Larisa Alexandrovna: So About Those Syrian Nukes...

[Hissyspit]

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/10/so-about-those-.html

So about those Syrian nukes...

I hate to say this to the my colleagues in the corporate press, but I told you so. Let's recall what I reported:

"According to current and former intelligence sources, the US intelligence community has seen no evidence of a nuclear facility being hit.

US intelligence “found no radiation signatures after the bombing, so there was no uranium or plutonium present,” said one official, wishing to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject.

“We don't have any independent intelligence that it was a nuclear facility -- only the assertions by the Israelis and some ambiguous satellite photography from them that shows a building, which the Syrians admitted was a military facility.”

Their statements come as officials claim Syria has begun to 'disassemble' the site. An article today quotes former Administration hawk and onetime Bush United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who links Syria's alleged action with Iran."

Doing a complete turnaround, here is today's Washington Post article (emph mine):

Independent experts have pinpointed what they believe to be the Euphrates River site in Syria that was bombed by Israel last month, and satellite imagery of the area shows buildings under construction roughly similar in design to a North Korean reactor capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year, the experts say.

<snip>

The new report leaves many questions unanswered, such as what Syria intended to use the unfinished structures for and the exact role, if any, of North Korea in their construction. Also unclear is why Israel chose to use military force rather than diplomatic pressure against a facility that could not have produced significant nuclear material for years. The new details could fuel debate over whether Israel's attack was warranted.

Albright acknowledged the difficulties of proving what the site is, in part because the roof was put on at an early stage, blocking views of the foundation and obscuring any potential reactor components. In construction of other types of nuclear reactors, the roof is left off until the end so cranes can move heavy equipment inside."

Let's all take a moment to remember the following MSM talking points on what went down in Syria:

- All reported that a nuclear facility and/or cache of early design nuclear weapons had been bombed. This was not true and there was no evidence supporting these claims.
- All had reported that there was solid evidence that the Israelis shared with the Americans (or in some cases, it was reported that the Israelis obtained the intel from the Americans) that was proof positive of a working nuclear facility. The reality is that the only evidence anyone had was sat imagery of a facility.
- Some reported that Israeli commandos had swooped into the area and took samples showing traces of radioactive materials, also as proof positive. Right, because we know that if the Israelis and the WH had such evidence, they would simply stay quiet as opposed to making t-shirts and banners?

Now I have to ask the obvious, who is feeding this disinformation to reporters and why are reporters buying it so quickly? At least WaPo had the good sense to correct themselves by doing this article.

[spag68]

1. Nuclear

Is there any one gullible enough to believe that with sat. pictures that can read a hood ornament on a car, that they didn't see anything being shipped from Korea to Syria. Don't forget that now it is the knowledge of how to make nukes that is to be prevented. All books to be banned shortly.