The Syria Nukes Narrative
Demetri Sevastopulo of the Financial Times is one of the best intelligence/national security journalists in the business -- and by the tone of this article, "North Korea 'Helped Syria Build N-Plant'", which will appear as the top, front page lead in tomorrow's FT, he sounds as if he is convinced that the North Koreans were helping Syria to build a nuclear reactor.
Last year, Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times -- also one of the best young investigative journalists in town -- also ran some pieces that argued this point compellingly. Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, nuclear proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione, and Arms Control Wonk publisher Jeffrey Lewis have been in the skeptics camp.
I too have been hanging out with the skeptics -- but when this bombing raid occurred on 6 September 2007, I was amazed at the pace of flow of what might have been highly classified information from high level Israeli intelligence officials and compartments within the US intelligence community to people like John Bolton.
Bolton was one of the first to begin speaking publicly about the possibility that Israel's target was a nuclear plant. I was on an Al Jazeera television program with Washington Institute on Near East Policy foreign policy expert Patrick Clawson on the morning of September 14th -- and Clawson shared well-developed scenarios of what the Israelis might have done in Syria and why. His narratives were detail rich and obviously derivative of high quality conversations with intelligence insiders.
If this story turns out to be right, then someone somewhere should ask why John Bolton is not being punished for trafficking in secrets that he no doubt got from Cheney's apparatchiks in government.
But there are many other important questions that policy makers and analysts need to wrestle with if, indeed, the intelligence being shared today with 200 Members of Congress is as slam dunk as some have suggested.
The first question is "Why would Syria do this?" Quick response is that it doesn't make sense at all -- unless the security paranoia of Syria's political leadership regarding its wrestling match with a technologically superior Israel over Lebanon made it decide to try and build a nuclear weapon.
Syria's economy and technological base seem quite poorly equipped to sustain a serious nuclear research and development effort. Also, Syria would have to purchase uranium or plutonium from suppliers somewhere in the world -- and both are hard to hide, particularly plutonium, which would be preferred for the weapons track. Thus, whether the plant was destroyed today -- or at a later time -- the acquisition of any plutonium would be the day the plant was, to borrow a recent phrase from Hillary Clinton, "obliterated."
More fundamentally though, let's imagine these reports are absolutely true -- and Syria was getting North Korean assistance to build a nuclear plant and ultimately a bomb.
This would affect the entire strategic profile of the Middle East -- and would really unleash Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey who would not be able to avoid the requirement of also having a warhead program.
If a nation like Syria, emulating North Korea, was trying to acquire the bomb -- then it means that the bar for acquisition is far lower than most had believed credible. Israel's 200 warheads become an important part of the picture as Israel alone enjoys a nuclear, massive retaliation monopoly in the Middle East -- and this fact may be driving rival states to decide that they need covertly to acquire nukes to balance Israel's portfolio.
This is a huge problem, not easily solved.
Jeffrey Lewis and others have argued that the site that was bombed did not provide the space or capacity to capably service a real nuclear reactor. If the videotape that will be shown to Congress shows otherwise, it will be important for other commentators to get access to this material -- or at least access to those with access -- to see if their assessments stand or whether they flubbed up.
But the mere prospect that lots of small, underdeveloped states may be out to covertly build nukes should scare us all -- and we have a real collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime that must be addressed first among many other contending priorities.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Comments (47)
i'm just surprised that they haven't been able to wedge iran into this story. yet.
April 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the FT article.
Eye popping
or not
This is all a little bit Colin Powellish to me.
I agree that the idea of Syria developing a nuclear weapon does not make much strategic sense. It is not like Iran which is surrounded by American-occupied nations, is a certified member of the axis of evil, and which might seek to emulate the benefit to North Korea of that nation's massive nuclear and non-nuclear retaliatory capability.
We should all be concerned about nuclear proliferation. One way to make proliferation less likely would be for the United States to tone down the militaristic rhetoric coming from the likes of Cheney and Bolton and from the President of the United States.
April 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Albright's objection seems to be that while they may have been weeks away from completing the nuclear reactor, we have no evidence that they had any fuel to run it. That's true.
That leaves three alternatives. The first is that the Syrians and North Koreans had, starting in 1997, planned to build a reactor, despite the fact that they knew it would never have any fuel to operate. I find that, to say the least, improbable. The second is that the Syrians were expending huge sums on this secret facility right up until it was bombed, in the hope or even the expectation that fuel would subsequently become available. That's possible, albeit not particularly comforting. And the third is that the Syrians did, in fact, have either a source or a stockpile of fuel, and that we just didn't know about it.
There was, of course, a simple way to answer that question. The Israelis could have waited until the reactor was completed, and watched to see what the Syrians put into it. The problem is that, had the Syrians actually placed fuel inside before they bombed the facility, the Israelis would have risked the dispersion of radioactive material over a wide area. That's why the ideal time to strike nuclear facilities is before they've started to operate.
I'm honestly not sure what Albright's point is here. He doesn't suggest an alternative explanation. This reactor clearly wasn't intended to provide power or enable research - not if it was built along the lines of the Korean reactor. The only reason to build such a facility is to produce fissile material. Albright doesn't think they had the fuel to do that. On the other hand, last week he would have told you that he didn't think they were building a reactor.
April 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall's three alternatives leave out the most important alternative - that the site was not in fact a nuclear facility.
If the US and Israel genuinely believed this to be a nuclear facility the rational thing to do would have been to publicly speculate that it was and then ask the Syrians to prove it wasn't. We appear able to sanction Iran up the wazoo because it is allegedly developing nuclear weapons - and, presumably, we could have done the same to Syria if it failed to provide adequate assurances that this was not a nuclear facility.
Instead, we chose to follow the pre Iraq war obfuscation strategy straight out of the Cheney handbook. The one thing the last seen years has shown us is that we should fear Cheney not Cheney's fears.
April 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a reason even Albright doesn't bother to deny (anymore) that this was a nuclear facility. That's the existence of photographs of the facility under construction, and nearing completion - showing that, to quote the FT:
Look. There's an important debate to be had about the proper response to these disclosures. Important questions to be raised about their timing and content. But to suggest that because the US was wrong about Iraq's nuclear program, it must therefore always be wrong about other programs, irrespective of the evidence it provides, is just plain foolish.
April 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between being accidentally wrong and intentionally wrong. If you are accidentally wrong then I would agree it might be foolish to expect to be accidentally wrong a second time. But the Iraq error was intentionally wrong. In 2001 (pre-911) both Colon Bowel and Condelezzy Lice publicly proclaimed Saddam Hussein and Iraq to be effectively neutered in the region, with no WMD capability and no ability to threaten its neighbors. There is video easily found on the web with these clowns proclaiming such. In 2003 the story completely flippity-flops. There are three explanations: the 2001 statements were lies (why?), the 2003 statements were lies (why?), under GWB, and in less than 2 years, Iraq went from neutered to brass balls. Any thinking individual recognizes that explanation 2 is the correct explanation. You can therefore expect that same lie to be repeated now.
April 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOntheWall writes:
The Bush Administration was not wrong about Iraq's nuclear program - it deliberately lied about Iraq's nuclear program. The result of that lie was a war that has needlessly claimed the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Earlier this month President Bush admitted that he lied to the American people about how badly the war was going prior to the 2006 elections. We know that the Bush Administration has lied for years about its support for torture. Time and again the Bush Administration has given us precious little reason to believe it.
As I wrote in my earlier comment an administration that genuinely believed it had a good case that this was a nuclear facility should have presented the proof. That the "proof" was provided only after the fact indicates to me that the Bush Administration did not have a good case.
It is, of course, possible that the US has a good case and has merely made a total hash of presenting it. The question then arises of why the administration learnt nothing from the Iraq fiasco.
April 24, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
ColoreOscuro says:
Good point! As is the point made by Crainial, above (or should I call you Loopback?). Given what we know of the propaganda operations of both Israel and the U.S., the possibility that this was a red herring bombing is hardly remote.
It's a fascinating coincidence that at the time of the bombing of the alleged nuclear facility, Syria was slated to become the deputy chairman of the General Conference of the IAEA. Despite the controversy, Syria was elected to the post as planned at the session opening two weeks later. But the proposal it submitted for the IAEA Conference to discuss the "Israeli nuclear capacities and threat," which had been expected to pass with an overwhelming vote, barely squeeked by, although ultimately it did pass.
Israel's concerns about the potential of it's neighbors obtaining nuclear weapons would be better received if it were to declare it's own nuclear weapons and join the other signatories of NPT. As it is, many of these neighbors, if they are, or become, interested in obtaining nuclear weapons may wish to do so precisely because Israel itself has them, and they experience that as a substantial threat. Bombing the alleged nuclear facilities of sovereign countries without first seeking (or following) international input regarding the situation doesn't help Israel's case.
Let's hope the Congresspeople who review this surprising evidence will keep in mind how utterly overwhelming the evidence for Saddam's WMDs seemed once upon a time as well.
April 24, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot the obvious 4th possibility. This is another Weapons of Mass Distraction event. This is the simplest and most likely explanation. We've seen it before, no reason we wouldn't see it again.
April 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
if we obliterate all the nuclear powers, then we will truly have a monopoly.
April 24, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Yankees poison the postgame buffet in every other ML team's clubhouse they'll be a lock for the World Series too.
April 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Yankees poison the postgame buffet in every other ML team's clubhouse they'll be a lock for the World Series too.
April 24, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for wrestling with a very difficult subject. After distorted intelligence in the runup to the Iraq War destroyed the credibility of our intelligence community, there's been a general disinclination to believe any claims regarding nuclear proliferation. Being overly skeptical strikes me as just as dangerous as being overly credulous.
Some very smart, well-informed journalists are stepping forward to say that they're now convinced, by their sources and by the evidence they've seen, that Syria had a nearly-completed replica of the reactor North Korea used to produce nuclear weapons. That's not just alarming. It's rather terrifying. Because, as you point out, it flies in the face of everything we thought we knew about proliferation. And so, if the evidence bears up (and it increasingly looks like it will) we're going to have to reconsider some of our basic strategic assumptions and doctrines. I can only hope that our leaders, on both sides of the aisle, are capable of grappling with the implications without making this into a proxy for other, more contentious struggles. Recent history doesn't give much encouragement.
April 24, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall writes:
Sad to say, it's doubly alarming and terrifying that our own intelligence re: nuclear proliferation is so pathetically inadequate. Most folks here like to bring up as evidence to that the non-existent WMD's in Iraq.
However, let me remind everyone that a good five years before the 2nd Iraqi war, the CIA was caught completely unaware when India and Pakistan went nuclear. We were also rather surprised by the extent of Libya's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
As to Syria's motives: if our recent forays into Iraq and Afghanistan prove anything, it's that our arsenal of Western intellectual tools (logical reasoning, common-sense, cause and effect, ability to compromise, consensus building, etc.) are not a good predictor of the outcomes in the Middle East.
Hence, unless and until we, the West, get a better grip on that part of the world, I'm afraid it's rather pointless to speculate what ever may have motivated the Syrians to seek nuclear capability. After all, does anyone fully understand why both Iraq (in early 80s) and Iran presently, two countries with very extensive oil reserves but meager technological know-how, have embarked on acquiring nuclear power-generating capabilities, or so they both claimed/claim?
April 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I do not find this any more terrifying than Israel's vast arsenal. Or our own.
April 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond that, my money's on Seymour Hirsch.
April 24, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that plant had nuclear fuel and it was bombed then some of the debris would have settled outside of the borders of Syria and would have left an unambiguous radioisotope signature. When Chernobyl blew, we could find traces of it all over Europe, and I believe even here in the US. Color me highly skeptical.
April 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Israel get away with attacking another country? What role did the US play in either asking Israel to do it or condoning it after the fact?
We still don't know if Syria was building a reactor and if they were we don't know they were building it for weapons work. We do know that Israel attacked Syria last fall and that the public hasn't been fully informed about why, how, how much force was use,d how many were killed.
It's the attack that needs to be investigated, in public, by the UN.
April 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor23 writes:
That's right! Except, the UN is too pro-Israel, don't you think? Maybe the Arab League would render a fairer verdict; or the Gestapo?
April 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the 'Cold War' the standoff between the US and the USSR was referred to as mutually assured destruction. As long as both countries had about the same number of nuclear weapons, neither country would dare attack the other.
Twenty-five years later, one country having one, another country having thousands will not deter the former from attacking the latter??? (The argument that today's 'enemies' are much more evil, crazy, rash...doesn't wash. During the Cold War Russia was portrayed as evil personified - at least that's what was hammered into our heads.)
Interesting that so far in this century the only 'enemy' country we've attacked and occupied is the one without the bomb.
April 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will be interesting will be the audio portion of the video. What language were the Koreans and Syrians using to communicate??? Also, will the faces of those in the video be clear enought to ID and name???
April 24, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
inniss326 writes:
Hmm, my money's on Klingon.
April 24, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole story sounds as bogus as the fiction Powell spun at the UN five years ago. The purpose of the NK reactor is to transmute uranium into plutonium, not to burn it. If one could get one's hands on enough plutonium to fuel the reactor, one could actually make several nuclear weapons without having to got through the hassle and expense of building and operating the reactor. Syria didn't need lots of nuclear weapons. Only a few would do. The initial fuel load for the reactor (if plutonium, as alleged) would have served quite nicely.
Further, that last statement by an unidentified US official is a hoot. All nuclear reactors produce fissile material. Its a function of having excess neutrons available to transmute some of the uranium in the fuel load. All US reactors produce fissile material too in their operation, although they are designed to produce mostly heat for generating electricity. These statements are clearly intended to stoke fear among the US population and provide the Bush administration yet another opportunity to undertake somne reckless action they could not otherwise justify.
April 24, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that this story has a very hollow ring to it.I would remind you that much of the intelligence regarding this facility has been 'helpfully' given to the US by Israel who, in this case, very much has a dog in this fight.
I've looked at the unclassified imagery of the facilities in Syria and Yongbyon and, as a former intelligence analyst, I will say the similarities are inconclusive at best.
One nit to pick - the reactor at Yongbyon (and in Syria, if it was a reactor) does not make plutonium. It produces power and fissile waste which is used in the production of weapons-grade fissile material at a SEPARATE facility. A facility which, I will note, is not on any imagery from the Syrian facility.
Thus....IF the Syrian facility was a nuclear power plant under construction (an assertion which I regard as tenuous), there is no evidence shown to date that it was to be used for the production of weapons-grade fissile material. None.
As to motives for a humiliated administration making questionable assertions to support a seemingly unreasonable unilateral military action after the fact, ask Mr. Olmert yourself...you'll prolly get a better answer from him than we've been getting out of our own president.
April 24, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with you that this reactor design does not by itself produce plutonium, which must be separated chemically from the uranium which would be used to power the reactor. Essentially, the fissile waste is the plutonium produced when U238 gets transmuted into Pu239. The beauty (from a weapons producer's standpoint) of this process is that chemically separating Pu239 from U238 is much easier than isotopically separating U235 from U238 via centrifuges or gaseous diffusion or any of the other techniques developed over the last sixty years.
Nonetheless, such a reactor would not be designed to use plutonium, as the article referenced. The mere mention of such an application essentially destroys any credibility in the accuracy of the reporting. Either the reporter has allowed himself to be duped through ignorance or he is participating in the scam being perpetrated by the Bush administration. How do we find out which it is?
April 24, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
See the front page of TPM. The "video" is merely a video of some still photographs (as in Powell's UN presentation?) and the alleged "North Koreans" were "what appeared to be people of Korean descent at the facility." So much for rebuilding the credibility of the US intellengence community.
April 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the FT article linked above:
April 24, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the attack that needs to be investigated, in public, by the UN.
Posted by destor23
April 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the sirians have not called for this speaks volumes.
April 24, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Syria is embarrassed by its inability to defend against Israeli intrusions.
But if there were solid info it would be highly public (compare this low-key whispering to Osirak).
It's BS.
April 24, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, Syria and Israel are technically at war. The fact that there's been little shooting recently is irrelevant. War was declared in 1948 by Syria and that status still exists. This also is not the first time Israel has bombed targets in Syria.
April 24, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bottom line, I think Israel has a history of not trusting international institutions, law and procedures to help it out. She takes the law into her own hands because, in the past, her neighbors took the law into their hands to try to eliminate her. And yes, I guess technically, Syria is still at war with her.
From where I sit, this is an understandable--but not a productive or workable--position to stay in. Somehow, Israel, and a lot of other states, have to move to a position of being able to rely on international comity and accepted dispute resolution procedures for MOST of her self defense.
Liberals and progressives are always wringing their hands about Israeli aggression. But if you've had to fight to survive since birth, it's pretty normal to fall back on that capability, even when other methods would be preferable, even when you no longer have to fight.
It's common for individuals to keep applying the lessons of their youth long past the time when those lessons apply. Yes, once we were all helpless and vulnerable to the depredations of others. But as adults, we are no longer, and our consciousness has to catch up to our new reality.
April 24, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wall Street Journal is carrying an AP report:
(my emphasis)Has the Bush Administration learned nothing? As Representative Ackerman says - bizarre behavior.
April 24, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is and was a pretty detailed, informative discussion of the "Box on the Euphrates", the BOE for short, among the more informed at Arms Control Wonk.
Here's a link to the latest discussion about this issue:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1863/boe-just-might-be-reactor-after-all#comment
Unfortunately, my own cache of information (with quotes and links) gleaned from media reports in the region at the time of the US/Israeli operation is nowhere to be found. Before the unprecedented and still ongoing miliary censorship slammed down hard on Israeli discussion of this issue, there were a few skeptical discussions of the raid by Israelis writers who are well-versed on security and military matters.
Aside from speculation that the real target of this "intelligence" is NoK, this could also be a pre-emptive effort to provide a casus belli for military aggression against Syria or alternatively, a means to threaten them in order to achieve regional goals (in Lebanon) that have squat to do with anything nuclear.
April 24, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demetri Sevastopulo is based in Washington. He's obviously a belt-way pundit paid by the lobby.
April 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyway, this is a post Hezbollah disaster that handed Israeli's ass back in a plate to Tel Aviv PR propanda for Mr Magoo PM Olmert
April 24, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, let's face it, if being a conduit for disinformation and stumblebum propaganda was a criminal offense, John Bolton would have walked his last mile years ago. Ahh... but if we stuck the pin in every warmongering sociopath, what would become of our government?
There remains no proof - none, zip - that the "box on the Euphrates" was anything other than a conventional weapons depot, as the Syrians claim. It wasn't even ringed with barbed wire and protected by antiaircraft batteries! No wonder the Israelis had an easy time with their "daring" operation. Well... at least those deadly Syrian jeep batteries won't fall into the wrong hands.
After intially swallowing the story whole, the American media gradually cooled on this bizarre tall tale, and by January of this year even the Judith Miller-challenged New York Times expressed doubts; it seems the fissile had fizzled.
The much-ballyhooed Israeli strike on Iraq's Osirik reactor in 1981 earned the condemnation of President Ronald Reagan. Far from ending Iraq's nuclear program, it forced Saddam to "harden" his facilities by putting them underground; Iraq's nuclear quest didn't end until that country was bombed back to a "pre-industrial" state in Gulf War I.
But legends die hard, here and in the Levant. Foreign and domestic Zionists like their sop served extravagantly - and comic-book myths of an invincible IDF striking back at Israel's seedy foes always excites the folks back home. Like... here. It doesn't matter that this vision has always been more hyperbole than battlefield accomplishment. Simply: It works.
Israel and the U.S. have kept this charade raid in their hip pocket until now, while the fading Bush Administration has one last chance to spread its Mideast carnage to Damascus and Tehran. Yeah, they'll give Capital Hill a sucker show, and Congress, overrun by the same lobbies as the White House, will holler for blood. Petraeus is the top commander now, so there's no one standing in boots on the ground to end-run this atrocity.
Sometime, between now and mid-January, it look like it's back to the breach...
April 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Fernando Curt writes:
How does one know that a far-Left propagandist's argument is in trouble. Watch him/her start quoting or praising Ronald Reagan.
Btw, the same is true with far-Right propagandists and Jimmy Carter (or Al Gore.)
Hmm, since you were the one to bring good old Ronny out of well-deserved oblivion, let me remind you of our great military triumph in Grenada. And in Serbia/Kosovo. And in Afghanistan, which we bombed for weeks - mercilessly, indiscriminately, but oh so bravely - from 40,000 ft.
What can I say, a true mettle of a country is measured by the number and strength of its enemies. So yes, you're right: the IDF is a comic-book myth.
April 24, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So yes, you're right: the IDF is a comic-book myth."
...And one very well-practiced at sniping 9-year-olds off their own rooftops in Gaza.
April 24, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Fernando Curt:
And how's that different from the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (including many 9-year-olds, I'm sure) that the U.S. military has killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan? These actions were done in your name and mine, with your and my tax dollars.
So San Fernando Curt, unless you're in the final stages of leaving the good old U.S. of A and moving to a f*cking neutral Sweden or Switzerland, you have no moral right to lecture others on war, occupation or civilian casualties... oops, so sorry - I meant: collateral damage.
It'll take the Israelis a hundred years to kill as many people as we've just offed in Iraq & Afghanistan, and I'm not even talking about the two million Vietnamese, our use of nuclear bombs, etc. So, stop feeling so f*cking superior and morally outraged at Israel: if you wish to see the "cumulative face" of a killing machine, take a hard good look in the mirror.
April 24, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Errors in the reporting don't add to confidence in the story, such as confusing reactor fuel with reaction products like plutonium, confusing reactor waste with fissile material, and so on.
Mainly, it makes no sense, especially these days of aerial and satellite surveillance, to try and build secret facilities on the surface. It also makes no sense for Syria to try the nuclear game, at least for now (too expensive, too obvious, too hard).
It makes plenty of sense if Israel started shooting on wishful intelligence, and is trying to justify it. I'm not buying the threat scenario, there are better ones around.
April 24, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Wright writes:
Hmm, since you seem to understand Syria's psyche, why don't you explain what does make sense about it. Is it the unelected, hereditary, dictatorial rule of the el-Assad family? The domination of the Alawi minority? The 1982 massacre of 20,000 in el Hama? The over 30 years of meddling and de-facto control of Lebanon? The never-forsaken pipe dream of Greater Syria?
I mean, do you think your grasp of the decision-making process in Damascus is good enough to proclaim what does/doesn't make sense to Syria (well, really to Bashar Assad)? If you wish to be taken seriously, please present some evidence. (A telepathic connection with Bashar would be a good start.)
April 24, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK guys, judge for yourselves. NBC Nightly News has posted the entire video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#24300852
April 24, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
i remember reading at the time that this could NOT have been a nuclear facility.
it seems the air was checked at the site and showed no signs that such a facilty would have produced if destroyed.
and how is anyone so convinced if the proof isnt obvious?
April 24, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
bet those kidz at Brewster-Jennings coulda told us
April 25, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two interesting things which haven't yet been mentioned by commenters (that I've seen):
1) When Israel attacked this site, Syria's response was surprisingly low-key, don't you think? Their objection was perfunctory, hardly what anyone would have expected. And they certainly didn't take journalists on tours of the site to prove how wronged they'd been. They seemed determined to keep the whole episode as quiet as possible. That's really odd.
2) Syria quickly removed EVERYTHING at the site and replaced it as quickly as possible, building on the same plan (which would even more obscure what had been there before). [And note that the lack of radioactivity would mean nothing, since you wouldn't bring such fuel to a clandestine site while it was still under construction - especially if there was a risk it might be discovered and bombed.]
I don't know the answer, but knee-jerk reactions aren't rational, whatever your political views. If this wasn't a nuclear reactor, it seems to me that Syria is trying to make the world think otherwise. I can't explain their actions, otherwise.
April 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do YOU see the beast staring back from your mirror? If not, what's your home country? Surinam?
April 25, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really. However, I do remember the words of a famous American theologian: "The prophets remind us of the moral state of a people: Few are guilty, but all are responsible."
April 25, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink