ChasingBlueSky

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/powell.iran/ Source of Powell's Iran intelligence under scrutiny WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The source of intelligence used this week by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to suggest Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program may not be reliable, knowledgeable sources told CNN Friday. The issue surfaced when The National Council of Resistance of Iran -- which is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations -- revealed satellite photographs this week it said showed a hidden nuclear plant in Iran, allegations the Iranians denied. "This allegation is timed to coincide with the next meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]," Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hussein Moussavian, said. "And every time just before the meeting there are these kind of allegations either from the United States or terrorist groups. And every time these allegations have proven to be false." Powell, en route to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile, told reporters he had seen intelligence that appears to "corroborate" the resistance group's information. Some U.S. officials were angered by a report in Friday's edition of The Washington Post which quotes two sources who said Powell used information that was classified, and from a single unvetted source. The Post article said the information Powell shared with reporters came from a "walk-in" source who approached U.S. intelligence and may or may not be reliable. While declining to say whether the Post account was accurate, one U.S. official said "public discussion of the details of the human source of intelligence is irresponsible and a remarkably bad idea." The official called it "disturbing" that other officials would discuss sources and methods in any detail with a journalist. Analysts say the CIA may ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak. Intelligence insiders question whether the leak could have come from their community, which traditionally guards information about sources and methods very carefully. The intelligence upon which Powell based his comments to reporters was disseminated to a range of officials at the State Department, the White House, and the Pentagon, among other entities. A British source also said his government was aware of the information. The Post reported that the "walk-in" source delivered "more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike." Before the Post story appeared, Powell discussed his Wednesday comment with Chilean television. "Now, I made a statement yesterday that said we had some information," Powell said. "I've seen some information, and the dissidents have put out more information, that suggests that the Iranians are also working on the designs one would have to have for putting such a warhead into a missile. "This shouldn't be brand-new news. This shouldn't surprise anybody. If they had been working on a nuclear weapon and design a warhead, certainly they were also trying to figure out how they would deliver such a warhead." In October, Iran said it could mass produce the Shahab-3 missile, capable of hitting Israel and U.S. forces in the Mideast, although it insisted that the missiles were only for defensive purposes. Reports at the time said the missile was capable of carrying a conventional or nonconventional warhead. Powell, who has submitted his resignation and will not serve in the second Bush administration, said the Iranians need to "convince the international community that they are not moving in the direction of a nuclear weapon, and they will comply with their obligations to the IAEA." _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I wonder if this will stop the genocide? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62607-2004Nov19.html Sudan, Rebel Leaders Sign Peace Agreement By Chris Tomlinson The Associated Press Friday, November 19, 2004; 1:35 PM NAIROBI, Kenya -- The Sudanese government and southern rebel leaders pledged again Friday to end a 21-year civil war -- this time making the commitment before the U.N. Security Council holding a special meeting in Africa. U.N. officials hope the promise to reach an accord by year's end will also help quell a separate ethnic conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region, but warned against unwarranted optimism. "We are very close to peace, but we have been close before," said John Danforth, who was Washington's special envoy to Sudan before becoming U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "Do not let this opportunity slip away," he told the Sudanese negotiators. In 48 years of independence, Africa's biggest country has spent 39 years at war with itself. And both the south and west have long histories of internal conflict even before independence. International attention has focused on three major rebel groups -- one in the south and two in Darfur -- but there are more than a dozen militia leaders who constantly shift alliances. Cementing a full peace will require negotiations with all those militias, which have been responsible for most violations of an informal cease-fire that has largely held for two years in the south. The southern war has pitted Sudan's Islamic-dominated government against rebels seeking greater autonomy and a greater share of the country's wealth for the Christian and animist south. The conflict is blamed for more than 2 million deaths, primarily from war-induced famine and disease. Both sides have already agreed on power and wealth sharing and how to integrate their armed forces. All that remains is how to implement the agreements -- for example, who will pay the rebel soldiers until they join the government forces and whether or not money distributed to the south will be in local or foreign currency. The negotiators have promised to meet deadlines before, including a pledge to Secretary of State Colin Powell to reach a final agreement by last Dec. 31. They have missed two further deadlines since then. "We are keen, we are fully committed, to give the people of Sudan and to give Africa and the whole international community the gift of an agreement for the end of the year," Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha told the Security Council. John Garang, leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the biggest southern rebel group, welcomed a resolution the council passed Friday demanding that the two sides sign a final agreement by Dec. 31. "We will do our best to fulfill our commitment," he said. But as the government and the southern rebels have come closer to forming a new government, other insurgencies have emerged, complicating efforts for nationwide peace. Renewed fighting in Darfur erupted in February 2003, when two non-Arab rebel groups took up arms contending Sudan's leaders leaned toward Arab tribes in disputes over the region's water and land. The government responded by backing Arab militias, which have been accused of targeting non-Arab civilians in a campaign of murder, rape and arson. President Bush's administration believes the militias have committed genocide, Danforth said. The Darfur conflict has driven 1.8 million people from their homes. At least 70,000 people, mostly civilians, have died since March because of disease, hunger and hardships from being uprooted. Many more have been killed in fighting, but no firm estimate exists. The Security Council came to Nairobi this week to pressure the Sudanese government and the southern rebels to finalize their deal. The council also used the extraordinary meeting -- only the fourth outside New York since 1952 -- to highlight the deteriorating situation in Darfur and demand an immediate end to violence there. There was near consensus that settling the southern war would make it easier to bring peace to Darfur, because a new power-sharing government would include southern rebels who are sympathetic to the western region's rebels. But human rights groups and aid agencies wanted the council to take stronger action on that conflict, complaining that a new national government would take months to start work, leaving the people of Darfur in limbo. "From New York to Nairobi, a trail of weak resolutions on Darfur has led nowhere," said Caroline Nursey of Oxfam International. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Might start a war with that tactic. It might be the way to go since we were just refused support from six of our NATO friends: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=1&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_re_eu/us_nato_iraq _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I know that unemployment is still higher in Chicago than the average...and that only lists those that are collecting benefits, it does not track those that used up all six months of funds. There is still a greater net loss of jobs under Bush than those created. Also, jobs that are being found are paying much less than the jobs they held before. Underemployed is a serious problem right now. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Mr. Greenspan also warned Europe in his speach. IIRC the speech was given while he was in Europe, right? Maybe just making a relevant observation for the audience? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I guess he is just planning for the future, huh? Now...what was he saying during the election about how he will get the deficit under control? How is asking for another $800 billion in debt working towards that goal??? I guess he really wants to break the record of the largest deficit yet Guess this is a watermark of what the next four years will be like....more debt. So much for a recovering economy. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

lol - same here. Nothing like drunk driving and some cocain to make you moral! Oh ya, and that bit about decieving the entire world.... _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Even more in the news on this today: Diplomats: Iran Is Readying Nuke Processes By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria - Iran is using the last few days before it must stop all uranium enrichment to produce significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear weapons, diplomats said Friday. Iran recently started producing uranium hexafluoride at its gas processing facilities in Isfahan, the diplomats told The Associated Press. When introduced into centrifuges and spun, the substance can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium that forms the core of nuclear warheads. Iran last week agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and all related activities in a deal worked out with Britain, France, Germany and the European Union. The deal, which takes effect Monday, prohibits Iran from all uranium gas processing activities. But the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tehran was exploiting the window until Monday to produce uranium hexafluoride at its Isfahan plant in central Iran. Asked about quantities, one diplomat said "it's not little," but he declined to elaborate. Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. That amount, converted to uranium hexafluoride and repeatedly spun in centrifuges, theoretically could yield more than 200 pounds of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, enough for about five crude nuclear weapons. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year. Iran is not prohibited from making uranium hexafluoride until the deal takes force. But its decision to carry out uranium processing right up to the freeze deadline was expected to disappoint the Europeans — and give the United States ammunition in its push to have the U.N. Security Council examine Tehran's nuclear activities. Washington says Iran wants to enrich uranium to make weapons. Tehran says it is interested only in low-grade enriched uranium for nuclear power. Iran announced suspension of enrichment last week, and the agency said it would police that commitment starting next week, ahead of the Nov. 25 IAEA board meeting. Although the deal commits Iran to suspension only while a comprehensive aid agreement with the EU is finalized, the pledge reduced Washington's hopes of having the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency refer Iran to the Security Council when the board meets Thursday. By opting to freeze — and not scrap — the program, Tehran has not dropped plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for what it says will be the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor to be finished next year. It currently possesses less than 1,000 centrifuges. But even with 1,500 centrifuges, experts say, Iran would be able to make enough weapons-grade uranium for about a bomb a year. Iran, meanwhile, dismissed as "baseless" remarks by Secretary of State Colin Powell on its nuclear program, adding he should review his intelligence sources. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was reacting to Powell's comments on claims by the Iranian dissident group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, which alleged that Tehran was secretly running a program intended to produce nuclear weapons by next year. Powell said Wednesday he had seen intelligence that partially confirmed the claim, including some indicating that Iran "had been actively working on delivery systems" for a nuclear weapon. "There is no place for weapons of mass destruction in Iran`s defense doctrine," Asefi said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Asefi suggested that U.S. officials "reconsider their intelligence sources." On Thursday, Asefi dismissed the claims of the Iranian dissident group, which the United States and the European Union consider to be a terrorist organization. "The claims are raised to destroy the positive atmosphere that resulted from the Paris agreement," Asefi said, referring to last week's accord on suspending uranium enrichment activities in return for British, French and German guarantees that Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. Asefi said Friday that Powell's claims were "indicative of U.S. anger over Iran`s process of confidence-building and transparency" in its nuclear program, the official news agency reported. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

True, but we would still need to make sure we had a force in the Pacific to match them. At this point it wouldn't even take a nuke to bring this country to a halt - one small dirty bomb that would do limited physical damage would send the threat of nuke terror to every corner of this country....and our markets may not rebound from the "flee" instinct. Are they selling those again? And here I thought they were out of season. As anti-violence as I am, this should be easy to guess. No, no one should have nukes as weapons. Yup. And I don't see the need for further testing by this country either. We know they work. Why would you need a nuke? I can't predict the future on that but I have heard plenty of stories of nukes missing after the downfall of the USSR and Antrax missing from our labs here in this country. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Do you really think this is something I want??? But according to Ashcroft this country is now safe, so I guess we don't need to worry about that - or was he not telling the truth?? Yup, the rules have changed - it only takes one person to bring havok to a city, and it does't even need to be someone in a country we are attacking right now. But that is the problem - we are still waging war by invading entire countries to solve a problem when it is the individual now that brings the larger threat. We send our troops all over the world and we would be spread thin if a third or fourth front appeared. How many troops would there be here to protect our borders or maintain order if something did happen? Guess that would include Iran as well? Problem solved huh? Guess they won't do anything since I'm certain they have at least half a brain. You don't need Iran out there to have that happen. There have been plenty of stories of missing weapons and nukes after the fall of the USSR. I wonder who has those and where they are now. Of course, all bark and no bite wouldn't work. No argument there. Just following your lead. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Then why are we doing further testing on nukes underground in Utah again? Why is Russia announcing they have a new form of nuke that the world has never seen and a possible non-linear flight missle that would be hard to detect on radar? Apparently there isn't a real concensus - and you don't hear much on proliferation anymore, do you? Lets see if we make the cutdown for the 2007 deadline setup under the Clinton administration. Hmm...could make a great election year hotpoint. It wasn't a diversion tactic at all. Kallend made my point for me in his reply. You are using past transgressions as how to determine future policy. Imagine if you were to do that with our gov't. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

So let's just bomb any country that may not like us? Asking if we should just wait infers that we need to be proactive. Should all diplomacy be dismissed? So why can't a nation further their own development. Japan has announced they are increasing their Navy - should be paranoid that they may attack Pearl Harbor or Alaska again? And how could anyone trust our government again after Watergate, Clinton's lies, the complete botch up of info that lead to the Iraq invasion, Iran Contra, etc? Those all seem to come from the highest levels of our government. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Do you think any of the radicals in this country can get access to such weapons?? Just in case you missed the story Bill posted the other day: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-14-domestic-terrorism_x.htm _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Well, stop slacking off - my democratic boss has her PhD in it. Is Iran actually a threat to us? Do you really think they would let one bomb loose on us? How stupid would that be of them - do you think we would leave anything left of their country if they did? How many do you think they could actually hide from us anyhow - esp with the new spy program the CIA announced today? They will discover the same thing we have - that once you have them, you won't want to use them. We are having to rearrange our troop locations around the world just to support Iraq - and we are calling up people that were discharged over eight years ago....do you think we could wage a second front?? I don't. Do you think we would have any social security left when GW asks for another 90 billion or so to invade Iran? I don't. Do you think his four year plan to balance the budget would happen if we invaded? I don't. Do you think we would have anyone left over to leave at home to protect our country? I don't. Do you think that other countries would side with Iran against us? I do. Do you think that N Korea would take advantage of the situation while we were spread thin? I sure the hell do. Just due to logistics alone we wouldn't be able to invade. Therefore you have to try to make the agreement work, because if it doesn't it could bring this country to its knees. I wouldn't want the US to invade if they did produce nukes - let someone else be the police of the world this time. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

this is lowhook's profile... lol..... sorry but look at the profile! im not defending... lol... sorry... just pointing somthing out.....

If I am not mistaken, there has been an established legal precedent of not forcing the reporter to reveal the source. I'll have to see if I can find the court cases on that....I remember covering this in my mass media law class, but the details are foggy right now. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I've said enough - lets hear your side now. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Who?? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Well, that is rather untrusting of the agreement isn't it? Why did we ever believe Japan wouldn't go back on their word after WWII? It must be nice to have that view of the future that the rest of us lack. Can you help me out and let me know the lotto numbers for this weekend? I think its about 100million. I saw we go with the agreement for now. Now - what was your position? What do you think we should do? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

See that's what I mean, Radiohead for god sake is NOT Old, they're like 5 years ago That's why I put old in quotes and then said "not new bands" and said "new to you" See, got that one covered already _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Well, instead of being critical - why don't you come up with something creative and educate us all on what should be done. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

And ya wonder how I could have been confused? So my quesiton to you - what is your position on it? Invade now??? Invade later??? Well, if N Korea is an example, we won't do anything. Countries have realized that if they don't want to be illegally invaded by us they need to have nukes. We have forced the issue. Karma is a bitch, no? Why can't they have nukes? Because they may have financial support to a terrorist organization? Well, we have done that in this country and we have nukes. Our own citizens blow up buildings in this country, so we have some radicals that could get a WMD as well, right? Why can we have nukes, Russia can have nukes, Israel can have nukes, and other countries can not? Yes, I know the history of Iran - but I know ours as well. Do I want them to have nukes? Nope, not really. Do I want to do a pre-emptive strike on them because someone thinks they may be doing something in secret? Nope. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Have you seen the stories of companies not giving out benefits for full time employment as well? Add to that the desire of the administration to change overtime rules to screw most workers. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

You could just wait for those new overtime rules to get reapproved and you wouldn't have to worry about any of that. btw - that sort of thing is decided on a state by state basis Bill. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I thought I made myself pretty clear. You said "where did I say we should invade" then hinted that those on the left were wrong for not wanting to bomb/invade....so, my guess is you want to invade. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....