Hey Bolton! "IAEA Finds no Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program"!!!!

[leftchick]

http://www.juancole.com/

<snip>


The IAEA found no smoking gun.

Here is its conclusion, which others will not quote for you at such length:


' 33. All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and
content of Iran’s centrifuge programme. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency’s knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran’s nuclear programme, the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. '


This ambiguity is being twisted by the Bush administration to make it seem as though Iran has done something illegal. The report can be read to say that there is no evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal.

In fact, under the NPT, countries do have the right to do the sort of experiments Iran is doing. Most of the complaints are not about substance but about something else.




"What? I Can't HEAR You"!

[babylonsister]

1. Fer yer own good, be very afraid anyway, peasant. You know

they are only blustering and threatening Iran because they have our best interests at heart. :eyes:

[leftchick]

4. I know

I remember all of the bogus WMD claims being debunked here on DU weekly before the Iraq invasion. Like it does any fucking good. :(

[lostexpectation]

2. why doesn't the Iaea say so

there is impartiality and then theres fencesitting.

[leftchick]

5. what are you trying to say?

exactly?

[lostexpectation]

8. ever heard the saying neutral in favour of the allies?

?

[EFerrari]

10. The problem is that Bush is not Roosevelt. He's a maniac

that will attack innocent people and then claim he's liberating them.

Sort of like Jim Jones.

/typo

[leftchick]

14. thanks

one would think that is common knowledge by now wouldn't one?

[EFerrari]

18. It's difficult to keep knowing your government is insane.

Even traumatic.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Jim Jones

Man ... is ***that*** evear an apt comparison!

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Since when has anyone in this administration been inconvenienced

by the simple truth that the facts do not match their ambitions? It's easy to ignore facts when you have already made up your mind to take action. You can't let those pesky facts get in the way of your dreams of building a legacy.

[spanone]

6. Bolton is daily parting the waters for WAR. DAILY. NON-STOP.

THIS IS HIS MANDATE FROM HIS GOD-PRESIDENT.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Hi leftchick - Been noticing that myself...

:hi:


I guess the key is the February 2006 finding that the IAEA couldn't guarantee there was no hidden weapons work - hence the request to stop enrichment until such guarantees by the IAEA could be made.

No such subtleties in the AP reports - 'Iran is under UN orders to stop or else'. It's like we're being prepped for an action that we're to believe the UN approved, when no such approval is likely to come.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1037508&mesg_id=1042109

I've posted a few threads on this, but they sink like rocks. Next week is when Bolton will try to get the Chapter 7 resolution through the security council. If he's successful, that will be the needed UN fig leaf for the next war..


The resolution would not call for sanctions now, but it would be introduced under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which allows for sanctions and is militarily enforceable.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2252741&mesg_id=2252741

[leftchick]

9. I believe China said no effing way!

already! They don't want it any where near the security council. Between Russia and China this is going to get very interesting.

Thank you for the links. :)

[Junkdrawer]

26. Here's the article that you refer to...

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China's UN envoy Wang Guangya restated Beijing's opposition to Western plans to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN charter to legally bind Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities.

Wang, who presides over the 15-member Security Council for this month, said the standoff with Iran over fears that it may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons, should be resolved through diplomacy.
...

"We all know what Chapter 7 is... Clearly this would not be the end of the resolutions, this would be the beginning of a series of resolutions. Whatever we do we should promote diplomacy," he added.

...

Several Security Council resolutions against Iraq were taken under Chapter 7, before the March 2003 US-led invasion.

This was also the basis for UN armed action during the 1950-53 Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991.

...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060428/wl_asia_afp/irannuclearpoliticsun_060428181939

[Ms. Clio]

27. But this would still require a vote by the SC?

Where Russia and China could veto it?

Here's an article about Syria and Chapter 7. Gosh it's like deja vu all over again.

[Junkdrawer]

28. Yep. But the public threats (and private bribes???) are flying...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2253172&mesg_id=2253172

Perhaps the Taiwan card is on the table...(back us on this and Taiwan is yours.)

[Ms. Clio]

29. get outta my head

I have been wondering about the Taiwan card myself.

[Junkdrawer]

32. BushCo really, really wants Iran...

Iran is the key to being able to pump and ship the oil they grabbed in Iraq.

And Russia and China really, really don't want the US to control the Iraq/Iran oil. So BIG trades will be necessary - and the potential for miscalculation and World War is very high.

[Ms. Clio]

33. maybe I'm crazy, but I believe Iran has been the true target all along

"Real men go to Tehran" and all that shit.

[Junkdrawer]

34. They (Iraq and Iran) are a matched set...

Iraq has more oil, Iran controls the politics.

Speaking of divide and conquer, we supplied both sides with weapons during the 80's Iraq/Iran war.

[Ms. Clio]

35. Oh, they were always going to "take out" Iraq, no doubt

But the empire has been seething over the loss of this oil colony since 1978 -- the impudence of "those people," daring to throw out their duly-appointed puppet dictator and publicly humiliating the U.S. for 444 days.

So many of the same evil players have been on this stage for decades now. And of course it gets even murkier with all the Iran-contra stuff.

And yeah, meanwhile, the U.S. plays the "Great Game" and real people are blown to shreds in faraway places.

It seems almost unstoppable, though -- I just read here yesterday that the U.S. now has air bases all across former Warsaw Pact countries. Amazing.

[Junkdrawer]

36. We're not economically competitive any more, But we still...

have the world's most powerful military. So the guys who control the lion's share of the international oil trade grab control of our government and attempt to use it to gain hegemony of the world's largest remaining oil reserves.

Yeah, War on Terrorism, riiiight...

[Ms. Clio]

37. yeppers

oil + strategery = WOT

[leftchick]

31. thank you for the link

I actually only caught a bit of this on CNNI last night, I had not seen an article yet. China can certainly fuck things up for the imperialists.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. left is quick on the draw. I just read Juan, too.

yet they continue their march towards war. based on misdirection yet again.

[leftchick]

15. exactly the same pattern as Iraq

I expected it from bushco** but it is simply appalling that the media is repeating their same bullshit!

[spanone]

19. The 'media' has been bought and paid for. Don't expect help from them.

Another war is money in the bank for the CNN's and Fox's of this world. The bigger the calamity the greater the ad money. It's Showbiz.

[bigtree]

12. yet, Bolton kept saying 'Iran's nuclear weapon's program'

all they have to pin on Iran is their refusal to answer some questions. Probably important, but far short of what one would expect out of public enemy #1

my take: The US Doesn't Give A Damn About A UN Resolution

[truth2power]

21. Re: your statement - "US doesn't give a damn about UN resolution

Reminds me - I saw an interview with the Iranian ambassador (can't remember his name) on the News Hour last night.

He was dignified, and gave intelligent, articulate and measured answers to all the RW talking points. At one point he said, "The US has no affinity with international law."

He's correct, as are you. The US govt (and about 32% of the American people, sad to say) don't give a damn about any civilized interaction with the rest of the world.

[leftchick]

30. thank you!

that is an excellent piece!

[bigtree]

39. thanks for reading

hope you got to the final version :hi:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060429_the_us_doesn_t_give_.htm

[annabanana]

13. Corpomedia will not cover this!

The newspapers will bury it so they can say "Hey. WE covered it - see there it is on page 22"
The invasion will be a complete screw-up because it is based on LIES.
The papers will say
"We didn't do as good a job as we could have."

and thousands more people will be dead and maimed.

k&r

[leftchick]

16. if they use nukes

it will be millions. :(

[kurth]

17. Well, the IAEA is not the decider

The evil moron in the White House always knows best.

[xchrom]

20. lol -- second verse same as the first.

at least everyone loathes and has an appropriate disdain for bolton -- so when he does his powell redux speech at the u.n. before bombing the hell out of iran -- they'll know he's lying.

oh that's right they knew powell was lying too.

[Junkdrawer]

23. .

[Junkdrawer]

38. .

[SPKrazy]

24. It Sounds Pretty Inconclusive To Me

Just the kind of ambiguity that B* will use to tell them to try to prove a negative

Prove that you don't have a weapons program

[Ms. Clio]

25. Well, Juan, you know perfectly well that the absence of evidence

Is not evidence of absence.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. I guess we will see that in tomorrows's headlines, right?

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.
______________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[leftchick]

41. Excellent Links!!!

Thank You!

:hi:

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. you're more than welcome -- here's a couple more you might find useful

Fishing for a Pretext on Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

(Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )

______________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[leftchick]

43. OMG... I am listening to GE/NBC's report tonight

they are certainly war mongering for bushco** :puke:

[annabanana]

44. evening kick. . . . n/t

[oblivious]

45. "Germany Approaches Russia-China Axis in Iranian Row"

By Mirza Cetinkaya, Menaf Alici, Msocw, Vienna
Published: Friday, April 28, 2006
zaman.com

...German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s softened attitude on Tehran was evident in her meeting with Putin in the Siberian town of Tomsk, as she asserted diplomacy is "the only alternative." Germany is thus approaching the position of Russia and China.

In a joint declaration Russia and Germany emphasized the solution to Iran's nuclear activities "should only be diplomatic and political channels" and efforts in this frame will be continued.

...Putin lashed out at European countries and the United States for their objections to Russia's trade openings to the West and South, and warned Russia will seek alternative markets. "We keep hearing threats to prevent Russian companies from entering the European market. If we always listened to these, then we will have to start looking for other alternatives. When foreigners come to Russia, they call this (investment and globalization). When Russian companies go to other countries, they call this "expansionism."

Observers think the alternatives Putin implied are China, India, Japan, and South Korea.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060428&hn=32547

[leftchick]

46. hmmmm

very interesting developments today. Thank you for the link!