NYT: Strange Article on Syrian Site

16 Comments

1. 

   Steven D on October 25, 2007 at 4:31 pm

   This is conclusive evidence of nothing except administration spin tactics.

   Ps.  Wrong story link.  

   • 

     Steven D on October 25, 2007 at 4:35 pm

     Correct link.

     Note the anonymous senior intelligence official is the one saying cleaning up a site after it was bombed is evidence that it must have been a nuke site.  It’s patent absurdity and the typical way this administration feeds stories to NYT reporters.  Never on the record.  Always in support a claim that [name your country here] is developing, thinking about or dreaming of nuclear weapons.

     • 

       BooMan on October 25, 2007 at 4:40 pm

       thanks…I fixed the link.

       What about those typos?

2. 

   Steven D on October 25, 2007 at 4:41 pm

   Link to Dallas Morning News story:

   Reports that an Israeli air strike in Syria was directed against a partly built nuclear reactor are “sheer fabrication,” Syria’s U.S. ambassador said Tuesday in Dallas.

   “This is an absolutely surrealistic story,” Ambassador Imad Moustapha said. “There is no Syrian nuclear program whatsoever, absolutely not. Syria has never tried to acquire nuclear technology.”

   Mr. Moustapha, addressing the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth, noted that the Israeli government did not claim to have bombed a nuclear facility and that reports that it may have done so all emanated from Washington.

   He compared those reports to pre-Iraq war assertions by the Bush administration about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the alleged ties between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda. Both claims were later discredited.

   The New York Times, citing unidentified U.S. and foreign officials, reported Saturday that the targeted site was apparently modeled after a North Korean facility used to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. U.S. and Israeli officials have declined to confirm or deny the report.

   The NYT has really poor proof readers.

3. 

   ejmw on October 25, 2007 at 4:43 pm

   They’ve “fixed” the second typo.  But they get an F minus for grammar.

   Mr. Albright called the Syrian site “consistent with being a North Korean reactor design.” Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, said in an interview last week with The Dallas Morning News denied that his country was trying to build a reactor.

   • 

     BooMan on October 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm

     fucking idiots

4. 

   boran2 on October 25, 2007 at 4:48 pm

   It’s rather strange that an area that was supposedly the subject of bombing wouldn’t show more disturbance.  Other than the missing building, the remainder of the site is little changed from its earlier photo.  Have we all been scammed?    

   • 

     Steven D on October 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm

     There was something there, but I suspect it had more to do with ballistic missile technology (something Syria could replicate far easier than building a reactor and with which it might have be3en willing to supply to Hezbollah) than the beginnings of a nuclear program.

5. 

   Steven D on October 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm

   Here’s what 2 former CIA analysts have to say (via Larry Johnson’s No Quarter blog):

   Phil Giraldi

   American intelligence has been unable to confirm that any Syrian nuclear program exists, and the Post admitted, “[M]any outside nuclear experts have expressed skepticism that Syria, which has mostly focused on chemical and biological weapons, would be conducting nuclear trade with North Korea.” But facts may not be prime property in this situation.

   In the intelligence community, a disinformation operation is a calculated attempt to convince an audience that falsehoods about an adversary are true, either to discredit him or, in an extreme case, to justify military action. When such a campaign is properly conducted, information is leaked to numerous outlets over a period of time, creating the impression of a media consensus that the story is true, as each new report validates what came before. […]

   A chronology of the case against Syria is revealing, and the role of former UN ambassador and leading neoconservative John Bolton is key. Bolton, now at the American Enterprise Institute, has repeatedly clashed with the intelligence community over the issue of Syrian intentions, most notably in 2002 and 2003 when he was undersecretary of state for arms control. At one point, Bolton was forced to strike from a speech language suggesting that Syria had a nuclear program. On another occasion, Bolton’s judgments on Syria were challenged by Robert Hutchings, director of the National Intelligence Council, who charged that Bolton “took isolated facts and made much more of them … cherry picking … to present the starkest possible case.”

   On Aug. 31, one week before the Israeli attack on Syria, Bolton wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that concluded, “We know that both Iran and Syria have long cooperated with North Korea on ballistic-missile programs, and the prospect of cooperation on nuclear matters is not far-fetched. … Whether and to what extent Iran, Syria or others might be ‘safe havens’ for North Korea’s nuclear-weapons development, or may have already benefited from it, must be made clear.” Perhaps this was just good timing. Perhaps it was something more-possibly representing information provided by Bolton’s excellent contacts within the Israeli government.

   Comments made by a State Department official on Sept. 14, in the wake of the Israeli attack, bolstered the neoconservative argument that Syria is a serious threat. Andrew Semmel, acting deputy assistant secretary of state for nuclear non-proliferation policy, stated that Syria was on the U.S. nuclear “watch list” and that Damascus “might have” a number of “secret suppliers” to obtain nuclear equipment as part of a covert program.

   Across the Atlantic, on Sept. 16, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times of London published an extremely detailed story on the attack that clearly derived from Israeli sources. The piece unambiguously portrayed the bombing as “a successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.” A Sept. 23 follow-up claimed that before the site was bombed, an Israeli commando unit had seized nuclear material, which had been tested and confirmed as being of North Korean origin. A second story headlined “Snatched: Israeli commandos `nuclear’ raid” also appearing in the Times on the same day under the same byline provided additional details, noting that Syria, Iran, and North Korea now constitute a new “axis of evil.” It also quoted David Schenker, of the neocon Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who described Syria as a “client” of Iran.

   On Sept. 18, Bolton resurfaced, telling an Israeli journalist that the United States would stand behind any preemptive attack by Tel Aviv on neighboring countries believed to have nuclear-weapons programs. The Wall Street Journal added a piece by editorial board member Bret Stephens asserting that the bombing in Syria was a reprise of the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.

   By Sept. 21, the Washington Post also appeared to be convinced by the story, featuring a front-page headline “Israel, US Shared Data on Suspected Nuclear Site.” The article stated that Israel provided intelligence to President Bush during the summer indicating that North Korean nuclear experts were in Syria. Bush was reportedly “troubled” by the information. The Post added, citing anonymous sources, that “the United States is believed to have provided Israel with some corroboration of the original intelligence before Israel proceeded with the raid,” but then, farther down in the article, the Post conceded, “The quality of the Israeli intelligence, the extent of North Korean assistance and the seriousness of the Syrian effort are uncertain…” To give the story even greater resonance, leading neoconservative Charles Krauthammer’s column in the same issue accepted as fact that Damascus was pursuing nuclear capability and warned that Israel will not accept a “nuclear Syria.” […]

   There are other reasons that depicting Damascus as the latest nuclear aspirant is suspect. Destroying a weapons facility would scatter traces of radioactive material that could be detected, especially since the attack took place close to the Turkish border. No such evidence has been reported. Also notable is the absence of solid intelligence. If Israel knows conclusively that Syria has a nuclear program, surely it would have made its case in the wake of the Sept. 6 raid. Far from doing so, Tel Aviv has kept a security lid on the incident, suggesting that it would prefer to promote the story of a military success against Damascus without being too specific about the details.

   Even the Bush White House, generally willing to use any hint of malfeasance to condemn Damascus and Tehran, has been reluctant to confirm the story. It doesn’t need to. Official silence-narrated by a compliant press taking uncorroborated dictation-is cementing a public impression. That’s the way disinformation works. Done right, no one stops to ask where it came from-or who benefits.

   Ray Close

   1. The Israelis offered us intelligence that Syria is beginning to develop a nuclear capability based on North Korean technology. They urged the US to cooperate with them in mounting a military attack to destroy the Syrian site. The advantages of this action, as presented to the Bush administration with great urgency by the Israelis, would be:

       a. To preempt a new and dangerous violation of Israeli and American proliferation red lines before the Syrian program gets too far along (citing the Iranian experience for justification);

       b. To intimidate and embarrass Syria; throw a scare into Iran; and restore Israel’s deterrence credibility. (The historic examples of dramatically successful and awe-inspiring Israeli operations at Entebbe and Osirak, among others, still have great psychological and emotional impact.)

   2. The more cautious and thoughtful members of the Bush administration opposed offering Israel the full participatory collaboration of the United States on the grounds that:

       a. The Israeli intelligence in this case was not entirely persuasive, recalling instances of flawed intelligence of similar origin that misinformed some key US actions before and during the Iraq war;

       b. If covert US-Israeli collaboration in this operation (technically an act of war) were actually proffered, this would eventually become known. The accuracy and authenticity of the Israeli intelligence on which the operational decision was justified would (in the absence of more credible supporting evidence from independent US sources), become the subject of heated public debate all over the world, and opponents of the Bush administration would argue with potentially devastating effect that this was final proof that Bush neocons have continually (in fact, going back many years) been duped by deliberate Israeli disinformation operations aimed at scaring America into adopting a policy of more overt and aggressive military cooperation with Israel;

       c. Even if the Israeli intelligence were finally revealed to contain some credible evidence of Syria’s long-range ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons and of North Korea’s culpability in abetting those plans, the revelation of US-Israeli covert military collaboration against Syria at this critical time would, over the short term, endanger George W. Bush’s desperate hopes of achieving some dramatic diplomatic successes before the end of his administration — most importantly with respect to North Korea and next month’s planned Middle East Peace talks here in the US. […]

   Having dealt with Arabs for more than fifty years now, often in situations very similar to this one,  have no trouble understanding why the Syrian reaction to the Israeli bombing attack last month has been carefully muted. Assad cannot afford a military confrontation with Israel at this time. His air force and army could be effectively wiped out by the IDF in a few hours. And he has no desire to broadcast the fact that his air defense forces (some of which, I am told, consist of very expensive new ground-to-air rocketry purchased from Russia but not yet operational) were impotent to respond in the face of such a deep and brazen Israeli penetration of the Syrian motherland. It would be plainly foolhardy for the Syrians to attempt confrontation with the IDF when their military establishment is in such a parlous state as it is today. I therefore find it perfectly understandable that Assad has chosen not to fly off the handle over this incident, and why his Arab neighbors and supposed brothers in arms have likewise decided that the better part of valor is to pretend they haven’t noticed.

6. 

   Colman on October 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm

   http://www.armscontrolwonk.com are the go-to people on this stuff: they seem to find the idea risible, and even if it was true, the North Korean stuff is based on an old British design that was described in open journals.

   • 

     Steven D on October 25, 2007 at 5:55 pm

     We do know we can’t trust the Bush administration to tell us the truth, Colman.

7. 

   dada on October 25, 2007 at 5:24 pm

   not so fast

   scott ritter via truthout:

   …Not so fast. In recent days, Israeli military aircraft, in coordination with special operations forces on the ground, launched a preemptive raid on a suspected “nuclear” target in northeast Syria. According to Israeli and U.S. intelligence sources, this site was jointly developed by Syria and North Korea for the purposes of transferring North Korea’s proscribed nuclear weapons program to Syrian control. Worse, we are told by none other than former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton that this Syrian-North Korean project was being done at the behest of none other than Iran. The Syrian site, an established agriculture research center, was linked to a shipment from North Korea invoiced as cement. Israel apparently believed different. Israel has been monitoring any activity taking place inside Syria which could be linked to nuclear activity. Syria had, in the past, conducted exploratory investigation into whether phosphate deposits in Syria were viable for the manufacture of uranium for use in a nuclear energy program. Whether this activity, which has been suspended since the 1980s, was being resurrected, and whether the target bombed by Israel had anything to do with such a resurrection, is unknown at this time. What is obvious to anyone with any understanding of nuclear activities is that Syria was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program and North Korea was not supplying Syria with the components of such a program, either for Syrian use or as a proxy for Iran.

       But this sort of fact-based reasoning is irrelevant, especially in the secretive circles of power that make the life-or-death decisions regarding war. The Syrian raid by Israel seems to represent a sort of “proof of capability” drill, instilling a sense of confidence in an Israeli military badly shaken from its debacle in Lebanon during the summer of 2006. The planning for the Syrian raid was a closely held secret, limited to a small cabal of right-leaning politicians in Israel and, surprisingly, the United States. The American end of the deal centered on the office of the vice president, Dick Cheney, who gave final approval to attack the Syrian target only after being rebuffed in his effort to get the Israelis to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. Cheney, it seems, is desperate for any action that might trigger an expanded conflict with Iran. Even though the Syrian adventure did not succeed in producing such a trigger, it did wipe off the front pages of American newspapers uncomfortable story lines from the IAEA, contending as they did that Iran had no nuclear weapons program. Now, thanks to the Israeli action against Syria, which had no nuclear weapons program, the American public is in the process of being fooled into speculating that one does in fact exist not only in Syria but in Iran.
   .
   .
   .
   scroll down about half-way

   more BushCo&trade BS….PHD

   lTMF’sA

   

   • 

     CabinGirl on October 25, 2007 at 5:51 pm

     I’m assuming PHD means “piled higher and deeper”?

     • 

       dada on October 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm
8. 

   billjpa on October 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm

   If no one in the media is willing to seriously examine the steady lying of this administration, then there is little left that is available to the people except to attack the individual congress people IN THEIR HOME DISTRICTS! No one is excused. DEm and gooper alike.
    Pick the subject. There are so many available. Try and have your ammunition down pat but in any case- that is the location that will cause the greatest impact. Get together with others in your local communities. Do it by yourself. In any event- this is ALL that we have left!
   Otherwise, pack what you can carry and get the hell out. Yup- out!!!!!! This place is down the toilet unless this last attempt can wake up congress.

9. 

   wataru on October 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm

   By the way, there are two typos in the second quoted portion, so that makes three in the parts you quote.