« Obama takes goo-goo to new levels? | Main | The Cleland ad myth »

November 04, 2007


The phrase, "there's no conclusive evidence" sounds like double talk. About the only truly conclusive evidence would be if some utterly trustworthy witnesses had observed the program. One could equally well say that there's no conclusive evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons, since they have never officially admitted having them.

In fact, there's a great deal of evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program. Most people believe this to be the case.

@ David: "A great deal of evidence" sounds to me a lot like "no conclusive evidence."

I don't like to take my politics from cartoons, but with Iran, maybe we should take a hint: there was something on South Park to the extent of "The terrorists have discovered our greatest vulnerability. We must destroy our imagination."

It's my suspicion Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I suspect that this is a side-project and that their primary intent is to develop nuclear power so they can burn uranium, rather than oil their only export product (a distant second is cotton) for electricity. It's my informed opinion that their ability to deliver these hypotehtical weapons in any threatening way is nearly zero, though there are plenty of idiots willing to spin out plotlines for "24" knock-off TV programming who will somehow pass said plotlines off to the media as "credible threats". "Ohmigod the '"terrorirst"' have a [woefully ineffectual] '"dirty" bomb!'"

The McClatchy article is still repeating some questionable Bush propaganda about Iran's nuclear program - for example suggesting that since Iran has oil then it can't possibly need nuclear power except to make bombs. This has been proven false, repeatedly. Read more at IranAffairs.com

The comments to this entry are closed.