. I don't have a solution to this quagmire, and neither does the current "leadership" in Washington.

In my summary, I believe a preemptive attack on Iran would be a disasterous move, and I don't trust the current incompetent administration to make that decision for America.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

[Reaganesque]

Go peddle the "Bush lied and people died" BS elsewhere. It is a flat out lie. Assuming first that the claim that there were never any WMD, if that were true, what did the people in Halabja die of? The flue? Or the tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers and civilians during the Iran-Iraq war who were gassed? The sniffles? And if there were never any WMD in Iraq, what were the UN weapons inspectors looking for? Summer homes?

Just after the current conflict in Iraq took place, Bill Clinton, of all people, gave the final and best reason for going into Iraq: (This from CNN)"Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Is it any more responsible to ignore the possibility that Ahmedinijad, a holocaust denier and man who has stated unequivocally his desire to "wipe Israel off the map", may be developing nuclear weapons? It would be sheer idiocy to do so. It was the responsible thing to do to invade Iraq and it is the responsible thing to do to prevent Iran, however we do it, from developing such weapons. To do anything else would be dangerously naive.

[cva66snipe]

Look I had no real issue with taking Saddam and sons out. Poppy messed up big time not doing in before. BUT I did not support the way congress went about getting him this time by that I mean the lack of Declaration of War. There are three reasonable ways to take out tyrants. Covert assassination of the foreign leader {prohibition began under RINO FORD} or a full Declaration of War. Or a limited {as in Reagan vs Qadaffy} type of strike. Neither was done.

Next even taking Saddam out OK fine. Where was the exit strategy? Bush from day one went to Iraq with the idea to rebuild it. How do I know? The targets hit say so. There was no intention of a quick and precise victory, leave them incapable of fighting, and exit with a full victory plan. Next is nation building. I am against it. Bush said he was as well.

Going deeper Bush acknowledged our military had major shortfalls and over extensions. Name me one he has actually addressed. The cut backs continue and Social Spending increases. You tell me whats wrong with that picture.

The man nor the congress despite all the time they have had has of yet actually substantially raised the actual number of permanent allowed active duty troop strengths. We are on 1996 troop strength levels. Now go back and read myy last post again where Bush talks about shortages and overextensions.

In short Bush has continued the Poppy and Clinton foreign and defense policies. I am not making him a liar read the text I'll link it if you wish or you can search that text to the 2000 debates. He did it to himself.

I'm not anti-war. But I expect that when our troops are being asked to shed blood and die for this nation that they get an actual Declaration of War and not some in support of U.N. Resolution Crap written by UN and Congressional lawyers. It matter more than you realize as it makes getting their just compensation for injuries that may show up decades later much easier. No one questioned a WW2 vets claims but the vets of Korea, Nam, and Gulf War one had major problems. War what war said the V.A.? Add to that a declaration of war is binding to congress as well as POTUS to see it through. A declaration of the authorization of the use of military force however is not.

It's not a matter of Bush lied people died but rather there is a right and wrong way to go about doing things and Bush went against his own platform. How many more times must congress make the same mistake?

The following has not been done against any nation we went to war with since WW2.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

Now go find such wording in the Resolution for authorization of use of force. All you'll see is war on terror and UN Revolution this and that with UN Security Council. Since when did we become the enforcement arm of the stinking U.N.?

I got news for you. Withing 5 years after our troops pull out a man 10 times the son of hell will become Iraqs new leader. GW Bush will have given him a better place to build on than Saddam had when we leave think about that. The peoples vote their means nothing. Either dictator selected by their own force or ones installed by radical clerics rule the land. Ones who support it are being born faster than we are killing the current ones. If Bush wanted a war he should have had the stomach to do what had to be done and stopped his insane Kinder Gentler War nonsense which is wrong.

I give Ron Paul the credit of having the good sense to ask for a Formal Declaration of War which makes clear all unanswered questions and the resolve of congress. Do you think Hillary could have spun her way out of such a declaration after signing it? I don't.

I don't think Ron Paul would be one quick on the draw to take this nation to war. But I think if he found the circumstances warranted such you would see a formal declaration of war with clear and precise objectives and reasons and not some 20 plus paragraph of lawyer dribble for politicans to abandon the troops with. His war would not be kinder or gentler nor in a third world nation last longer than WW2.

[Marine_Uncle]

I know where all the main links are. I am saying Tony had better start putting a well rehersed package of information to gether with explainations as how all Americans and others can view with their own eyes all the evidence we here for three years plus, show the bastards had the stuff, as well as many carefully planned programs that would go into effect if the sanctions where lifted, and they where given more leeway.
Just a terse set of statements in a matter of fact form, regarding the contents of the Harmony Database, and links to our site with all the work jveritas has done could allow a lot of Americans that are simply blind to what we have been priveledged to learn, better understand the original Intel was not faulty and we had many good reasons to take Saddam down.

[Calpernia]

I think they tried to do that with the Pentagon Channel.

You are right though. The 'bully pulpet' is not affective when the MSM still control the information flow.

[Marine_Uncle]

And they shall continue to do that. Our constitution allows them to get away with just about anything they wish. We live in the land of the free.

[rlmorel]

I give you a lot of credit for a reasonable response. I appreciate completely your sentiment to agree to disagree, and I respect that.

However, there are a few points I cannot let pass.

1.) We did not, as a country, assist China or Pakistan. If they used technology from us, it was stolen, given illegally or through executive fiat of a stupid and corrupt chief executive who should have been tried for those crimes. The China connection to the Clintons has been supressed by a complicit media. We did NOT, as US policy assist them in any way.

2.) While the country remains a wild west IN SOME AREAS, it HAS been freed from the tyranny of the Baathists. 80% of the country is freer and has better prospects for improvements in their lives than they did under Saddam Hussein. Freedom is not easy. If you want to live in a country where you can be fed to lions, thrown into a chipper shredder or just disappeared as part of government policy, then be my guest.

3.) If we had invaded the country for oil, we would have it already. But that is not why we are there. We are there because the methods used in dealing with issues in the Middle East have got us nowhere, except poorer 3000 of our citizens in a matter of a few hours. Is this nation building? Yes. And I think it is well worth the blood and treasure of our nation to attempt this. There will be plenty of time to turn the place into a glass parking lot, as many here seem to think we should. Perhaps it will come to that. But at least history will record that we DID try to help lift those people out of the misery, poverty and strife they have been part of for so long. It may yet succeed, and serve as a democratic beacon as Natan Sharansky so eloquently outlined in his inspiring book "The Case for Democracy". It may fail. But we tried, and if you think we made the situation worse, then you need to speak to the relatives of the people who died on 9/11. Worse than that?

3.) Nobody has said Iraq supplied the pilots or had any connections with 9/11. That is a red herring, and completely misses the point of the reason we are there. We are there because the world changed on 9/11, and we are not going to sit passively back and wait for thousands of our citizens to die because we have not made the effort to drain the fever swamps of Islamofacism in the Middle East. Those people who hijacked those airplanes are the SAME types of people we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

4.) Your use of the word "Quagmire" betrays your roots. As much as some people would like this to be Vietnam, it isn't, and won't be. There is no parallel whatsoever.

As Brigitte Gabriel says so succinctly in her book 'Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America', "Putting your head in the sand only makes a big, fat target out of your rear end." The world changed on 9/11, and it IS our business what goes on over in that part of the world.

I am not advocating a pre-emptive strike on Iran. What I AM advocating is not closing your eyes, plugging your ears and saying to yourself over and over again "IRAN HAS NO NUCLEAR AMBITIONS! IRAN HAS NO NUCLEAR AMBITIONS!"

That is the essence of liberalism, to deny the facts and reality, and to state a desired utopia and fantasy as reality. I regret to inform you, there is plenty of evidence Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons, including their own admission. If the world wakes up to a mushroom cloud, it is going to be too late to turn back the clock, and we will hear all the usual suspects (including Ron Paul and people just like him) whining "Why, oh why didn't we connect the dots?!!! WHY DIDN'T WE DO SOMETHING WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE?!!!"

[dynoman]

janetgreen, read this;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782982/posts

I like Ron Paul, voted for him, but he's being a dunce about this.