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

ShortNews ^ | February 9, 2007 | ShortNews

[freedomdefender]

US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice was quizzed yesterday over the failure by the current US administration to present any form of solid evidence over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

During the questioning one Republican congressman, Ron Paul told the hearing "Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."

Paul went on to say "This sounds like Iraq, where accusations came first and proof was supposed to come later – only that proof never came because the accusations turned out to be false."

[dynoman]

"But somehow those that have ties with Tony Snow had better convince him to ask the POTUS and others, for some form of well organized press releases that can publically start showing Americans and others what web sites to visit to start learning of all the wmds and intents to re-establish a nuclear program geared at producing uranium nuclear bombs Iraq had on the table."

Ain't gonna happen here's the best explaination why I have seen;

"The current refusal to acknowledge the regional linkages which tie the Saddam Administration in closely with the actions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and the Palestinian and other subsidiary subnational or transnational groups (including al-Qaida) is, to a large extent, governed in the US by the fact that there is strong pressure, not least from the US State Dept. and Secretary of State Colin Powell, not to “widen the war” in the face of international and domestic pressures. However, this position significantly hurts the incumbent US Bush Administration, which took a major political gamble by taking the war to Iraq based on an “intuitive” understanding of the threat which Saddam Hussein posed to regional and Western interests.

For many career intelligence and diplomatic officials, acknowledgement of the Iraq-Libya-Egypt-Iran-DPRK linkages (but particularly Iraq-Libya), at this stage, would be embarrassing. These officials have chosen the approach that, if all goes well, the Libya “problem” will now go away, albeit leaving a considerable gap in the public knowledge which could be politically beneficial to the re-election of US Pres. George W. Bush."

And this;

"It is critical to bear in mind that for the preceding decade and more, Qadhafi had consistently denied that he was engaged in WMD programs, denying also any links with Islamist terrorists or terrorists of any kind. This lie was accepted by the international policy community, and yet when Qadhafi admitted what GIS had long said was the case — that such Libyan WMD programs did, in fact, exist8 — he was greeted as a reformer by the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, and also by some US politicians. Equally significant is the fact that Qadhafi had ensured that, through the Lockerbie settlement, significant funds (up to $900-million) were to go to Washington and New York law firms, providing a pressure point on Washington policymakers of almost unprecedented levels. For many politicians, there was more to be gained by carefully assisting Qadhafi than in exposing him."

Source -> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1536665/posts



Now even though it ain't gonna happen enough clues are out there for a thinking person to realise the true story on Iraqi WMD.

Ever hear about the 20,000 Iraqi WMD technicians and specialists in Libya before IOF??

Read more here posts 80 - 85

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323498/posts?page=85#80

and this;

http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Iraq/Jun0503.htm

The story is way bigger than most imagine it to be.

[dynoman]

Ron Paul should read that data.

[servantboy777]

So you have the head of Iran spouting stuff like, wiping Israel off the map, and the U.S. next.

There is photo evidence this guy was part of the take over of the U.S. embassy in the seventies.

He touts his nuclear accomplishments time and time again.

The Iranian government openly supports Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel.

There's proof that Iranian weapons are being used against our servicemen and woman.

BRAVO RON PAUL???? Surely you jest?

[servantboy777]

"Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."

Down in Texas, you go threatening your neighbor, that's enough to put'cha in jail.

You go talkin smack, like I gotta gun and i'm gonna....whatever, is pretty close to the same thing as soon we will wipe the zionist state off the map.....crap talk.

So how is it different with this maniac in Iran spouting all his anti-Israel smack?

Seems to me, if your gonna be a part of the "international community", you go making statements to the effect of wiping Israel off the map, that kinda seems like a good reason to shut this boy down.

permanently......the sooner, the better.

[cva66snipe]

Iran could have likely been handled in short order if the U.S. State Department would once and for all got off Israel's back and let her do some house cleaning. Remember it was Israel who stopped Saddam's nuke weapons program. Reagan was wise enough to sit back and let them do it. Maybe even some covert help as well.

A lot of our problems in the Middle East stem from our own state department and their never ending love for thugs. "We do not negotiate with terrorist" our presidents says. Yet he and others before him send the state department to Israel to force them to do just that.

Well to be honest I think if we just absolutely had to go into Iraq we should have went in with no other intentions but to level the place and make it so desolate it would take decades if ever to ever recover again. After doing so we should have sent word to her neighbors and say now anybody else?

I do agree with one thing I read. Bush has obviously not communicated what is going on even to those within his own party. This is not just with Iraq/Iran but on virtually all issues. Nobody should ever follow any leader with blind loyalty. Yet he appoints advisor's and cabinet members that do just that.

And for reasons stated in previous post on this thread I question Bush's judgment. If he expects to send troops into Iran and maintain the levels in Iraq as well just how long does he think our military is going to hold up? Our Troops have not seen this much action {by that I mean the same troops being used again and again for extended deployments} since WW2. Somethings gonna break down people and the Arabic world has soldiers to spare. Ours are tied up playing Peace Corp to a nation that will never change. The only difference is our guys are taking bullets. If Bush wants a rebuilt Iraq fine send in Jimmy Cater and let him build it out of his pocket. The neglect to the military is deep into the second decade. They are United States Soldiers and not nation builders Mr President.

[Marine_Uncle]

Good for you in post 61.
Actually was rather accutely aware of Libyian efforts to be the first in the Islamic nation to obtain nuclear weapons. Many things amoung books where written back in the eightees on this fact. There where deals between Saddam and Qadafi for transfers of yellowcake for instance.
I have no problem with your assesments of why the DOS has often convinced the administration to put a lid on various details.
There is a good chance the POTUS could care less if much of the stuff does not get out for a number of years. He completed the objective. Take out Saddam. And obvioulsy the huge minions that wade to the refrig to restock their bags of potatoe chips and Pepsi and race back to the boob tube really do not have the capacity for any details, nor wish to endulge in some real study on any of this stuff.
One could present a long press conference packed with details only to have the L/MSM dive in and butcher it up with their supposed experts, and have the American,Canadian, and European masses think the administration was simply inventing a bunch or stuff to try to make it look like the Intel does show how Iraq orchestrated a long term program of deception.
Tis the way things are.

[servantboy777]

We do shock and awe very well.

Meals on wheels and nation building should be left up to the French, Germans and the worthless U.N.

It is the job of our military to destroy the enemy, protect our interest and provide deterrent.

[cva66snipe]

Even FDR the liberal he was understood this. Until our congress and POTUS understand it war is a futile effort proved as being such by our own history. Realizing this fact doesn't make a person anti-war though IMO. I think this is where Ron Paul is coming from also when he is seeking a congressional Declaration of War. We should not have went to Iraq with anything less than that.

[servantboy777]

Frankly I'm sick of it all.

I support the troops 110% and we should do all we can to give them everything.....everything to kick butt.

With that said, what the hell is wrong with Bush? He seems to be acting like a one man show or something.

[cva66snipe]

Bush went against the very thing he spoke about in 2000. He accused Gore in the debates of being for nation building. Note what he says about taking us into war. It sounds reasonable. But look at what has happened since. We are still running on 1996 troop levels. I think he made a very big mistake by surrounding himself with Yes Men rather than wiser council. It was the same flawed team from failures past trying failed policies. None were from the team who rebuilt the military during the Reagan years. They were from Jerry Ford and Poppy's terms. That was a lot of the problem. These are W's words on going to war.

CAMPAIGN 2000: VICE PRESIDENT GORE AND GOVERNOR BUSH PARTICIPATE IN DEBATE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS OCTOBER 3, 2000

How would you go about, as president, deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force? Generally.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.

Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.

And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops.

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

BUSH: I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

And so I take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power.

Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years, we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places.

And, therefore, I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform, a billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law, to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped; bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services; and a commander in chief who clearly sets the mission, and the mission is to fight and win war, and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

OK it's been 6 years and much of the problems he described in 2000 are still uncorrected today. Part of it was his doing and the other part was the GOP congress who did nothing absolutely nothing to correct these issues because of such RINO's as John Warner former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. What did he think his job was? To keep it nice and warm till the DEMs got there?

[servantboy777]

I'm just disappointed. I thought he was a conservative...boy was I wrong.

[MeanWestTexan]

Ron Paul just voted against the troop reinforcement in Iraq.

Please, never vote for him again.

[Centurion2000]

Ron Paul told the hearing "Unproven charges against Iran's nuclear intentions are eerily reminiscent of the false charges made against Iraq."

Ron Paul, you need to just listen to Ah-m-a-nutjob's talk to know they have a nuclear weapons program in place.