Bombed Syrian reactor was nearly complete

[msmcghee]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/FOREIGN/373982385/-1/RSS_FP

By Nicholas Kralev and Sara A. Carter
April 23, 2008

The Bush administration will tell Congress tomorrow that a nuclear facility in Syria built with North Korean help was nearly complete when Israel bombed it in September, and that Pyongyang has not provided any further nuclear assistance to the hard-line Arab nation, at least at that site, U.S. officials said.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and other intelligence officials are expected to brief several congressional committees in closed-door sessions, breaking the administration's silence on the issue.

The Syrian facility has become a key issue in six-nation negotiations to end the North's nuclear programs.

“The belief is that the reactor was nearing completion,” said one official familiar with the content of the briefings. “It would have been able to produce plutonium.”

Another official said that the facility in Syria was similar to North Korea's main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, which has been almost disabled by U.S. experts.

<snip>

[madeline_con]

1. I wonder if Hillary wants to obliterate Syria. n/t

[arendt]

2. I call BS. If this were true, it would have been shouted from the rooftops. Not even the Israelis...

said this. And they did the bombing.

Just more excuses to nuke Iran.

arendt

[TomInTib]

4. F***ing aye.

This does not pass any kind of field test.

"shouted from the rooftops" barely gets there. This would have been hammered into our collective psyche.

[The Magistrate]

3. It Would Be Nice, Ma'am, To Have Someone Worth Believing Say This

Nothing the present regime in the U.S. says on this subject can be believed.

"To be a policeman is to be lied to for a living."

[msmcghee]

7. I don't trust the Bush admininstration at all.

However, I predicted at the time when there was much speculation - that eventually we'd find out more. The fact that the BA is briefing congress in closed door sessions and that they have announced this to the press - means they probably have something that they haven't released previously.

Just because someone is known to lie - doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie - although I share your skepticism. Now, we'll possible get closer to the truth - based on how well their new information holds up. It just seemed like information that some I/P regulars would be interested in. That's why I posted it.

Of course, the story itself could be BS.

[The Magistrate]

8. More Likely, Ma'am, It Means They Have Nothing Worth Saying At All

Not objecting to your posting, by the way, merely expressing my view of the claim.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

[catnhatnh]

10. And you sir, assume we somehow, in spite of our behavior....

these past seven years have the veracity to press the claim, and the sole world-wide imperative to act on it....

To be a policeman is to become cynical or fascistic, apparently since in your universe our government could never be, uh, wrong???

[The Magistrate]

12. Excuse Me, Sir?

"You talkin' ta me?"

[provis99]

5. if its in the Washington Times, it must be true!

would a Moonie cultist newspaper lie?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS SHOULD BE DESTROYED ALL

OF THEM, NO COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE THEM, THEY ARE NOT WEAPONS TO BE USED, THIS IS OUR WORLD AND NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO HOLD HUMANS HOSTAGE, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SUBJECT FOR THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

[Birthmark]

9. Ah, I see...

...“The belief is that the reactor was nearing completion,” said one official familiar with the content of the briefings. “It would have been able to produce plutonium.”

They believed, therefore, it's true. C'mon, January! Baby needs a new set of brains in the White House!!

[bemildred]

11. U.S. to announce alleged DPRK-Syria nuclear cooperation "soon"

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Xinhua) -- The United States will "soon" announce what it knows about possible nuclear cooperation between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Syria, senior officials of the White House and the Pentagon said Wednesday.

In a Pentagon news conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to elaborate details about the DPRK's nuclear cooperation with Syria, but in response to the question when the public would be told about truth, he simply said "soon."

"I think Secretary Gates said it well. 'Soon' is a good, short answer," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters at her daily briefing.

"I'm not going to be able to say much on it today. And I'm not confirming anything at this briefing in regards to the substance," Perino added, declining to give any reason for her silence.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/24/content_8038002.htm

[bemildred]

13. J'lem fears U.S. hearings on Syrian reactor will unveil classified data

Defense officials in Jerusalem have expressed concern over the possible revelation of classified data pertaining to Israel's bombing of a Syrian nuclear facility last September during Congressional hearings on the incident which are slated to begin Thursday in Washington.

The American administration is slated to provide Thursday, for the first time, extensive details about the nature of the compound destroyed by the Israel Air Force on September 6.

The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that Congress will hear from the Central Intelligence Agency that the facility destroyed in the Israel Air Force attack was a nuclear reactor for producing plutonium. Israel, however, does not intend to break the official silence it has maintained on the matter for the past seven months. Security sources told Haaretz on Wednesday night that the government will not go public with new information in the case.

The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment on the matter Wednesday, and referred Haaretz to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's statements last week in his Pesach interview with media outlets, in which he said that "the Syrians know what our position is, and we know what their expectations are."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977679.html

[kayecy]

14. And where else might there be such a facility?

If this report is correct and Syria was near to producing plutonium, one wonders how many similar sites there are in Iran.....It would be much easier to hide such a facility in a country the size of Iran. .... Iran has more cash to spend on such a facility and seems to have been very close to N. Korea for some time.


We could be closer to a nuclear war than anyone thinks.

[arendt]

15. Booga, booga - why do you invent such fantasies? Its the BushCo party line...

The only reason we are close to nuclear war is being the Bush gang has a hard on to nuke Iran, and they are preparing the public for it with the kind of scare-mongering that you are engaged in.

The IAEA has certified Iran's highly public enrichment program. The Iranians have ZERO need to do anything in secret. They are already doing it in public.

Get a brain.

arendt

[kayecy]

16. Scare-mongering....don't make me laugh!.....

Scare-mongering?...Don't make me laugh......I just don't want Israel or Bush to think they can just bomb a few sites in Iran and nothing will happen.
.
Bush and co think Iran can't possibly have a nuke...They may be right...They may just be wrong......That is being realistic not scare-mongering.


Keeep your head stuck in the sand if you want to.

[arendt]

17. Well we agree that we don't want BushCo to bomb Iran...

but, I just don't get the rest of your post.

Our own NIE says the Iranians are at least three years away (and that is an INTELLIGENCE estimate - those guys are worst case people).

The IAEA says that the Iranians are doing everything in the open.

The only people screaming booga-booga nukes are the Neocons and the Israelis, who just might be biased :sarcasm:.

You can worry about a comet hitting the earth tomorrow as much as you should worry about the IRANIANS starting a nuclear war.

arendt

[kayecy]

30. Who said anything about the Iranians starting a war?

Our own NIE says the Iranians are at least three years away (and that is an INTELLIGENCE estimate - those guys are worst case people)......The IAEA says that the Iranians are doing everything in the open.

I hope the NIE & IAEA are right....But no-one has seems to have asked (in public) why N. Korea should risk exposure in a poverty-stricken country like Syria, a country which is so close to Israel, when it could get hard cash for doing the same in Iran, much more discretely.....I know nothing about intelligence but when no-one is asking an obvious question like that, I get worried.

You can worry about a comet hitting the earth tomorrow as much as you should worry about the IRANIANS starting a nuclear war.

Israel has just carried out a pre-emptive strike on a Syrian facility.....They have seriously thought about doing the same on several Iranian ones....If they (or Bush) do that and the Iranians have even a few N. Korean designed nukes, Amadenajad is mad enough to use them in retaliation.

Who will have started the conflagration?

There is a 99% chance the Iranians do not have a N. Korean-type plutonium facility but someone should be making damn sure it is 100% before they start bombing anything.
.

[arendt]

35. What a double standard!

Your scenario:

Israel has just carried out a pre-emptive strike on a Syrian facility.....They have seriously thought about doing the same on several Iranian ones....If they (or Bush) do that and the Iranians have even a few N. Korean designed nukes, Amadenajad is mad enough to use them in retaliation.

Who will have started the conflagration?

------------

The person who fires the first shot started things. Otherwise, we can all go around accusing people of bullshit offenses and blowing them away, like some movie-Western gunslinger who provokes rubes into going for their gun.

Your scenario buys the BushCo propaganda line, and your question shows moral confusion.

Your scenario is based a total double standard. You claim that the Iranians have no right to develop anything that might be, even indirectly, useful for weapons and that the U.S. and the Israelis have every right to stop them from doing so. I was unaware that the U.S. and Israel had the divine right to control the dual-use technology of every government on the planet.

Who cares that the U.S. made an unprovoked attack on Iraq, resulting in millions of refugees (probably many of them in Iran right now) and probably a million dead? Who cares that Israel turned a routine border scirmish into a war of aggression against Lebanon within the last two years, and trashed hundreds of billions of dollars of EU-purchased infrastructure in Beirut (a hundred miles from the border) to "teach them a lesson"? Who cares that the U.S. supported Saddam's brutal war against Iran? Who cares that the U.S. and Israel have become trigger-happy lately, making people in their vicinity very nervous?

In your eyes, none of that gives Iran, who hasn't got a friend in the world, the right to literally defend itself and the lives of its citizens. There are armed crazies next door to them, crazies who think nothing of pounding an entire country to rubble for five years.

The double standard you espouse is what puts nutcases like Ahmeninedjad into power. Paranoid nutcases (Cheney and the neocons) reinforce paranoid nutcases in other countries. It is a vicious circle that is exacerbated by the kind of malignant scenario-izing you indulge in.

We got lied into Iraq by exactly this kind of "reasoning".

Have you looked outside the U.S. lately? World opinion polls show that the rest of the world finds the U.S. and Israeli to be the biggest threats to peace, the most rogue of nations. And you have the nerve to ask "who will have started things?"?


arendt

[kayecy]

60. let me spell it out for you....I am against any country attacking another

Your scenario buys the BushCo propaganda line, and your question shows moral confusion.

No, No, No! - show me one word I have written that supports your statement!


I guess I thought it was obvious....I am against any country attacking any other country....I am for equal rights of soverign self-defence.

My reference to Bush/Israel was in the context that I am worried they don't want to know what the outcome of any war with Iran could be.....I want them to admit that Iran could have a much more powerful means of defence or retaliation that they are telling us.....I want them to know they are playing with fire!


Now, where is the double standard in that?

.

[arendt]

64. Thanks for spelling it out. I now understand where you are coming from.

If you had said:

"I want them to admit that Iran could have a much more powerful means of defence or retaliation that they are telling us"

sooner, this exchange would have been more civil. Still, you might consider re-phrasing your scenario and your 99% line. They are way too close to the standard neocon verbiage, which is why I jumped in.

Attacking Iran is senseless. If they are attacked with nukes, America and/or Israel become pariah states and the Cold War starts up again; only this time, Europe is probably not on our side. If they are attacked conventionally, Iraq goes up in flames that make the current Civil War look like a marshmallow roast. No rational person would consider attacking Iraq. So, worrying that the crazos running our country do not have the facts, or are not concerned enough about them, misses the point. They are f-ing irrational, nuts, delusional. They intend to attack Iran before January 20; for whatever insane reasons they have.

The rest of us are in the passenger seat on this cheap Chinese bus to hell.

arendtr

[kayecy]

67. When you have been subject to as much abuse as I have, you learn to be careful what you say....

OK, I could have been clearer, but you did open up by accusing me of scare-mongering!....When you have been subject to as much abuse as I have, you learn that it is best to fall over yourself not to take a controversial position or you risk being called an extremist, anti-Semitic prick, ass-hole, Zandor, dumbass, liar, Jew-hating sack-of-shit.....And that is just by one of DU's 'progressive' members!

By the way, I am European and I can't wait to see the back of Bush/Cheney.......Have you read Dick Nichols book - "Dick, The Man Who Is President"? - quite amusing if it only it didn't ring true!
.

[arendt]

68. Right, I forgot, this is the Israel/Palestine forum...

I usually stay away from this forum for precisely the reasons you cite.

But, it doesn't help. Even though I post as (Hannah) arendt, and often quote her at length on the evils of Naziism, I am accused of anti-Semitism if I do not pay proper obesiance to the conventional wisdom on the Middle East.

I will look for the book.

Thanks,

arendt

P.S. I hope Europe maintains some civilization in the coming chaos; because the U.S. sure won't.

[arendt]

36. Channel Dick Cheney much? "There is a 99% chance the Iranians do not...

have a N. Korean-type plutonium facility but someone should be making damn sure it is 100% before they start bombing anything."

Go read "The One Percent Doctrine".

http://www.amazon.com/One-Percent-Doctrine-Americas-Pursuit/dp/0743271092/ref=/ref=cm_cd_t_pb_i

arendt

[msmcghee]

18. Syria denies U.S. accusation over nuclear reactor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080424/pl_nm/korea_north_syria_dc

By Samia Nakhoul

LONDON (Reuters) - Syria on Thursday dismissed U.S. accusations that North Korea was helping it build a nuclear reactor that could produce plutonium.

Syria's ambassador to Britain, Sami al-Khiyami, told Reuters that the accusation, which President George W. Bush's administration was expected to lay out to lawmakers on Thursday, was to put pressure on North Korea in talks about Pyongyang's nuclear program.

"This has nothing to do with North Korea and Syria. They just want to exert more pressure on North Korea. This is why they are coming up with this story," Khiyami said.

"The cooperation between North Korea and Syria has nothing to do with (building) a nuclear facility. Cooperation is mainly economic.

"This is political manipulation ahead of the talks with North Korea to exert more pressure on them," he said.

<snip>

Bush's move.

[bemildred]

19. Steve Clemons: Cheney's Compulsive Obsession with Iraq WMDs & Syrian Nukes

Xpost from Editorials.

---

Cheney's minions are pushing Congress to sponge up Israeli intelligence assessments about purported Syria-North Korea cooperation on a now destroyed, alleged nuclear site. There are many who doubt Israel's assessments in the U.S. intelligence community. A consensus has built that North Korea and Syria were cooperating on some machine tool operation to retrofit increasingly sophisticated short range missiles with new capacity, perhaps air burst capacity that could potentially deliver biological or chemical agents.

One of the real puzzles that few seem to have the answer to is exactly why Syria would want a Yongbyon-style nuclear reactor and reprocessing facility even if it could have one. As reported on TWN yesterday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has stated to Western visitors that "his engineers are so incompetent that if they tried to build a nuclear facility it would become another Chernobyl."

Whether al-Assad is being truthful or not, I suspect there is some grit in his statement that ought not to be casually shrugged off. Nuclear mishaps in one's own neighborhood aren't trivial.

Furthermore, the more dangerous application of a Yongbyon-like facility would plutonium, which can't be hidden from easy detection. Uranium is tougher to track, but also requires levels of work and capacity-building that the Syrians could never hope to hide. At least for the time being, I'm with Seymour Hersh on the Syria nuke debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x354921

[msmcghee]

20. I will wait to see what happens on your larger point . .

. . but I can say with certainty that a factory or facility to produce medium range rockets has almost nothing in common with a nuclear reactor. Any knowledgeable person should be able tell the difference from almost any reasonably detailed photographic evidence. It is interesting to watch this drama unfold.

[bemildred]

21. It doesn't say they were making rockets.

It says they may have been making certain rocket parts, fusing mechanisms actually, sort of a machine shop operation.

[msmcghee]

22. That's my point. Machining operations are about . .

. . as far as you can get from a nuclear reactor. Machining operations take place on raw materials that become "discrete" parts - batches of items that move through discrete steps to have value added to them. There are drill presses, lathes and mills and stamping machines.

Nuclear reactions are an example of "process control". There are high pressure pipes and flow meters and temperature guages and control rooms with many readouts monitoring critical points in the process. There are thousands of alarms looking for out-of-range signals from hundreds of thousands of instrumented data points.

The facilities that engage in these activities and the equipment and physical plant required to perform them could not look more different from each other.

Almost any photographs from inside the building should easily reveal that difference.

[bemildred]

23. Well, I've never thought that it looked like anything nuclear,

so the point is sort of lost on me. It was a big squarish tall building. The video would only be interesting if it provided some detailed footage of the interior taken not too long before they blew it up.

[msmcghee]

24. I believe the article mentioned stills from . .

. . a video taken inside the building. As far as the outside of the building, I assume that Syria would have built it to avoid appearing like a nuclear reactor - especially like the same NK reactor it was supposedly modeled after. We'll see.

[azurnoir]

26. delete n/t

[azurnoir]

27. My memory could be fuzzy here

but in the original analysis of the satellite images of the facility didn't the issue of a lack of cooling towers(?) or a water source for those come up? Or has that been "overcome"

Perhaps those wacky Syrians didn't realize a nuclear reactor needs temperature regulation :sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

28. dupe delete n/t

[The Magistrate]

31. One Small Point, Ma'am

One view of this matter is that the endeavor concerned creation of chemical warheads for missiles. As the Syrian government is known to possess sizeable stocks of chemical agents, and a complement of missiles, this has a certain plausibility. It seems to me such an endeavor would require a bit of piping and some gauges, as gaseous agents must be confined, and are always under pressure to the point of liquidation in the confined space of an item of munitions.

[msmcghee]

33. That's true.

Of course, I am only speculating on these things since we haven't seen the photos yet - and maybe we won't ever. I'd speculate that the nature and size, pressure capacity, etc. of the piping for a nuclear reactor is still quite different from that equipment that would be used to mix chemicals for warheads. The fluids in a nuclear reactor are generally not chemically reactive, much less toxic or deadly in very small amounts. They act as a means for transferring heat from the core to the electrical generator. And there would even be a significant difference if those chemicals were biological agents such as anthrax or chemical agents such as nerve gas. Centrifuges do concentrate toxic gasses but a centrifuge facility would not normally be located near a missile warhead production facility for militray reasons.

In any case, my sense is that anyone producing such a plant for any of those purposes - out in the open - would go to some expense to disguise it from the outside to look like something different than what it was. On the inside, when dealing with dangerous and explosive or deadly chemicals - it is necessary to design the equipment very carefully with safety in mind such that there would be no mistaking what various pieces of equipment were to be used for, who has access to it, etc.

I suspect they'd try very hard to make sure no one ever produced photos from inside the plant - rather than try to disguise things at the operator level - which is almost a recipe for a disaster that would be impossible to hide and that would certainly tell the world what was going on in that plant.

But, as I said, perhaps we are about to learn more.

[The Magistrate]

34. The Problem, Ma'am, Is The Present Regime In Our Country

Has an established record of attempting to decieve, and to distort what images of equipment signify. The great 'mobile weapons laboratories' of Iraq, actually facilities for producing hydrogen to fill balloons to get immediate weather data for artillery batteries, being a case in point.

Nothing, nothing at all, said by the present administration, can be trusted; no evidence, none, that they produce can be taken at the face value they put on it.

[msmcghee]

38. I remember that well. That and other examples are . .

. . cause for great skepticism. I agree completely.

OTOH - a nuclear production facility (or the production of chemical / bio warhead missiles) in Syria would pose extreme risk - to American interests, to Israel interests, to the interests of several other ME Arab states and to the well being generally of the all the people who live in the region. I think any evidence of such a facility should be taken seriously and subjected to enough scrutiny and examination that a good assessment can be made - even if that evidence initially comes from known liars.

Worst case - it's true and we have some time to figure out how to deal with it before we are blackmailed (or attacked) by it.

Best case - Bush's legacy is signed, sealed and delivered - and Republicans will have a hard time ever being taken seriously on military matters for a very long time - assuming Dems have the ability to handle the opportunity with some intelligence - of which I have my doubts.

Emotional bias is a dangerous trap that can work as often against one's interests as for them - but will always work against reality - and that's what scares me.

[The Magistrate]

39. There Is Another Worst Case, Ma'am

A deliberate attempt to raise tensions and stir trouble by the administration with lies about this facility, in the hope of further distorting our domestic political processes, by means that might even include an aerial assault on Syria by U.S. forces.

[msmcghee]

40. Do you really think that if Bush / Cheney wanted to attack Syria . .

. . this late in their term that they'd give a damn about what we think? There's really nothing stopping them. If they did a Gulf-of-Tonkin hat trick they'd be long gone from office before it was ever proven - and then they'd say it was all politics and we're just engaging in a Republican witch hunt, blah, blah, blah - and can't we just move on.

I despise those bastards. All I'm saying is we should not dismiss possible serious potential threats to our national security and possible destabilizing realities in the world just because Bush and Cheney are despicable liars. We have control of congress. Let's use it to expose their duplicity and impeach them if that's what they're doing.

Hell, the Rupubs shut down the government twice in a dispute over the budget in Clinton's first term. Clinton called their bluff and gave them black eye that was the first step in shutting down Gingrich's political future. Our congress acted like a bunch of cowards then and during the impeachment and they've done it ever since.

Most of them make me sick. If they had any principles there's no way Bush / Cheney could pull another fast one on the American people. We control congress, for God's sake. They're all worried about being called soft on terror. We need to fight terrorism - but we need to do it with brains and out of conviction - not because it's politically advantageous to do so.

Anyway, end of rant. Glad to see you posting here again.

[The Magistrate]

41. They Would Lay A Propaganda Platform First, Ma'am

Part of the drill, needed to gynn up the right wing hate radio machine to intimidating volume.

[msmcghee]

42. No doubt. But, this scenario seems academic anyway . . .

I can't imagine any threat that the backwater kingdom of Syria could possibly pose that Israel would not deal with it long before it became a serious threat to Israel. It makes no sense that Bush / Cheney would be ginning up for a US attack on Syria. Now Iran - that's another story. There are reasons that Obama or Clinton could see the need for an attack on Iran - as they've both indicated.

But Syria, that seem very unlikely to me. And, perhaps perversely, that lends some credibility to any Bush / Cheney claims about Syria's intentions. There could be other reasons to make up this story - but I doubt it's because they are planning to attack Syria.

[The Magistrate]

55. Here Is A Link To the Released Footage, Ma'am, In Case You Have Not Seen It

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7366235.stm

It makes a much better case than I had expected. Some elements, such as the claim the purported design could not generate electricity and was unsuitable for research, are well beyond my ability to assess. The pictures of components and construction, however, do seem solid.

[bemildred]

57. Thank you Sir, that was interesting.

Seems a bit thin to me, but enough to raise questions. It would appear they had a mole, if one takes it at face value, which would explain the reluctance to publish the evidence. It will be interesting to see the Syrian reaction, whether it is defensive blather or something more substantive.

[The Magistrate]

59. To Me As Well, My Friend

Certainly it was of a higher grade than I had been expecting.

Taking for a moment the claim at face value, one has to wonder what species of lunacy could have made the Syrian government imagine such a project could actually be concealed. The North Koreans can build above ground because they hold Seoul hostage with heavy artillery against any air or missile strikes, but Syria has nothing approaching such leverage, and must assume the eye is always in the sky, at the very minimum.

[msmcghee]

62. I suspect the answer lies in the hubris of totalitarian . .

. . monarchy. Saddam Hussein believed until the end that the US would never be stupid enough to invade Iraq. Looks like he was wrong.

[The Magistrate]

63. Perhaps, Ma'am

But it is hard for me to imagine the old man who fathered the present pup ruling that place making such a mistake.

[bemildred]

65. A good question Sir. Are the Syrians really that stupid?

One can ask something similar about the presenters here, do they expect to get away with it, or do they not care whether they are found out in the end, assuming the lie stands up long enough.

What I see is a half-dozen low-res still pictures and endless repetition of the story line. One is still very much required to take their word for it. Anyone familiar with Yellow Cake and Baby Incubators and Aluminum Tubes has to view this with some skepticism.

But a good question from the beginning has been why the Syrians were so reticent about it? Both sides really, but the Syrians in particular. One could argue that the Syrians invited this by being so backward with information of their own.

[The Magistrate]

69. Unfortunately, Sir, Stupidity Is An Abundant Resource

To ask if someone really is that stupid almost invites an answer in the affirmative, as the default position....

You may recall my early take on this was that the target was a high value weapons package in transit to Hezbollah, and that Syrian reticence reflected that, under several possible motivations of plausible deniability regarding something they really should not be doing. Though still fond of the idea, it does no longer seem too tenable to me.

Your characterization of the substance of the presentation is a good one; it certainly depends more on the narration than the photographs, and the narrator cannot be considered reliable absent external confirmations. But the photographs are enough to demonstrate this was something more than a warehouse: it was a facility that involved some serious and unusual construction work.

[bemildred]

70. Yes, I do recall that. It still seems to me as good as any.

I must say I remain fuddled, there is no evidence worth the name, and an abundance of fools and liars about. The pics of the vertical tubes were the only ones that gave me any pause; if it can be shown that they were indeed from inside the building, the Syrians would have some 'splainin to do. I must say I'm not willing to take any spooks' word for that.

Otherwise one has various pipes, dirt mounds, and pieces of building interpreted in a way that is convenient to the story line, but not actually compelling as the only possible explanation; nor does it seems to me that any theory based on how unlikely it is that all those "suspicious" features were present at once seem compelling.

And digital pictures can be modified.

I am hopeful that the IAEA will get involved now, and that Damascus will think it wise to cooperate, and we might get better information in due course.

[The Magistrate]

71. Exactly, Sir

And my unfamiliarity with the range of reactor types makes it impossible for me to sensibly assess the worth that one item we agree could, if accurately presented, constitute real evidence of the claim.

An investigation and report by the IAEA would be neutral and authoritative, and settle the matter. There should certainly be one. A refusal by Damascus to co-operate with an IAEA probe would also be determinative.

[bemildred]

72. I would think they would be obliged to cooperate at this point.

But we will see.

[msmcghee]

73. One item worth remembering in all this is that . .

. . Israel was very much against bringing any of this public as Bush has done. The reason given was that it could jeopardize their ability to get such information in the future (and endanger agents in Syria I assume). Just speculating - I imagine that getting out detailed photos from inside that facility required at least one guy with a small camera and maybe one security guard to be in on it. I would think that we (the public) are being shown the bare minimum photographic evidence - and only two photos at that (that are not satellite photos). I suspect that some key members of congress have been shown more.

Also, I suspect that a couple of Syrians and their families are either in extreme danger right now or have been whisked away - hopefully. That Israel was still objecting right up to the disclosure makes me think the former is more likely. I'm assuming that although the Israelis could not prevent Bush from going forward that they had some ability to limit the photographs shown - to the public at least.

(If the still frames from the video were the only photographic evidence then the Syrians have probably figured out already who delivered (sold) the copy to Israel.)

Again, I have no idea what actually happened and I'm just guessing- but it is an interesting saga and instructive to watch it unfold.

[msmcghee]

74. Just a side issue. The question of "are the Syrians . .

. . really that stupid". I would suggest that "Syrians" are no more nor less intelligent than Israelis or Danes or Zimbabweans.

It is not intelligence but beliefs that determine such events - and why would Syrians have a lower intelligence anyway? If someone believes strongly in their own superiority over other groups (hubris) because of worldview beliefs like the nobility of birth, for example - the strong emotions generated by those beliefs will cripple their ability to use their intelligence wisely in their own service. This is especially prevalent in oligarchies such as monarchies because when only a few people are close to extreme power - they have much to lose by any criticism. Monarchs are therefore unlikely to hear from others that their ideas are dangerous and likely to fail. There are also less likely to be self-critical of their own ideas. "The Last Hundred Days" by Toland shows this brilliantly. Hitler had only the most sycophantic "yes men" around him.

I bring this up now because I spent 2 and 1/2 hours last nite watching my latest Netflix pick - "The Last Emperor" - an account of the last run of the Ching dynasty and the conquest of China by Japan. My interpretation is that the emperor was indoctrinated into his role at a very young age and that became his identity. The emotions of his identity-beliefs were understandably strong - as Mel Brooks says, "It's good to be the king". He willingly ignored the reality of his predicament - he become blind to it - rather than give up his self-identity as emperor. Eventually, he sold out the sovereignty of his people to the Japanese - in exchange for keeping his title and the appearance of his reign - and even convinced himself that he was doing the right thing. Of course, China was not militarily capable of resisting the Japanese war machine - but with the emperor's assistance it seems probable that Japan's conquest was faster and easier to achieve. I know you are well versed in the history of this period and I'd be interested to know if I have missed much here.

In summary, this is what I suspect happened in China in the first half of the twentieth century and in Syria this last year. Whatever fulfilling our identity requires of us - we will defend in the face of all evidence and reason to the contrary. I think kings and megalomaniacs like Saddam Hussein and even democratically elected leaders like our current administration who insulate themselves from criticism (or who have an MSM that does that for them) - tend to make these kinds of identity-belief errors a lot.

[The Magistrate]

75. My Reference, Ma'am, Was Simply To Governing Authorities There

In light of the obvious difficulties which this episode at least displays that there would be if an attempt was actually being made to construct a nuclear facility in secrecy above ground.

You have, however, touched on one my favorite historical periods, and are certainly correct in assessing the upbringing of the unfortunate Pu-Y'i, though it is certainly a wider phenomenon: Mr. Shaw describes kingliness as an artificially induced hallucination which, should it be interrupted, can never be wholly regained. Pu Y'i made, however, no material contribution to Japanese successes either in Manchuria at the start or later in China below the Wall. The announcement of his 'emperorship' in Manchuria bought the Japanese a great recrudesence of guerrilla opposition, and if anything probably multiplied their problems in imposing control in Heilungkiang and eastern Kirin. The bankruptcy of the imperial ideal in its old dynastic form was the one thing just about all parties in China post-1911 agreed on, as amply demonstrated by the failure of Gen. Yuan Shih-k'ai's attempt to convert his perpetual Presidency of the Chinese Republic into an Emperor's status at the end of 1915, and the failure of the attempt by the traditionalist war-lord Gen. Chang Hsun, assisted by a leading fin de siecle Confucian intellectual and reformer, K'ang Yu-wei, to restore the Ch'ing Dynasty itself in the summer of 1917. The Japanese also periodically employed a Mongol pretender to the old Yuan dynasty throne (whose name escapes immediate recollection), without appreciable success, though it led to some sharp fighting in the mid 1920s, albeit on a pretty small scale. None of the puppet governments the Japanese erected in China below the Wall, whether in the north before the outbreak of general hostilities in 1937, or in the general coastal region afterwards, made any reference to the revived imperium. The former was based on local military figures and gentry, the latter on the defeated leader of a non-Communist left faction within the Nationalist Party.

[msmcghee]

76. Rather than say . .

. . "I'd be interested to know if I have missed much here". I should have said, "I'd be interested to know the general scope and range of all that I'm sure I have missed here."

;)

Added: Also, I understood that when someone makes a bad decision it is common in our culture to say they are "stupid". I just think there is a false paradigm embedded in such claims that causes misunderstandings about larger and more important issues. Gently mentioning this when it comes up in discussions is an indulgence but it's nothing I ever expect to vigorously campaign for.

[The Magistrate]

77. It Is An Endlessly Fascinating Period And Place To Me, Ma'am

A good and readily available introduction is Professor John King Fairbank's 'The Great Chinese Revolution, 1800-1985', should you wish to explore further.

[msmcghee]

61. Thanks for the link.

This is quite a interesting saga - and it ain't over yet.

[msmcghee]

25. It appears at least the the WA Times article itself . .

. . was apparently correct . . now that several news agencies rare reporting substantially the same thing as this OP - today.

[azurnoir]

29. Media conscientious = truth?

I seem to remember another "conscientious" that was reached 6 or so years ago about another countries "nukes", and how did that pan out in the end?

[msmcghee]

32. Did you mean to say "consensus"?

I look at all news reports with skepticism. When they first appear they could be correct or not. As more media work the sources there is often a consensus reached and that sometimes means that the consensus is accurate - not always.

Six years ago, as I remember it, the news media reported the conclusions of the Pentagon, the CIA and the administration that Saddam had WMD's and was trying to develop nuclear. It is the media's job to report what those people say - even when they are lying. They are the people we (stupidly) elected to office. Their words on such topics are newsworthy because they are decision-makers. Many pro-Repuke pundits jumped on board the bandwagon - and many shit-for-brains liberal pundits too which was the real crime - including the lying liberal and RW talking heads that smeared Gore and Kerry to influence that election. But many scoffed too - and many here at DU were highly skeptical of the claims.

My sense is that people here were not necessarily smarter about it - we just have a higher than normal hatred of things Republican and would probably not believe Bush claiming that the sun rises in the East.

Pundits are not reporters. Most Americans have no idea there is a difference. Most Americans think that if somebody on TV says it - it must be true. Democracy 's strength is that we the people ultimately have the power to correct things when they go off track. Democracy's weakness is that we the people ran the train off the track in our idiotic voting choices, to start with.

[azurnoir]

37. Thank for correcting my spelling -again n/t

[msmcghee]

43. The news is starting to come out now on this.

N. Koreans Taped At Syrian Reactor
Video Played a Role in Israeli Raid

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042302906.html?wpisrc=newsletter

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 24, 2008; Page A01

A video taken inside a secret Syrian facility last summer convinced the Israeli government and the Bush administration that North Korea was helping to construct a reactor similar to one that produces plutonium for North Korea's nuclear arsenal, according to senior U.S. officials who said it would be shared with lawmakers today.

The officials said the video of the remote site, code-named Al Kibar by the Syrians, shows North Koreans inside. It played a pivotal role in Israel's decision to bomb the facility late at night last Sept. 6, a move that was publicly denounced by Damascus but not by Washington.

Sources familiar with the video say it also shows that the Syrian reactor core's design is the same as that of the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, including a virtually identical configuration and number of holes for fuel rods. It shows "remarkable resemblances inside and out to Yongbyon," a U.S. intelligence official said. A nuclear weapons specialist called the video "very, very damning."

Nuclear weapons analysts and U.S. officials predicted that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden's planned disclosures to Capitol Hill could complicate U.S. efforts to improve relations with North Korea as a way to stop its nuclear weapons program. They come as factions inside the administration and in Congress have been battling over the merits of a nuclear-related deal with North Korea.

Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha yesterday angrily denounced the U.S. and Israeli assertions. "If they show a video, remember that the U.S. went to the U.N. Security Council and displayed evidence and images about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I hope the American people will not be as gullible this time around," he said.

<snip>

(Posted to help members save some time - not to make a claim about anything.)

[bemildred]

44. This appears to be the same drivel. nt

[msmcghee]

45. And now this from the CSMonitor . .

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0425/p02s02-usfp.html

With Syria 'reactor' video, U.S. sends a warning
It lets potential nuclear proliferators Iran and North Korea know it's watching.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the April 25, 2008 edition

Reporter Peter Grier discusses possible reasons for why the US released evidence of alleged North Korean help in building a Syrian nuclear reactor.

Washington - US intelligence officials have a message for potential nuclear proliferators: We're watching you, and we see more than you think.

That's the conclusion some experts draw from the US government's unusual April 24 release of evidence that Syria may have been building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.

Israeli warplanes bombed the Syrian site on Sept. 6, 2007. This week, a US delegation is in North Korea pressing the Pyongyang regime for a full accounting of all its nuclear activities, including aid for Syria or any other country.

"This is very striking data to make public. It's clearly intended as a broader message to both the Syrian and North Korean governments," says Anthony Cordesman, a senior military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

It is also possible that the US is sending a warning to Iran, says Mr. Cordesman. If Syria was developing a nuclear-weapons program, it would need fissile fuel for the reactor, a means of processing spent fuel, and design help, as well as the reactor itself.

"There really seem to be only two countries Syria could turn to" for such items, he says. "While everybody is focused on North Korea, Iran is obviously the other."

<snip>

[bemildred]

46. Larisa Alexandrovna: Massive Propaganda Laundry at the Wall Street Journal

Another Xpost. The Mighty Wurlitzer does seem to have the bit in its teeth on this.

---

The claims regarding a Syrian nuclear facility are patently false. How do I know? Because I was on the story for months. It is not true that North Korea is helping Syria build a nuclear reactor. What is true, however, is that Syria has a chemical weapons program - that for some reason no one seems much interested in. But I suppose for the Cheney mechanism to move forward, introducing a whole new type of WMD to the mix might confuse the propaganda.

Furthermore, anyone from the CIA who testifies to Congress that Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Syria last year will be all-out lying. Let's go back to my first article on the bombing of Syria by the Israeli military:

"Israel did not strike a nuclear weapons facility in Syria on Sept. 6, instead striking a cache of North Korean missiles, current and former intelligence officials say.

American intelligence sources familiar with key events leading up to the Israeli air raid tell RAW STORY that what the Syrians actually had were North Korean No-Dong missiles, possibly located at a site in either the city of Musalmiya in the northern part of Syria or further south around the city of Hama. (more)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3199211&mesg_id=3199211

[msmcghee]

47. Just to keep the program straight.

This is not an article in the Wall Street Journal. As I read it this is a blog post saying that the Bush / Cheney narrative as released today - that the building was a nuclear reactor for producing weapons grade plutonium - are lies, I assume - or at least incorrect. I expect there will be plenty of these. I note that it was written yesterday, before the news briefing today.

The WaPo article and the Christian Science Monitor were not articles claiming that the Bush / Cheney narrative were true. As I read it they were reporting on what the Bush / Cheney narrative was - and speculated on their reasons for releasing it. They also added some sources who nay-sayed the Bush / Cheney narrative somewhat.

This can all get a little complicated but thanks for adding that.

[bemildred]

48. Syria mocks 'nuclear reactor' images

SYRIA'S ambassador to the United States has dismissed the White House's claim today that North Korea had helped it build a nuclear reactor as a "ridiculous story".

---

He said they showed him "ridiculous satellite-taken photographs of a building in the Syrian desert, saying this is a nuclear reactor".

"I had to remind them that it is on one hand preposterous. And on the other hand there is something silly about this. Not a single security guard. No barbed wire," the ambassador said.

He added: "It's just photographs of vacant buildings".

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23596641-5005361,00.html

[msmcghee]

49. Well, of course. n/t

[bemildred]

50. Real reason Syrian base was wiped off the map

This guy is more in tune with the Mighty Wurlitzer, but I still don't see anything that indicates any evidence underneath it all that isn't the same old satellite pictures.

Piece by piece, the intelligence jigsaw puzzle concerning Israel's air strike on a top-secret military site in northern Syria last September is finally taking shape. When a squadron of Israeli F-15 fighter-bombers destroyed a hitherto unknown Syrian military facility at Dayr as-Zawr, close to the country's north-eastern border with Turkey, there was much speculation that Israel had staged a repeat of its 1981 mission against Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility, which thwarted Saddam Hussein's ambition to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal.

The raid took place shortly after a mysterious North Korean ship - which had reflagged itself as a South Korean vessel so as to avoid detection - docked at the Syrian port of Tartous and unloaded its cargo, which was traced being transported to the Syrian military base. American and Israeli spy satellites were soon producing high-intensity photographs of the facility that suggested it bore an uncanny resemblance to North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear reactor, which produced the atomic device that the North Koreans successfully test-fired in late 2006.

Despite much speculation, the reasons for the Israeli attack on Dayr as-Zawr remained unclear, not least because the Israelis suffered an uncharacteristic bout of reticence over their involvement. Normally, they are only too happy to boast about their heroic exploits in defence of the Jewish state. The daring rescue of the hostages held in Uganda in 1976 was immortalised in the film Raid on Entebbe, while Steven Spielberg's Munich captured the ruthless persecution by the country's intelligence agents of the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics.

But on this occasion, Israel's political, defence and security establishments rigidly observed a code of omertà, personally imposed by prime minister Ehud Olmert. As one senior Israeli official remarked when I asked him about the attack last year: "I value my freedom far too much to mention it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/25/do2504.xml

[msmcghee]

52. When the title of the article is . .

. . "Real reason Syrian base was wiped off the map", I expected to see a coherent "real reason" offered. The best I can make out from the article is that the Syrians were cooperating with Iran because Iran might need ancillary facilities scattered in other states to complete its program and develop its weapons. OK - I guess that makes some sense but it hardly seems like something that Israel would respond to so forcefully if they didn't see some direct threat.

BTW - it wasn't a "base". It was a facility with a large building and a pumphouse down by the river. There were no military equipment or personal posted there as I understand it.

I'll try to keep an open mind.

[bemildred]

53. I was wondering what "high-intensity photographs" are. nt

[azurnoir]

56. A pumphouse by the river

What river would that be? Can it found on a larger map?

[azurnoir]

58. Found it

the facility is located near the Euphrates River, however not close enough for any of the buildings in the photo to be a "pumphouse"

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-does-syrian-nuclear-facility-look.html&h=295&w=320&sz=24&hl=en&start=33&um=1&tbnid=MC0Pf5qAJ7KDYM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsyrian%2Bnukes%2Bsatellite%2Bimages%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[bemildred]

51. US never gave Israel green light for Syria strike: US official

The United States never gave Israel a green light to strike a nuclear reactor built by Syria with North Korean help last year, a senior US administration official said Thursday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the United States had discussed "policy options" with Israel over evidence that Syria was building the reactor.

"Israel considered a Syrian nuclear reactor an existential threat to the state of Israel," the official said.

"After these discussions, at the end of the day, Israel made its own decision to take action. It did so without any green light from us. None was asked, none was given," the official said.

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=080424223443.yjr9l86f.php

[ProgressiveMuslim]

54. Hot off the presses from the Neocon... er.. Washington Times. nt

[bemildred]

66. Cheney camp 'behind Syrian reactor claim'

---

But Mike Chinoy, from the Pacific Council on International Policy, says the claim needs to be taken in its political context, as North Korea's denuclearisation reaches a critical stage.

"Everything I'm hearing from my own sources in Washington is that what you have now is a kind of push back by Vice-President Cheney and his office and other hardliners who are opposed to diplomatic dealings with North Korea," he said.

" hoping that by making public these allegations of nuclear cooperation it will torpedo the diplomatic process."

Earlier White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the US would be continuing its six-country talks with North Korea.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/25/2227483.htm?section=world

[bemildred]

78. Syrian ambassador to U.S. says CIA fabricated photos of alleged nuclear reactor

Syria's ambassador to the United States said Friday that the CIA fabricated pictures allegedly taken inside a secret Syrian nuclear reactor and predicted that in coming weeks the U.S. story about the site would implode from within.

"The photos presented to me yesterday were ludicrous, laughable," Ambassador Imad Moustapha told reporters at his Washington residence.

He refused to say what the building in the remote eastern desert of Syria was used for before Israeli jets bombed it in September 2007. Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they believe it was a secret nuclear reactor meant to produce plutonium, which can be used to make high-yield nuclear weapons. They alleged that North Korea aided in the design, construction and outfitting of the building.

Syria bulldozed the building's ruins a month after it was bombed and
constructed a new, larger building in its place, leaving little or no evidence of what had been on the site.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978052.html

[msmcghee]

79. This is cool! The crazy thing is . .

. . he could be telling the truth.

[bemildred]

80. Not much of a defense, still the same positions.

But I still tend to the idea they are all feeding us bullshit.

[bemildred]

81. Expert questions US claim over Syrian reactor

vienna • A nuclear physicist close to the United Nations atomic watchdog cast doubt yesterday on the veracity of US intelligence which claimed that Syria had been building a secret atomic reactor.

“When you look at the (US intelligence services) pictures, they show only raw construction,” an expert close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told AFP on condition on anonymity.

“It was just the shell of a site, and the walls did not look like the ones needed for a plutonium reactor.”

Walls of a plutonium reactor “need a lot of piping, there was nothing like that on the pictures,” he added.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=April2008&file=World_News2008042764058.xml

[bemildred]

82. About That Syria Briefing

Another view ...

---

Based on my own "uninformed" perspective, the big question is not whether the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor, but whether it was actually close to becoming operational (which raises questions about the timing of the strike) and the almost total absence of any evidence of what kind of plans the Syrians may have had for any plutonium that might have been produced at the plant if and when it went into operation.

Based on the presentation, it appears that a number of key elements were absent for the site to go into full operation -- "throwing the switch" as the briefer described it -- and that these elements (massive amounts of graphite and the presence of control rods) do not appear on the post-strike photography/evidence. This also raises crucially interesting questions about what the Syrians may have hoped to accomplish by building this facility.

Although some will fix on the anomalies to cast doubt on the very existence of such a project, the real debate in policy circles (including the Congress) is likely to focus on whether it was really as far along as claimed and whether the same thing could have been accomplished by publicizing the photographic evidence and insisting that the IAEA be permitted to inspect the site.

If the Syrians were as nervous about revealing their efforts as they have appeared to be, they might well have destroyed it themselves rather than reveal it to the world (and earn themselves massive international sanctions). Of course, then the "demonstration effect" of the bombing, if it was in fact directed at Iran and other potential US-Israeli adversaries, would have been lost. It would also, of course, lend importance and credibility to the IAEA, which seems to be anathema to at least the Bush administration.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/8070_about_that_syri.html