Neocon Iran Nuke Lies â??Outrageousâ?� and â??Dishonestâ?�

[gotchA]

Neocon Iran Nuke Lies â??Outrageousâ?� and â??Dishonestâ?�

Once again, the Bush neocons have distorted International Atomic Energy Agency findings, as is their habit.

â??U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iranâ??s nuclear work, calling parts of it â??outrageous and dishonest,â?? according to a letter obtained by Reuters,â?� a characterization in keeping with the Straussian neocon philosophy of lies and dissimulation.

Director General Mohammed ElBaradei and the IAEA â??said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.â?�

Iran is a signatory state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to the treaty, Iran has the right to develop a civilian nuclear energy program. According to the neocons, however, this desire to develop a nuclear energy program means Iran is secretly building nukes and once this task is accomplishedâ??in three to ten years, depending on what neocon is talkingâ??they will immediately nuke Israel. Of course, this is nonsense and a smoke screen used by the neocons to come up with a flabby excuse to shock and awe Iran, as per the long-standing plan to take out all of Israelâ??s enemies.

The â??outrageous and dishonestâ?� neocon report on Iran â??recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iranâ??s dossier.â?�

In 2004, shortly after the neocon infested Pentagon invaded Iraq, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, characterized the neocon claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as â??delusional.â?� In fact, telling outrageous lies about Iraq and WMDâ??and also conjuring up an absurd connection between Iraq and al-Qaedaâ??was a deliberate policy spearheaded by the raving neocon and Zionist Douglas Feith. In regard to the latter, a â??Senate report on the Bush administrationâ??s use of intelligence that led to the American invasion of Iraq debunks White House claims that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had operational ties to Al Qaeda before the war began in March 2003,â?� the Chicago Tribune reported last week. â??The report, released â?¦ by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, provides details to support the committeeâ??s earlier, July 2004 conclusion that much of the intelligence that led up to the Iraq war was flawed, and the report did not turn up any new evidence to support the administrationâ??s claim that Iraq was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.â?� In other words, the neocons lied through their teeth, something they do quite easily.

So efficacious are neocon lies, back in February of 2003, in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, a CNN-Time poll revealed that 76 percent of ill-informed and brainwashed Americans believed Saddam and Osama were in cahoots. In July of this year, that number had slipped to 64 percent, according to a Harris poll. Apparently, if I went on Fox and CNN every day for a couple years, a dozen or more times each and every a day, and declared the moon is made of blue cheese, no doubt millions of Americans would believe this, too.

IAEAâ??s complaint will fall off the corporate media radar screen and the persistent warmongering drumbeat against Iran will continue unabated.

Unfortunately, a large number of Americans believe whatever nonsense the neocons and the corporate media feed them, and this drivel buttressed by a body of lies and criminal dishonesty will become the new reality, as the neocons formulate reality, as they arrogantly remind us.

Before Bush leaves officeâ??if he indeed leaves officeâ??there will be a shock and awe campaign unleashed against Iran. It may not come before the mid-term elections, but it will come, guaranteed, for if the neocons are anything it is bulldogged.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=564

gotchA Reviewed by gotchA on 09-20-2006. Neocon Iran Nuke Lies â??Outrageousâ?� and â??Dishonestâ?� Neocon Iran Nuke Lies â??Outrageousâ?� and â??Dishonestâ?� Once again, the Bush neocons have distorted International Atomic Energy Agency findings, as is their habit. â??U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iranâ??s nuclear work, calling parts of it â??outrageous and dishonest,â?? according to a letter obtained by Reuters,â?� a characterization in keeping with the Straussian neocon philosophy of lies and dissimulation. Rating: 5

[Ozarks]

Iran is a signatory state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to the treaty, Iran has the right to develop a civilian nuclear energy program.

Yes, if they abide by the treaty. After signing they lied about their nuclear program for 18 years.

Lying about your nuclear program is a VIOLATION, read the treaty.

They haven't even build their 1st kill the Jews/Great Satan bomb yet, but they already have an 18 year documented track record of treaty violation.

Before Bush leaves officeâ??if he indeed leaves office

I think these guys over at, " I hate Bush so much, I think I'll be an Iranian apologist" have their Tin Foil hats on a little to tight.

[Bong30]

They are fucking Idiots...Ozark


A Muslim will be cutting there own head off, and they will say sorry to them.

[Ozarks]

Oh my God, knock it OFF!

Just because someone disagrees with Bush, or even HATES them, and instead uses facts to defend Muslims...bloodthirsty fundamentalists though they may be...that does NOT make them an apologist! I think you've called me an apologist once, and I believe we should take religious fundamentalists around the world and pack them into Antartica with a few nuclear bombs--not missiles--to play with. An apologist IS the kind of person who'd say "Ahhh you're just a poor, confused soul" while Habib is sawing away at his/her neck with a fruit knife. All this is saying is that Iran IS NOT enriching uranium to weapon-grade, bomb-component uranium. Look past the obvious leftist propoganda and see the facts behind it. I thought you knew how to do that, Bong.

I read the article and IMO the writer doesn't really care if Iran blows off a bomb, the point of the article is to attack (hate) Bush. Blinded by hatred the writer is willing manipulate the facts to put Iran in the best possibly light, in order to strengthen his attack on Bush.

The possibility that Iran may murder 10's of millions given the opportunity,is ignored by the writer, why ? because it threatens to side track or dilute his "I hate Bush message". That's way I called him an "Iranian apologist" the stronger he can make Iran's case look the more legitimate his anti-Bush article looks.

I think you've called me an apologist once,

If I did, I'm sure you deserved it I never met to hurt you, and I certainly never meant for you to carry it around....let it go. It was just two guys debating, I apologize.

[birdgirl73]

I've got to agree with you, Ozarks, after reading that. To me, the article can't really be taken seriously from a content standpoint because it's too much of an attack.

[graymatter]

I think all this begs the question: Is Iran building nuclear technology because they need it for energy demands?

If the answer to that question is:

No... then we need to figure out NON MILITARY approaches to change (regime and others). We have billions of dollars, and a long history of overthrowing nations (including Iran), to apply to that scenario.

Yes... then we need to watch what the IAEA has to say

Maybe... then see NO above

[Ozarks]

I've got to agree with you, Ozarks, after reading that. To me, the article can't really be taken seriously from a content standpoint because it's too much of an attack.

Thank you BG, I don't even object to anti-Bush thing, I don't buy it all, but it's America and the 1st A. is a great thing.

I do object to people who believe it's always Bush's fault because they have this blinding sicko hate of the man, these people are willing to support policies that are detrimental to America if they think it will damage Bush.

Republicans made this mistake in the 90's with Clinton, Clinton try to go after OBL and Republicans accused him of "the tail wagging the dog" or "trying to change the subject" and would not support him, they were so focused on partisan domestic political advantage that the Country didn't/couldn't deal with the problem.

The "I hate Bush" lobby is making the same mistake and the Country is paying for it, again.

A couple of my favorites from the article.

the Zionist Douglas Feith

They're racists but, that's OK they are PC Bush hating racists

the corporate media

Any media that is a business and has to face profit and loss is "corporate media" the 1st A is a great Amendment including the phrase "freedom of the press" I suppose that to "un" corporate the media we should let the Government run it ?

These people have nothing to offer and are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Hamlet]

"I think all this begs the question: Is Iran building nuclear technology because they need it for energy demands?"

The answer to why Iran wants nukes is so obvious I can't believe there is even a debate over it. Who wouldn't want that bargaining chip in this obscene game? They know it scares the shit out of us. They've learned from our example.

[Hamlet]

"The "I hate Bush" lobby is making the same mistake and the Country is paying for it, again."

Bush is too much of a simpleton to really hate. 'Hate' is to strong a word for someone who actually thinks they're doing the right thing. It would be like hating a child for his folly.

His handlers though, Cheney and Rumsfield (refugees from the Nixon administration), now they're worth hating.

[Bong30]

Iran Needs energy? What is OIL? I thought it was energy?


Iran wants to NUKE Isreal.