Oxymoron - Intelligence and the Media

[Kiwon]

EXCLUSIVE: The Case for Israel's Strike on Syria

Official: Air Attack Targeted Nascent Nuclear Facility Built With North Korean 'Expertise'

By MARTHA RADDATZ
Oct. 19, 2007—

Israeli officials believed that a target their forces bombed inside Syria last month was a nuclear facility, because they had detailed photographs taken by a possible spy inside the complex, ABC News has learned.

The Bush administration has steadfastly refused to say anything about the Israeli raid on Syria, or to confirm what was hit. But ABC News has learned of the apparent mole and other dramatic and secret details about the events leading up to the airstrike, plus the evidence that supported it.

A senior U.S. official told ABC News the Israelis first discovered a suspected Syrian nuclear facility early in the summer, and the Mossad - Israel's intelligence agency - managed to either co-opt one of the facility's workers or to insert a spy posing as an employee.

As a result, the Israelis obtained many detailed pictures of the facility from the ground.

The official said the suspected nuclear facility was approximately 100 miles from the Iraqi border, deep in the desert along the Euphrates River. It was a place, the official said, "where no one would ever go unless you had a reason to go there."

But the hardest evidence of all was the photographs.

The official described the pictures as showing a big cylindrical structure, with very thick walls all well-reinforced. The photos show rebar hanging out of the cement used to reinforce the structure, which was still under construction.

There was also a secondary structure and a pump station, with trucks around it. But there was no fissionable material found because the facility was not yet operating.

The official said there was a larger structure just north of a small pump station; a nuclear reactor would need a constant source of water to keep it cool.

The official said the facility was a North Korean design in its construction, the technology present and the ability to put it all together.

It was North Korean "expertise," said the official, meaning the Syrians must have had "human" help from North Korea.

A light water reactor designed by North Koreans could be constructed to specifically produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

When the Israelis came to the CIA with the pictures, the U.S. then got the site's coordinates and backed it up with very detailed satellite imagery of its own, and pinpointed "drop points" to determine what would be needed to target it.

The Israelis urged the U.S. government to destroy the complex, and the U.S. started looking at options about how to destroy the facility: Targeters were assembled, and officials contemplated a special forces raid using helicopters, which would mean inserting forces to collect data and then blow the site up.

That option would have been very daring, the official says, because of the distance from the border and the amount of explosives it would take to take down the facility.

The options were considered, but according to the official, word came back from the White House that the United States was not interested in carrying out the raid.

But as ABC News reported in July, the Israelis made the decision to take the facility out themselves, though the U.S. urged them not to. The Bush administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates leading the way, said the Israelis and the U.S. should "confront not attack."

The official said the facility had been there at least eight months before the strike, but because of the lack of fissionable material, the United States hesitated on the attack because it couldn't be absolutely proved that it was a nuclear site.

But the official told ABC News, "It was unmistakable what it was going to be. There is no doubt in my mind."
.................................................. ......................

So the Bush Administration doesn't want to comment upon it publicly but ABC News finds a loose-lipped unnamed official to talk and then publishes the details of the strike in order to confirm the accuracy of their reporting back in July. Wow, aren't we all impressed?

The terms, "Intelligence" and "The Media" just don't mix on so many levels. When they're not making up false stories they are publishing things to serve no positive purpose at all.

What benefit comes from ABC's decision to publish this other than to inform the Syrians of the strike details, expose the Mossad's intelligence resources and possibly endanger the lives of the operative and his family? The North Koreans also learn that they need to readjust their construction techniques in order to better disguise the true purpose of similar facilities that they might be hired to build in the future.

Could someone explain rationally (that leaves TB and HH out :P ) why ABC would report this story?

[RashanGary]

ABC reports this because they don't work for the government. They are the media and this is an interesting story. If it was on TV, I woudn't turn the channel. If it was in a magazine, I would read it. It's news worthy on many levels, primarily ratings wise.


This isn't Stalin's Russia. The media is out to make money, not protect the government. I'm sure other coutries are well aware of the different types of attacks that can be launched and of what would/could be classified as a nuclear threat. This is just interesting reading/viewing brought to us by a company that survives by keeping our attn. Nothing out of the ordinary, really.

[Joemailman]

Kiwon,

It appears that ABC's main source for the story was a "senior U.S. official". Why are you mad at ABC? Either you should be mad at that official, or the Bush administration wanted this story to get out.

[Kiwon]

Kiwon,

It appears that ABC's main source for the story was a "senior U.S. official". Why are you mad at ABC? Either you should be mad at that official, or the Bush administration wanted this story to get out.

The question I asked was: "Could someone explain rationally why ABC would report this story?"

JustinHarrell said it was for ratings. You didn't answer the question. The focus is on ABC News and their motives.

[Joemailman]

OK, they should report the story because they are a news organization. Israel conducting a bombing campaign in Syria is news.

[RashanGary]

Kiwan,

Do you know of any news outlet that doesn't report this kind of stuff?

[Kiwon]

Until the recent past, most news organizations have historically handled national security items, particularly those stories whose information might jeopardize the usefulness of secret intelligence or possibly disclose surveillance techniques, very carefully.

It can take years to build up an intelligence network. In this case, someone risked his life to supply those photos. It's not worth someone's life just so ABC News can be the first with a story.

[mraynrand]

I can't remember the guys Charlie Rose interviewed a while back, but a couple of network news editors discussed what they would broadcast and what they would withhold, whether they would consult with the government, etc. For the most part, the striking aspect of the discussion was that they basically admitted they would publish anything if they thought it was newsworthy and only give the government a heads up before it was printed/broadcast. There were cases like this during WWII - notably an article in the Chicago Trib about breaking the Japanese code, but they were far fewer, and the press was more cooperative with government - probably in some instances die to a fear of reprisals. Still, I think it's obvious that there was more patriotism among reporters a few generations ago - or at the very least a dramatically different view of what patriotism means.

What's more worrisome is the governmental insiders who seem so eager to leak info, often for purely political reasons (not necessarily what happened in this case). I think that just illustrates the conflict between the direction the Bush Administration has wanted to go on foreign policy and the State Department direction which was (and surprisingly appears now, even stronger under Rice) biased toward the old Scowcroft/Powell 'stabilization' model that's been in place in the mideast for a long time. Officials (Bureaucrats) seem more willing to give out info that favors their approach over Bush's. It may also be a reaction to a bit of 'bullying' by Bush - pushing his policies without any regard for the Bureaucrats.

[Joemailman]

Until the recent past, most news organizations have historically handled national security items, particularly those stories whose information might jeopardize the usefulness of secret intelligence or possibly disclose surveillance techniques, very carefully.

It can take years to build up an intelligence network. In this case, someone risked his life to supply those photos. It's not worth someone's life just so ABC News can be the first with a story.

I don't think this story is as big of a secret as you think it is. It appeared in the Washington Post as early as September 21.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092002701.html?hpid=topnews

Do you have information to show that the White House did not want this information made public? This may have been an intentional leak since it seems the White House did not want this attack to take place.

[Kiwon]

What's more worrisome is the governmental insiders who seem so eager to leak info, often for purely political reasons (not necessarily what happened in this case).

You're right about the shift in patriotism among journalists and especially correct in the above comment.

The relatively untold story in the war against Islamo-terrorists since 9/11 is the active undermining of the Bush Administration by members of the Intelligence community (NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security). Everybody was trying to cover his rear end after 9/11 and added to this are the partisan bureaucrats that are anti-Bush, pro-Dem and pro-Washington status quo. For some, political goals trumps patriotism, even during wartime.

The truth will come out in time, but it's criminal that those who are supposed to be dedicated to America's defense allow their dislike for a certain administration to circumvent their dedication to duty. The result has been that America is fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back. President Bush and his policies are not the cause of it. He's just the current target in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of Washington politics.

Unbelievable. Progress is being made in Iraq and the Dems have already staked out defeat as a political position. Now that's real patriotism for you. Wonder why Congress' approval rating stands at 11 percent?

[Freak Out]

I knew there was a thread where Kiwon was going on about Syria.....well concerning Syria. Check it:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SyriaUpdate25October2007.pdf

[Kiwon]

Ha, just like Jenny Craig....before and after shots.

Satellites are so cool.

Now let's move the camera a little to the East and start looking at Iran.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What's more worrisome is the governmental insiders who seem so eager to leak info, often for purely political reasons (not necessarily what happened in this case).

You're right about the shift in patriotism among journalists and especially correct in the above comment.

The relatively untold story in the war against Islamo-terrorists since 9/11 is the active undermining of the Bush Administration by members of the Intelligence community (NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security). Everybody was trying to cover his rear end after 9/11 and added to this are the partisan bureaucrats that are anti-Bush, pro-Dem and pro-Washington status quo. For some, political goals trumps patriotism, even during wartime.

The truth will come out in time, but it's criminal that those who are supposed to be dedicated to America's defense allow their dislike for a certain administration to circumvent their dedication to duty. The result has been that America is fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back. President Bush and his policies are not the cause of it. He's just the current target in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of Washington politics.

Unbelievable. Progress is being made in Iraq and the Dems have already staked out defeat as a political position. Now that's real patriotism for you. Wonder why Congress' approval rating stands at 11 percent?

do you actually believe the crap you write or are you some sorta Rush Limbaugh/Neal Boortz/Ann coulter bot.

[Joemailman]

Don't you understand, Tyrone?

Support Bush policies=Patriotism

Oppose Bush Policies=Support The Terrorists

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Don't you understand, Tyrone?

Support Bush policies=Patriotism

Oppose Bush Policies=Support The Terrorists

My favorite part is how the WHOLE Gov't is out to get Bush. Including the Homeland Secutity...which HE created, and put his guy in charge. Oh lord.

Well, I guess i wasn't fair...HUD, Dep't of Ag, etc. don't appear to be to get him, but I wouldn't put it past them...sneaky bastards.

[Kiwon]

Support Bush policies=Patriotism

Oppose Bush Policies=Support The Terrorists

Succinctly stated, very good. That's exactly the way the jihadists see it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Support Bush policies=Patriotism

Oppose Bush Policies=Support The Terrorists

Succinctly stated, very good. That's exactly the way the jihadists see it.

Exactly, that is why it is imperative that we elect bush again, forget term limits. Only he can save us.

If not him, i'm sure a suitable republican is up for the job. :roll:

[RashanGary]

Really, does anybody think Hillary Clinton hates America? Does anyone think she wants troops to die? Many Liberals disagree with the war and want it stopped. That is not an attack on the troops. It's an attack on the decision maker. The mentality and intellectual shortcomings of a person who can truely believe that liberals hate America (or troops) is baffling to me.

John Murtha is the new liberal whipping boy for the underground right wing (who I believe shed a very negative light on much of the republican party). He has a history of not wanting to be in war. Believe him or not, he says it's because he does not like the brutality and tragedy that goes with it. The easy thing to do is to draw a line in the sand and get on some entertainment driven side of the arguement and have an old fashioned us against them mentality. I'm not a big fan of killing people, so I tend to side with the "prevent war at all costs" ideology and I tend to give teh benefit of the doubt to politicians who think this way. I really don't understand the "Al Queda attacked us, let's get Iraq" mentality. With that said, I tend to understand a person who has been in the Vietnam war, and sees the true tragedy and then just wants to get out. He said that our troops committed some wrongs (something that happens in all war) while under pressure. I don't know how many of you have been in a fight, but once a fight starts, it's hard to stop because you don't want to be hurt. There is a "I'm not stoppping until you can't move" mentality, just out of self preservation. That is what I've experienced, anyway. I can imagine if I was breaking down a door with a miliary weapon in my hand, searching for the enemy that I would feel some "pressure" to preserve my life. I'd kick open the door and shoot anythign that moves if I was just being fired at. Really, it's you or them. You're forced into war by the decision makers, you might as well try to stay alive. Murtha said some of our troops committed some tragedy's while under pressure and to be honest, it probably happened a lot even if it didnt' happen in this particular instance. That is no knock on the troops, it's an unfortunate part of being in war (told by someone who has been there) and I thought the point he was making was "lets get out because this happens in war". Instead of taking his words for what they were, the conservative media ran with it as anti American and here we are bitching back and forth about a pretty irrelivant issue during a very important time. It's embarassing for me, as a conservative, to hear our main arguement be something so twisted, biased and quite frankly; untrue.

Newt is the most inspiring candidate and he's not entering. After economic issues (sadly), I'm also pretty big on anti killing (abortion or war). I'm almost considering voting for Hilary because republicans are just so pathetic right now as far as not focusing on the econoimic issues or life saving issues or our time. If I do decide to vote for Hillary, I'm going to start a "don't vote for women" mentality online in hopes of inspiring women to vote. This way, I get 1000's of votes through reverse phychology rather than just one vote ;)

[the_idle_threat]

I'm also pretty big on anti killing (abortion or war).

Fact 1: I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and still do. I don't think everything has gone well, but that's to be expected because real life is messy.

Fact 2: I support abortion rights.

Fact 3: I strongly support 2nd Amendment rights, and believe it is an individual right rather than a collective right to be exercised by the National Guard (are there any other rights in the Bill of Rights that are only to be exercised by government entities rather than the individual people)?

Verdict: I am apparently pretty big on pro-killing. :twisted:

Just wanted to clear that up. 8-)

[mraynrand]

Don't you understand, Tyrone?

Support Bush policies=Patriotism

Oppose Bush Policies=Support The Terrorists

My favorite part is how the WHOLE Gov't is out to get Bush. Including the Homeland Secutity...which HE created, and put his guy in charge. Oh lord.

Well, I guess i wasn't fair...HUD, Dep't of Ag, etc. don't appear to be to get him, but I wouldn't put it past them...sneaky bastards.

Bush just isn't on the same page as the rest of the Govt. Condi basically ousted any remaining so-called neo-cons from the State Dept. They have different goals than Bush. The experiment has been tried - you can't build a democracy from the top down, but it's still very possible to make a stable Iraq that is a good ally of the U.S.

[Joemailman]

It's hard for me to decide what Bush is thinking. I've always believed that the Iraq war was more Cheney's idea than it was Bush's. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all members of PNAC, Bush was not. I suspect if Bush could do it all over again, he would stay out Of Iraq, but that is not the case with Cheney.

Rice has been able to increase her influence because the neocons have been discredited because nearly all their predictions about what would happen in Iraq have been proved wrong. I think Rice probably has more in common with the foreign policies of George H.W. Bush. I think Bush's problem is it is difficult for him to make a clean break from the neocons without making it appear that he thinks the Iraq war was a big mistake. There fore I think the President is just playing the string out until the end of his Presidency. He knows he can't fix Iraq, but is afraid of what kind of chaos will ensue if he packs up and leaves.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Don't you understand, Tyrone?

Support Bush policies=Patriotism

Oppose Bush Policies=Support The Terrorists

My favorite part is how the WHOLE Gov't is out to get Bush. Including the Homeland Secutity...which HE created, and put his guy in charge. Oh lord.

Well, I guess i wasn't fair...HUD, Dep't of Ag, etc. don't appear to be to get him, but I wouldn't put it past them...sneaky bastards.

Bush just isn't on the same page as the rest of the Govt. Condi basically ousted any remaining so-called neo-cons from the State Dept. They have different goals than Bush. The experiment has been tried - you can't build a democracy from the top down, but it's still very possible to make a stable Iraq that is a good ally of the U.S.

So, you are in agreement with Kiwon. NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security are all out to bet Bush...not now, but since 9/11..that is what he posited.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's hard for me to decide what Bush is thinking. I've always believed that the Iraq war was more Cheney's idea than it was Bush's. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all members of PNAC, Bush was not. I suspect if Bush could do it all over again, he would stay out Of Iraq, but that is not the case with Cheney.

Rice has been able to increase her influence because the neocons have been discredited because nearly all their predictions about what would happen in Iraq have been proved wrong. I think Rice probably has more in common with the foreign policies of George H.W. Bush. I think Bush's problem is it is difficult for him to make a clean break from the neocons without making it appear that he thinks the Iraq war was a big mistake. There fore I think the President is just playing the string out until the end of his Presidency. He knows he can't fix Iraq, but is afraid of what kind of chaos will ensue if he packs up and leaves.

I don't think Bush looks at the war as mistake. He has had ample time to at least tell us what were mistakes made, yet none have ever been mentioned.

Right now, our best hope is that Laura and barney withdraw their support of the war.

[Joemailman]

Tyrone, your argument suggests that if Bush felt the war was a mistake, he would publicly admit it. I think not.

[MJZiggy]

Has he admitted a single mistake since he took office?

[Freak Out]

Has he admitted a single mistake since he took office?

I think there was the mistake with him not chewing the pretzel before swallowing.....I still don't understand how you get claw/nail marks on your face from choking on a piece of food though.

[Joemailman]

He might have panicked if he was choking. People do strange things when they panic. I once choked on a piece of pizza crust, and was alone. That's the closest I've ever felt to death. I was trying to cough it up and so little air was coming through that I was making a high whistling sound at first.

What a strange twist this thread has taken. :D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, your argument suggests that if Bush felt the war was a mistake, he would publicly admit it. I think not.

Joe,

You have seemingly drawn the exact opposite meaning from what i intended.

[Kiwon]

What a strange twist this thread has taken. :D

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You can say that again!