The fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program is not news. For some reason last week all kinds of whoopla broke out over their long known non-existent nuclear WMD program. Here is an article from November of 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm This article was written by the BBC, however similar articles appeared in New York Times and Washington post. I have went searching the Internet to see if the secret document that supposedly came out in August of ’07 was the same one from middle of ’06. I can’t seem to find a hard copy of either of them. The original article from “The New Yorker” can be found here. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact?currentPage=3
This shows that as early as ’06 when the Iranian rhetoric was starting to gain steam, that the CIA expressed doubts to the president. According the “source” the president and his cabinet were “hostile” towards the report.
The current Bush spokesperson Dana Perino said, it was “error filled” and had a “series of inaccuracies”. She was quoted as saying, "The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views"
No Ms. Perino it is the White House that has time and again denied looking at the facts in order to fulfill their own agenda that has degraded the efficiency of our troops by sending them on wild goose chases. They have also “degraded” the United States national security, and the credibility of the American diplomats. They have single handily undid 50 years of building our reputation.
She is still there. I would love someone with media access to her to ask what she meant. Now that the administration has admitted that the CIA analysis is factual, is she willing to apologies to Seymour M. Hersh. I would love to hear this little song and dance routine. I wonder if Bush would go through yet another spokesperson before he leaves office.
This shows that as early as ’06 when the Iranian rhetoric was starting to gain steam, that the CIA expressed doubts to the president. According the “source” the president and his cabinet were “hostile” towards the report.
The current Bush spokesperson Dana Perino said, it was “error filled” and had a “series of inaccuracies”. She was quoted as saying, "The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views"
No Ms. Perino it is the White House that has time and again denied looking at the facts in order to fulfill their own agenda that has degraded the efficiency of our troops by sending them on wild goose chases. They have also “degraded” the United States national security, and the credibility of the American diplomats. They have single handily undid 50 years of building our reputation.
She is still there. I would love someone with media access to her to ask what she meant. Now that the administration has admitted that the CIA analysis is factual, is she willing to apologies to Seymour M. Hersh. I would love to hear this little song and dance routine. I wonder if Bush would go through yet another spokesperson before he leaves office.
“It is wiser to find out than to suppose”- Mark Twain quotes
Comments