10 minutes of the one candidate willing to tell it like it is
Monday, December 10, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Christmas Miracle? Ron Paul Blimp Close to Take Off UPDATE 1
Friday, December 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Only yesterday, an innovative marketing vision supporting the presidential campaign of Ron Paul (R-Tex) was losing altitude faster than the notorious and tragic Hindenburg blimp. The grand vision of a vast hot-air balloon hovering over the Super Bowl asking the Randian question, “Who Is Ron Paul,” was seemingly deflated, a victim of unfilled pledges and generally slow fund-raising.
Twenty four hours can change a lot. Today, Friday morning (EST) with nearly $190,000 in actual donations, and more money regularly pouring in to www.RonPaulBlimp.com, it looks as if the vision of Trevor Lyman and his associates will soon achieve some sort of take off.
Lyman, the volunteer marketing guru for the presidential campaign of Jeffersonian conservative Ron Paul (R-Tex) will likely help Ron Paul raise up to $10 million by mid December through various “mass donation days,” and now his dearest brainchild is shaping up as well.
If it flies, as it seems to be on the verge of doing, modest Lyman, who only yesterday was “almost broke” according to friends, will thank thousands of Ron Paul supporters who decided the "big idea" of a high-flying blimp was impassioned as his fundamental belief in Ron Paul, which nearly led him to bankruptcy.
Only 24 hours ago, an impassioned and “grim” Lyman reached out to the Ron Paul community for help to salvage the blimp project, after certain pledges taken by the blimp site turned out to be bogus. The dire need was for $200,000 - and that seems almost achieved, as of this writing, Friday AM/EST.
But yesterday, friends carried the word to Ron Paul web sites and news networks such FMNN that Lyman was literally down to his last dollar and would be returning to his music marketing business. Now, the blimp looks likely to fly - as improbably as the limited government campaign of Ron Paul itself. Fund-raising will continue as long as Ron Paul supporters believe in it, according to sources close to the project.
These supporters add that the for-profit status of the project was invented purely as a legal response to FEC regs, and that Lyman himself is first and foremost - and always - a supporter of Ron Paul and his limited-government beliefs, and that has always been his sole motivation. He still, as of this writing, has not taken a penny of a modest blimp stipend, despite his circumstances. Likely he will have to, at some point, unless someone can lend him some money.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52289
There are hurdles of course, as to be operating on anything but the proverbial shoestring, the project needs continued donations - and funding in excess of $200,000. But sources close to the project are betting that with the generous support of the Ron Paul community, the blimp will fly for weeks and even longer.
=====
UPDATE: A press release has been issued about the blimp as follows:
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Has a Blimp
7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Supporters of Presidential candidate Ron Paul are excited to announce the launch of their very own privately funded Ron Paul blimp. In less than a month the idea has gone from a wishful post on a website to a full-blown and flying reality.
Launch date is set for the morning of December 11th from Elizabeth City, NC where the blimp will then fly north to New Hampshire with stops in Washington D.C., New York City and Boston. The blimp will be met at each stop by thousands of Ron Paul supporters who will come to cheer it on as it continues its journey while passing over stadiums, parks, highways and anywhere else people gather.
This is a historic event as no other candidate has ever had their own blimp, let alone one initiated by and paid for by their supporters. Paulites, as they are known, have pledged to donate over $420,000 to fund the blimp for as long as it is needed.
The blimp measures 197 feet long and over 66 feet high, making it one of the largest airships in the world. Along with two pilots the blimp comes with a ground crew of 15-20 that travel with the blimp and assist with landing and takeoffs. The gondola seats 12 passengers, plus the pilots. These seats will be made available to supporters, veterans, charities, dignitaries and the media.
The Ron Paul blimp plans to be in Boston for the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party on December 16th where it will join supporters on the ground who will be protesting the high level of taxation we experience. Weather permitting, plans have it in New Hampshire for as long as possible up until the New Hampshire primary at which point it will fly south to South Carolina and Florida.
Contact:
Bryce Henderson, Media Coordinator
Liberty Political Advertising, LLC
www.RonPaulBlimp.com
Only yesterday, an innovative marketing vision supporting the presidential campaign of Ron Paul (R-Tex) was losing altitude faster than the notorious and tragic Hindenburg blimp. The grand vision of a vast hot-air balloon hovering over the Super Bowl asking the Randian question, “Who Is Ron Paul,” was seemingly deflated, a victim of unfilled pledges and generally slow fund-raising.
Twenty four hours can change a lot. Today, Friday morning (EST) with nearly $190,000 in actual donations, and more money regularly pouring in to www.RonPaulBlimp.com, it looks as if the vision of Trevor Lyman and his associates will soon achieve some sort of take off.
Lyman, the volunteer marketing guru for the presidential campaign of Jeffersonian conservative Ron Paul (R-Tex) will likely help Ron Paul raise up to $10 million by mid December through various “mass donation days,” and now his dearest brainchild is shaping up as well.
If it flies, as it seems to be on the verge of doing, modest Lyman, who only yesterday was “almost broke” according to friends, will thank thousands of Ron Paul supporters who decided the "big idea" of a high-flying blimp was impassioned as his fundamental belief in Ron Paul, which nearly led him to bankruptcy.
Only 24 hours ago, an impassioned and “grim” Lyman reached out to the Ron Paul community for help to salvage the blimp project, after certain pledges taken by the blimp site turned out to be bogus. The dire need was for $200,000 - and that seems almost achieved, as of this writing, Friday AM/EST.
But yesterday, friends carried the word to Ron Paul web sites and news networks such FMNN that Lyman was literally down to his last dollar and would be returning to his music marketing business. Now, the blimp looks likely to fly - as improbably as the limited government campaign of Ron Paul itself. Fund-raising will continue as long as Ron Paul supporters believe in it, according to sources close to the project.
These supporters add that the for-profit status of the project was invented purely as a legal response to FEC regs, and that Lyman himself is first and foremost - and always - a supporter of Ron Paul and his limited-government beliefs, and that has always been his sole motivation. He still, as of this writing, has not taken a penny of a modest blimp stipend, despite his circumstances. Likely he will have to, at some point, unless someone can lend him some money.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52289
There are hurdles of course, as to be operating on anything but the proverbial shoestring, the project needs continued donations - and funding in excess of $200,000. But sources close to the project are betting that with the generous support of the Ron Paul community, the blimp will fly for weeks and even longer.
=====
UPDATE: A press release has been issued about the blimp as follows:
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Has a Blimp
7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Supporters of Presidential candidate Ron Paul are excited to announce the launch of their very own privately funded Ron Paul blimp. In less than a month the idea has gone from a wishful post on a website to a full-blown and flying reality.
Launch date is set for the morning of December 11th from Elizabeth City, NC where the blimp will then fly north to New Hampshire with stops in Washington D.C., New York City and Boston. The blimp will be met at each stop by thousands of Ron Paul supporters who will come to cheer it on as it continues its journey while passing over stadiums, parks, highways and anywhere else people gather.
This is a historic event as no other candidate has ever had their own blimp, let alone one initiated by and paid for by their supporters. Paulites, as they are known, have pledged to donate over $420,000 to fund the blimp for as long as it is needed.
The blimp measures 197 feet long and over 66 feet high, making it one of the largest airships in the world. Along with two pilots the blimp comes with a ground crew of 15-20 that travel with the blimp and assist with landing and takeoffs. The gondola seats 12 passengers, plus the pilots. These seats will be made available to supporters, veterans, charities, dignitaries and the media.
The Ron Paul blimp plans to be in Boston for the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party on December 16th where it will join supporters on the ground who will be protesting the high level of taxation we experience. Weather permitting, plans have it in New Hampshire for as long as possible up until the New Hampshire primary at which point it will fly south to South Carolina and Florida.
Contact:
Bryce Henderson, Media Coordinator
Liberty Political Advertising, LLC
www.RonPaulBlimp.com
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Ron Paul is no longer a dark horse
CARLA MARINUCCI
San Francisco Chronicle
They were a lonely band of rebels until just a few weeks ago, backing the darkest of dark horse presidential candidates.
But with Republican Rep. Ron Paul's fundraising on the rise - $4.2 million raised on the Internet in one day this month - and his poll numbers jumping, the Texas congressman might no longer be a "who?" but a potential problem for leading Republican presidential candidates in key states such as New Hampshire.
And in California, the state where the 72-year-old doctor-politician has raised the most money, those who call themselves part of the "Ron Paul Revolution" couldn't be happier.
Paul's backers are people such as Brad Sanford, 29, a Silicon Valley tech worker who said he never had been involved in politics or campaigns until this year.
Sanford, attending a Paul campaign Bay Area "meet-up" event, said he first caught Paul's appearances on cable programs like "The Bill Maher Show," "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report." Since then, Sanford has registered Republican for the first time to vote in the California presidential primary on Feb. 5 while "maxing out" his political donation budget with $2,300 to Paul's campaign.
Sanford now is walking precincts for Paul because he said the candidate is strongly against the war in Iraq and can appeal to millions who believe that America has "strayed too far from our values" and fundamentals laid out in the Constitution.
"For young people, it's the war; for older people, it's a straight common-sense approach" to taxes, the economy and values, said Holly Clearman, California field coordinator for the Paul campaign.
Clearman said the life of a Ron Paul supporter used to be a lonely undertaking.
"I thought there were only 10 of us, and nobody I knew," she said. But that changed in recent months as the candidate raised $9 million this quarter, and "the cat is out of the bag."
Paul followers are buoyed by the latest polls from CNN and the New York Times showing that their candidate has jumped ahead of former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa, the site of the nation's first 2008 primary on Jan. 3.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain still dominate the race in that independent-minded, "Live Free or Die" state. But Paul's recent rise has prompted pundits to acknowledge that the Texan - once dismissed as a fringe candidate - could have an impact on the presidential race.
Paul's eclectic mix of fiercely libertarian and conservative values has created a passionate support base that might be unlike any other candidate in the 2008 presidential race.
The former practicing obstetrician, who has served in the House about 20 of the past 35 years, is vehemently anti-abortion - voting against federal funding of abortion, stem cell research and even family planning funding in U.S. foreign aid - and strongly pro-gun rights. His views have gained him high ratings from conservatives and groups such as the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association. Paul also is seen as strongly anti-environmental by groups such as the League of Conservation Voters, which gave him just a 5 percent legislative rating on his voting record.
But Paul also appeals to progressives on a number of issues: He supports repealing most federal drug laws, including those against medical marijuana, is against the death penalty, vigorously opposes the war in Iraq and is against the Patriot Act and free trade agreements such as NAFTA.
Indeed, some political analysts suggested he is the 2008 campaign's political ink blot test - able to represent whatever voters see in him.
Stephanie Burns, 50, a construction manager from Sausalito, Calif., who helps arrange biweekly Bay Area meetings in support of Paul, said the Texas congressman's campaign - like Democrat Howard Dean's in 2004 - has skillfully utilized the Internet to reach out to voters who might otherwise never be connected. "And ever since the $4.2 million, it has changed things," she said. "There's a lot more recognition by the media."
Burns motioned around the room to some of the people the Internet has brought to Paul's cause.
"I've never even been interested in politics my whole life," Brandy Alexander, 34, a University California-San Francisco researcher, told the group.
But after she and her boyfriend, William Newby, 28, a computer programmer, watched Paul slam U.S. involvement in the Iraq war and expound on his views during the televised GOP debates, they were hooked.
Thanks to Paul, she said, "Now, I find myself borderline obsessed with it.
NAIS, New law could make animal id required
By Alexis Hunt
Posted: Thursday, December 06, 2007 at 5:50 p.m.
The U-S Department of Agriculture wants to pass a law that'll affect farmers in the Tri-States as well as across the country. The U-S-D-A has designed a National Animal Identification System or N-A-I-S. This system requires all livestock get registered by placing a plastic tag in their ear. That tag has an electronic number that gets scanned through a computer when the animal goes through a livestock auction. The U-S-D-A says this process is for disease traceback, but members of R-Calf and the Missouri Farmer's Union beg to differ. They met today to discuss these issues.
"We're not against the technology at all...the reason we're against this is the government is intending to make this mandatory. Also there's a significant cost...and there's no program to assist us in that cost," said President of R-Calf Max Thornsberry.
The law won't take effect until 2010. When it takes affect, it will be a federal offense to remove the id.
Posted: Thursday, December 06, 2007 at 5:50 p.m.
The U-S Department of Agriculture wants to pass a law that'll affect farmers in the Tri-States as well as across the country. The U-S-D-A has designed a National Animal Identification System or N-A-I-S. This system requires all livestock get registered by placing a plastic tag in their ear. That tag has an electronic number that gets scanned through a computer when the animal goes through a livestock auction. The U-S-D-A says this process is for disease traceback, but members of R-Calf and the Missouri Farmer's Union beg to differ. They met today to discuss these issues.
"We're not against the technology at all...the reason we're against this is the government is intending to make this mandatory. Also there's a significant cost...and there's no program to assist us in that cost," said President of R-Calf Max Thornsberry.
The law won't take effect until 2010. When it takes affect, it will be a federal offense to remove the id.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Which Democrat's Health Plan
By LAURA MECKLER
December 5, 2007; Page A8
While the leading Democratic presidential candidates agree on most policy issues, a sharp dispute has emerged: Who would do more to provide health coverage for the uninsured?
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been engaged in a bitter back-and-forth over whose health plan covers more people. Former Sen. John Edwards has jumped in, saying his plan is the best of all.
• The Players: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all claim to have universal health-care proposals.
• The Background: Clinton and Edwards, but not Obama, would require all Americans to have insurance.
• The Bottom Line: Mandates may be needed to get everyone insured, but it's unclear if these plans provide enough subsidies to make the mandates affordable.
The argument concerns whether the government should require all Americans to get insurance. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards would require people to get insurance, either through work, a government program or new health marketplaces that all three candidates promise to set up. Mr. Obama would only require that children be insured.
Other elements of their plans are similar, including subsidies to help lower-income and even middle-income families pay premiums, and various proposals to cut the cost of health care. The candidates say they would pay for their plans by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for upper-income earners and by savings in health spending through various measures.
None of the Republican candidates has proposed a universal health plan. But with the race tight and health care the No. 1 domestic issue for Democrats, the differences among Democrats have become a point of continuing tension.
Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark. If people aren't required by law to buy insurance, many won't. There are millions of children, for instance, who remain uninsured, even though they qualify for free or subsidized government programs.
In addition, all three candidates want to bar insurance companies from rejecting sick people or charging them more. But it is hard to require companies to insure expensive sick people if they aren't guaranteed that cheap healthy people will balance them out.
On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has attacked Mr. Obama for his plan, saying it betrays the Democratic principle of universal coverage. Her campaign has demanded that he take down an advertisement that claims his plan "covers everyone."
Mr. Obama has replied that her attacks are more about politics than substance; they didn't come, he noted, until she lost ground in the polls. But his advisers don't dispute her central charge. Rather, they claim Mrs. Clinton's plan would also leave millions without coverage.
Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee argues that if Mrs. Clinton's health plan is enacted, she will have to waive the mandate for millions of people. That is because, he says, there isn't enough money for subsidies to make health insurance affordable enough for people to buy it.
"You can't put in a mandate until health care is affordable," he says. He predicted that a Hillary Clinton administration would wind up exempting 20% of the uninsured, or about 10 million people. That is the percentage of uninsured adults who were exempted in Massachusetts, the only state to try an individual mandate.
That view may not be true. Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all. He said he ran three scenarios with varying levels of subsidies -- from $100 billion a year to $120 billion a year. The campaign chose one in the middle: $110 billion.
If it turns out that isn't enough money to make health premiums affordable, Mrs. Clinton would have to spend more on subsidies, one of her health-care advisers said.
But, the adviser said, it is wrong to assume that 20% of Americans will be exempted. It is impossible to say for certain, because the campaign has not explained how large the subsidies will be or who will qualify for them.
The Obama plan does some other things to get people insurance. It allows adults up to age 25 to stay on their parents' insurance even if they aren't in school. And it attempts to lower the cost of insurance overall through a reinsurance plan, whereby the federal government would cover some expenses of some of the most costly patients.
Outside experts note that the Clinton and Obama plans propose spending about the same amount of money, while Mr. Obama uses some of his to pay for the reinsurance plan -- an initiative that could cost tens of billions of dollars. That should help lower premiums across the board, but it means there would be less available for direct subsidies.
Amid the Clinton-Obama dispute, Mr. Edwards, who was the first to propose a universal coverage plan, has tried to jump into the debate. He notes that he has been much more specific than Mrs. Clinton has about how he will enforce the mandate. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has suggested some options but has not made as clear a statement about enforcement.
Under the Edwards plan, people will have to prove their have insurance when they file their taxes, and the government will seek to collect back premiums, with interest, for those who refuse to get it.
None of the candidates want to talk about the fact that even if their plans worked out exactly as designed, none would cover all 47 million uninsured people in the U.S. That's because several million of the uninsured -- estimates put it up to seven million -- are illegal immigrants, and none of the front-runners include them in their programs.
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
December 5, 2007; Page A8
While the leading Democratic presidential candidates agree on most policy issues, a sharp dispute has emerged: Who would do more to provide health coverage for the uninsured?
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been engaged in a bitter back-and-forth over whose health plan covers more people. Former Sen. John Edwards has jumped in, saying his plan is the best of all.
• The Players: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all claim to have universal health-care proposals.
• The Background: Clinton and Edwards, but not Obama, would require all Americans to have insurance.
• The Bottom Line: Mandates may be needed to get everyone insured, but it's unclear if these plans provide enough subsidies to make the mandates affordable.
The argument concerns whether the government should require all Americans to get insurance. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards would require people to get insurance, either through work, a government program or new health marketplaces that all three candidates promise to set up. Mr. Obama would only require that children be insured.
Other elements of their plans are similar, including subsidies to help lower-income and even middle-income families pay premiums, and various proposals to cut the cost of health care. The candidates say they would pay for their plans by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for upper-income earners and by savings in health spending through various measures.
None of the Republican candidates has proposed a universal health plan. But with the race tight and health care the No. 1 domestic issue for Democrats, the differences among Democrats have become a point of continuing tension.
Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark. If people aren't required by law to buy insurance, many won't. There are millions of children, for instance, who remain uninsured, even though they qualify for free or subsidized government programs.
In addition, all three candidates want to bar insurance companies from rejecting sick people or charging them more. But it is hard to require companies to insure expensive sick people if they aren't guaranteed that cheap healthy people will balance them out.
On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has attacked Mr. Obama for his plan, saying it betrays the Democratic principle of universal coverage. Her campaign has demanded that he take down an advertisement that claims his plan "covers everyone."
Mr. Obama has replied that her attacks are more about politics than substance; they didn't come, he noted, until she lost ground in the polls. But his advisers don't dispute her central charge. Rather, they claim Mrs. Clinton's plan would also leave millions without coverage.
Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee argues that if Mrs. Clinton's health plan is enacted, she will have to waive the mandate for millions of people. That is because, he says, there isn't enough money for subsidies to make health insurance affordable enough for people to buy it.
"You can't put in a mandate until health care is affordable," he says. He predicted that a Hillary Clinton administration would wind up exempting 20% of the uninsured, or about 10 million people. That is the percentage of uninsured adults who were exempted in Massachusetts, the only state to try an individual mandate.
That view may not be true. Ken Thorpe, a health-policy expert at Emory University who has advised all three major Democrats, said he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all. He said he ran three scenarios with varying levels of subsidies -- from $100 billion a year to $120 billion a year. The campaign chose one in the middle: $110 billion.
If it turns out that isn't enough money to make health premiums affordable, Mrs. Clinton would have to spend more on subsidies, one of her health-care advisers said.
But, the adviser said, it is wrong to assume that 20% of Americans will be exempted. It is impossible to say for certain, because the campaign has not explained how large the subsidies will be or who will qualify for them.
The Obama plan does some other things to get people insurance. It allows adults up to age 25 to stay on their parents' insurance even if they aren't in school. And it attempts to lower the cost of insurance overall through a reinsurance plan, whereby the federal government would cover some expenses of some of the most costly patients.
Outside experts note that the Clinton and Obama plans propose spending about the same amount of money, while Mr. Obama uses some of his to pay for the reinsurance plan -- an initiative that could cost tens of billions of dollars. That should help lower premiums across the board, but it means there would be less available for direct subsidies.
Amid the Clinton-Obama dispute, Mr. Edwards, who was the first to propose a universal coverage plan, has tried to jump into the debate. He notes that he has been much more specific than Mrs. Clinton has about how he will enforce the mandate. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has suggested some options but has not made as clear a statement about enforcement.
Under the Edwards plan, people will have to prove their have insurance when they file their taxes, and the government will seek to collect back premiums, with interest, for those who refuse to get it.
None of the candidates want to talk about the fact that even if their plans worked out exactly as designed, none would cover all 47 million uninsured people in the U.S. That's because several million of the uninsured -- estimates put it up to seven million -- are illegal immigrants, and none of the front-runners include them in their programs.
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
Monitoring Agency Praises U.S. Report, but Keeps Wary Eye on Iran
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: December 5, 2007
PARIS, Dec. 4 — The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A report last month by Mohamed ElBaradei, the international agency’s leader, was less categorical than the American finding.
Enlarge This Image
Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press
The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has "outstanding issues" about Iran’s nuclear enrichment complex in Natanz.
“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”
The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”
That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.
But the American finding has so unsettled governments, agencies and officials dealing with Iran that it has suddenly upended commonly held assumptions.
There is relief, as one senior French official put it, that “the war option is off the table.” There is also criticism and even anger in some quarters that the American intelligence assessment may be too soft on Iran.
Israel, for example, on Tuesday took a darker view of Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the American assessment, saying that it is convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and that it has probably resumed the weapons program the Americans said was stopped in autumn 2003.
The British government said the international community should maintain pressure on Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts. “It confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters. He said the American assessment had also shown that past international pressure on Iran had succeeded “in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponization element.”
He added, “But it also tells us the intent was there, and that the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons remains a serious problem.” That, he said, justified maintaining pressure on the Tehran government to abandon efforts to enrich uranium and to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, processes that could provide fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told state-run radio that Iran welcomed the change of opinion about its nuclear program. “Some of the same countries which had questions or ambiguities about our nuclear program are changing their views realistically,” he said.
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said the report showed that American accusations about Iran’s secret weapons activities were baseless, reported ISNA, the Iranian student news agency.
“This report can be good news for U.S. allies so that they would change their unreasonable policies,” he said, ISNA reported.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s public stance, and the main message of Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general, was to praise the new finding as proof that his agency had been right in its analysis.
The American assessment “tallies with the agency’s consistent statements over the last few years that — although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities — the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran,” Dr. ElBaradei said in a statement.
He said the American intelligence assessment “should help to defuse the current crisis.”
But the agency has been frustrated by shrinking access for its inspectors in Iran, and Dr. ElBaradei also called on Iran to “accelerate its cooperation,” adding that the new American finding “should prompt Iran to work actively with the I.A.E.A. to clarify specific aspects of its past and present nuclear program.” He urged Iran to allow more intrusive inspections of its facilities.
Inside the agency, officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules, said that Iran must not assume that the American report relieves it of pressure to work with the agency, and that the country must do more to prove its good will.
“We are still worried about certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, and we need answers, particularly about so-called military aspects of the program,” said the senior official close to the agency.
Dr. ElBaradei’s most recent report to his agency’s 35-country board last month is less categorical in its conclusions than the American finding.
The agency acknowledged there were still “outstanding issues” regarding the scope and nature of the nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz and activities that could have military applications, Dr. ElBaradei said.
The American analysis twice describes the Natanz enrichment program as civilian, and omits the administration’s oft-cited analysis that there is no logical application for enriched uranium other than eventual military use. Referring to the finding’s characterization of uranium enrichment, the official allied with the international agency said, “We wouldn’t go that far.”
The official also refused to rule out the possibility that Iran might have programs involving centrifuges — the machines that spin enriched uranium — that it had not disclosed to the agency.
The agency plans to use the new assessment’s revelation that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the past to pry more information out of it about its suspicious past activities.
“If they had a weapons program, they better tell us now,” the official said. “We need to know where they ended up with their program before they terminated it.”
John F. Burns contributed reporting from London, and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.
Published: December 5, 2007
PARIS, Dec. 4 — The International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday publicly embraced the new American intelligence assessment stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons effort, but in truth the agency is taking a more cautious approach in drawing conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A report last month by Mohamed ElBaradei, the international agency’s leader, was less categorical than the American finding.
Enlarge This Image
Hasan Sarbakhshian/Associated Press
The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has "outstanding issues" about Iran’s nuclear enrichment complex in Natanz.
“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”
The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”
That the nuclear watchdog agency based in Vienna is sounding a somewhat tougher line than the Bush administration is surprising, given that the administration has long criticized it for not pressuring Iran hard enough to curb its nuclear program.
But the American finding has so unsettled governments, agencies and officials dealing with Iran that it has suddenly upended commonly held assumptions.
There is relief, as one senior French official put it, that “the war option is off the table.” There is also criticism and even anger in some quarters that the American intelligence assessment may be too soft on Iran.
Israel, for example, on Tuesday took a darker view of Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the American assessment, saying that it is convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and that it has probably resumed the weapons program the Americans said was stopped in autumn 2003.
The British government said the international community should maintain pressure on Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts. “It confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters. He said the American assessment had also shown that past international pressure on Iran had succeeded “in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponization element.”
He added, “But it also tells us the intent was there, and that the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons remains a serious problem.” That, he said, justified maintaining pressure on the Tehran government to abandon efforts to enrich uranium and to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, processes that could provide fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told state-run radio that Iran welcomed the change of opinion about its nuclear program. “Some of the same countries which had questions or ambiguities about our nuclear program are changing their views realistically,” he said.
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said the report showed that American accusations about Iran’s secret weapons activities were baseless, reported ISNA, the Iranian student news agency.
“This report can be good news for U.S. allies so that they would change their unreasonable policies,” he said, ISNA reported.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s public stance, and the main message of Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general, was to praise the new finding as proof that his agency had been right in its analysis.
The American assessment “tallies with the agency’s consistent statements over the last few years that — although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities — the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran,” Dr. ElBaradei said in a statement.
He said the American intelligence assessment “should help to defuse the current crisis.”
But the agency has been frustrated by shrinking access for its inspectors in Iran, and Dr. ElBaradei also called on Iran to “accelerate its cooperation,” adding that the new American finding “should prompt Iran to work actively with the I.A.E.A. to clarify specific aspects of its past and present nuclear program.” He urged Iran to allow more intrusive inspections of its facilities.
Inside the agency, officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules, said that Iran must not assume that the American report relieves it of pressure to work with the agency, and that the country must do more to prove its good will.
“We are still worried about certain aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, and we need answers, particularly about so-called military aspects of the program,” said the senior official close to the agency.
Dr. ElBaradei’s most recent report to his agency’s 35-country board last month is less categorical in its conclusions than the American finding.
The agency acknowledged there were still “outstanding issues” regarding the scope and nature of the nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz and activities that could have military applications, Dr. ElBaradei said.
The American analysis twice describes the Natanz enrichment program as civilian, and omits the administration’s oft-cited analysis that there is no logical application for enriched uranium other than eventual military use. Referring to the finding’s characterization of uranium enrichment, the official allied with the international agency said, “We wouldn’t go that far.”
The official also refused to rule out the possibility that Iran might have programs involving centrifuges — the machines that spin enriched uranium — that it had not disclosed to the agency.
The agency plans to use the new assessment’s revelation that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the past to pry more information out of it about its suspicious past activities.
“If they had a weapons program, they better tell us now,” the official said. “We need to know where they ended up with their program before they terminated it.”
John F. Burns contributed reporting from London, and Nazila Fathi from Tehran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
