Iran’s bank of rapidly spinning centrifuges has produced a stockpile of low-enriched uranium, able to fuel nuclear reactors, but able also to fuel nuclear weapons if further enriched by re-circulating it through the centrifuges. The re-circulation raises the concentration of the uranium isotope U-235, which fissions in nuclear weapons such as the one dropped on Hiroshima.
Based on the amount of low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled, and the amount it is believed to be producing each month, the Wisconsin Project estimates that by December 2008, Iran had accumulated enough U-235 to fuel one bomb quickly. "Quickly," in this context, means two to three months – about the time it would take Iran to raise the level of U-235 in its uranium stockpile from 3.8 percent to over 90 percent.
As Iran increases the number of centrifuge machines it is operating, and increases its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, it will consolidate its status as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state.
In hindsight, people criticize Bill Clinton for not having killed Osama Bin Laden. In fact, there are many people who make such a criticism central to their denunciation of his Presidency.
And, that's with hindsight.
We don't need hindsight to understand what happens when you put nukes in the hands of raving religious maniacs.
This situation is George Bush's fault. The decision was his responsibility. History will scorn his cowardice on this particular issue.
15 comments:
Perhaps George W. Bush is at fault for Iran's nuclear program; however, if it weren't for Jimmy "the Dhimmi" Carter and his fopo failures, there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran.
True, and that's why we call Jimmy Carter the worst President ever.
Although, Obama looks like he wants to make a run for that title.
By the way, I don't hate George Bush.
But sadly for him, this one piece of unfinished business could absolutely destroy his legacy. And, if it does, he would deserve it. That's my point.
He can not say he didn't know.
Carter, Bush-41, Klinton, Little George....and don't forget 18 years of ridiculous Israeli governments..they are all at fault.
And by the way..Bush's "legacy" is the willful and deliberate legitimization and spread of Islam.
I don't hate President Bush either, but my confidence in his abilities to be our president and leader started to erode the day he called Islam a religion of peace. Now there's a bozo for you. I can't know his reason for saying that and pretending to believe it, but it seems to me it was a political statement, not a statement of truth. No one, unless he were a complete moron, could say that Islam is a religion of peace, and really mean it.
Poor George, came in like a lion (sort of) and went out like a lamb (sort of), and will history see him as anything at all, or just a neither/nor?
As for the man who says he is the current president of the United States, let him prove it.
I think Bush called it a Religion of Peace to prevent a backlash against muslims here. Which is an unforgivable reason for doing it.
And he got cold feet on Iran. Again afraid of a backlash here. Again unforgivable.
But Michael's correct, of course. This problem was passed down through many different incompetant players while the Iranians sat over there, tortured & hung their opponents and laughed at us.
Now Obama wants to talk with these thugs. Swell.
Perhaps someone could talk Mr Obama into actually going over there, to Iran, and see for himself what they're doing, and let's see if they let him get away without forcing him to return to Islam. All the talk about him never being a Muslim, well, let's see what the ragheads think of that.
Obama, unlike Bushki, cannot cite mental retardation as an excuse for his devious record. Obama knows what he is doing and saying.
Obama is a fucking liar.
"Bush kept us safe" is the claim, and I think he did. He did the necessary, but it was not sufficient.
He allowed and promoted doublethink about jihad; he did a terrible job communicating the mission and the goals of the "war on terror" to the country; he insulted proponents of secure borders as "racists" (!); his spending was insane and not one teacher will acknowledge that the dreadful NCLB was a Teddy Kennedy pet project; his advisors took him for a ride - if they weren't traitors, they were disasters - look at Rice and Rove. Rove actually said on O'Reilly one night "I guess we should have answered our critics more forcefully instead of just ignoring them." Gosh, ya think?
And, in the end, capitalism had to be destroyed to be saved.
The newest occupant of the WH will finish the job - freedoms of speech, press, arms-bearing, religion and conscience will need to be destroyed to be saved next!
So there ya have it.
Ro
Ro,
We the people do have some choice in the matter.
From the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
If Iran gets *one* nuke, will they be able to resist the temptation to use it? If not, they lose. They'll only get one shot at using nuclear weapons - one strike, and the counterstrike will restroy them entirely. The obvious target for them would be Tel Aviv (Jerusalem is off-limits due to the presence of a substantial Muslim population and a major islamic holy site).
The only ways Iran could do anything with it's nukes are intimidation ('We'll happily die if we can take a few million israelis with us!') or by spending many years building up a large enough stockpile to do some real damage - politically dangerous.
This does assume they fight fair with their one nuke though. If I were in charge, and shared their objective, I'd just place the nuke in a shipping container bound for New York, with a GPS or opening-triggered detonator.
A little Further down in The Declaration. . .
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
I keep a copy hang on my cubicle wall. Every American should.
Guys, I have no doubt from whence our freedoms derive. Most of what the Feds do these days is in direct violation of the compact signed by those at the ConCon.
And what happens? Over the last forty years - next to Nothing.
Now, when we get the final law on the, um, "stimulus", we can probably find, oh, at least 15 provisions that violate the Constitution ON THEIR FACE(S). (sorry, can't bold - not screaming, just emphasis).
For instance - the heath care and database provisions, on their faces, violate the right to "privacy" defined in Roe v. Wade and its progeny (no, I don't think Roe was good law, but it is pretty settled in the case law now); discriminates against old people (the "ya gotta die sometime" provisions); and probably violates search and seizure prohbitions (who said the Feds had a right to my medical information?) The "funding for school buildings" violates, in at least one instance, the right to free speech and free exercise of religion.
Also, all the power delegated to the Executive branch is an illegitimate delegation, just as it was to Paulson.
And I'm just getting started. Do I have the resources to challenge this stuff? No. I am looking for a public interest law firm to help me, but so far, no takers.
Other than actually challenging this stuff in Federal court and having the resources to take it to the Supremes before it is packed, I just do not see a way out.
Unless states draw a line in the sand and send the feds resolutions modeled after N. Hampshire's - and I paraphrase:
Feds, you exist at our sufferance. Our rights do not originate with you - we delegated some power to you and reserved the rest to ourselves and our people.
Overstep those bounds and we will consider those rights to have reverted to us and/or our people.
Those bounds include (but are not limited to) restrictions on freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, arms-bearing; the purported delegation by Feds to any corporation or foreign government of any of the power delegated to the Feds by the states / people; declaration of martial law without states' consent; and any involuntary servitude.
Absent any meaningful, thoughtful response to this, those freedoms will be gone.
Who wants to bet Wilders will have a hell of a time getting into the US now? Or that there will be an attempted blackout of information about his trip?
He may fall victim to a type of "Fairness Doctrine" argument by the administration. We'll see. Oh, or maybe we won't.
Ro
I thank Allah that Pearl Harbor has not been attacked recently.
Shukran Bushki, Shukran.
Post a Comment