ABC News pushing Bogus Iran nuke story

[babylonsister]

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/50076/

ABC News pushing Bogus Iran nuke story

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 3:47 PM on April 2, 2007.

Sean-Paul Kelley: Iraq all over again...

Guest post from Sean-Paul Kelley.

How Did Such . . .

. . . a patently bogus article get through the editors at ABC news?

Seriously, the article has one source, and one source alone that says an Iranian nuke could be possible by 2009. And what does this one source base this completely unrealistic claim on? 1,000 new centrifuges Iran is installing at Natanz, which the articles notes, are not even operational.

As David Albright says, "If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis," said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, "then you're looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009."

But if you go back and look at the record and see how long it has taken for Iran to get where they are you realize what garbage this article is. We've been expecting Iran to install 3,000 centrifuges for some time. And now that they've installed 1/3 that number we're going to blow it up into a crisis? First it was 3,000 centrifuges that make up the red line, now it's 1,000?

Please. This is nothing more than disinformation, a well timed leak doled out to Ross and ABC. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. What are they basing it on?

It took only a few short years for the U.S. to go from having no nuclear bomb to having three.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Iran had a nuke in 2009. Or next week.

Of course, I've no doubt that ABC's only harping on it for propaganda purposes.

[babylonsister]

2. They don't even come clean on their sources:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/exclusive_iran_.html

[Monkeyman]

5. Remember who put out 9/11 blaming Clinton

[tridim]

9. We had Oak Ridge, Iran doesn't.

That said, I have no doubt Iran wants to ramp up. Bush only bombs non-nuclear axises-of-evil.

Uhm, what's the plural of axis of evil?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. So?

Is there anything that Oak Ridge was capable of sixty years ago that Iran couldn't do now?

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. axes of evil n/t

[Kagemusha]

3. I thought Iran needed tens of thousands minimum for viability

And "a" nuclear weapon, that is, one? Sheesh.

[scarletwoman]

4. Why shouldn't Iran have nukes anyway? If the nuclear powers aren't going to disarm, why shouldn't

everyone else get nuclear weapons too?

I'm sick of this debate always starting from the arbitrary assumption that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. I question that assumption, therefore the whole exercise of guessing how soon Iran might be able to develop nuclear weapons is somewhat beside the point.

What I want to know is, by what logic shouldn't they be able to develop nuclear weapons, and thereby make themselves equal participants in "mutually assured destruction"? It might certainly serve to focus some minds...

sw

[babylonsister]

6. I absolutely agree, but yearn for some adult leadership who will

actually discuss this, on both sides, instead of threatening each other. With the clowns on both sides, I can see something happening that is eminently avoidable.

[scarletwoman]

11. The thing is, OUR clown actually has the power to do shit.

Ahmedinejad does NOT. The Supreme Ruling Council of Iran is the ONLY entity that can make the final decisions about war and such, and they are neither irrational nor suicidal.

Iran has no intention of attacking anyone. They DO have the intention of protecting themselves FROM attack. That seems quite rational to me.

sw

[babylonsister]

12. So this admin and the media focus on Ahmedinejad instead of those

that have the real power? And this admin refuses to chat. Ugh. I was away this weekend and was worried about the protests in the streets I saw that Iranians were doing, against Great Britain. I don't pretend to have a clue about the Iranians, other than there are many who want no part of this chess game, just like we don't.

[scarletwoman]

13. "I don't pretend to have a clue about the Iranians..." Well, one thing that's important to know

is that there is an internal political struggle going on between moderates and hard-liners. The urban population of Iran (which is a considerable number) is actually very well-educated, sophisticated and even somewhat westernized.

Iranian culture has a millennias-old tradition of respect for intellectuals and literacy. As you say, there are no doubt many who are just as appalled by their leadership as we are. There was a fairly recent parliamentary election and Ahmedinejad's party was apparently trounced by moderate factions.

I wish we would just leave Iran alone. Let them chart their own course. If Bush had never made that idiotic "axis of evil" speech, Ahmedinejan would never have come to power. After 9/11, thousands of Iranians took to their streets and held candlelight vigils in sympathy.

Iran is not our enemy, the elites of the world are our enemies.

sw

[BuyingThyme]

7. kcik

[lala_rawraw]

8. Ross' report is

not accurate at all... and I am frankly quite angry about it. i am demanding that ABC retract it because there is no credible source who would agree with this crap.