One more - when I read this piece from the article (same link as before),
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said. "They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception."
It sounded very familiar to the Iraq lead-up, but I couldn't remember the guy's name that it rang a bell for so I left it out. I have since tracked it down:
In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Nearly all, if not all, of this information has turned out to be false.
Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice... shame on us.
So the big open question for both Republicans and Democrats is: What can be done to stop from repeating a now-established history of military action based on acceptance of falsified information (only this time in an even more disastrous fashion)?
No comments:
Post a Comment