| |
Topic: Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear Bomb |
![]() |
|
![]() |
| |
| | Post 1 |
| Banned ![]() | Post; Bill Clinton and CIA Gave Iranians Blueprint for Nuclear BombLast night, radio talk show host and former US Justice Department official Mark Levin shocked many listeners when he reported that President Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the Iranians in a harebrained scheme. He said that the transfer of classified data to Iran was personally approved by then-President Clinton and that the CIA deliberately gave Iranian physicists blueprints for part of a nuclear bomb that likely helped Tehran advance its nuclear weapons development program. The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book "State of War" by James Risen, the New York Times reporter, who exposed the Bush administration's controversial NSA spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran's nuclear drive. (Excerpt) Read more at postchronicle.com ... |
| |
| | Post 2 | |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | This makes sense because it also talk about this Quote:
Basically Bill Clinton (a Democrat) gave a lot of dangerous information to some very dangerous countries...
__________________ | |
| |
| | Post 3 |
| Forums Grumpy Old Man | Post; Finger pointing and accusations ...And then the Republicans (part of GW's administration), placed nuclear bomb making documents on the internet for the world to see and to copy. After months of being in the public domain, they pulled them from the internet site (only after disclosure by the MSM), but the damage has been done. How many forces inimical to the free world, have been able to access, copy and begin to construct nuclear devices? Are you sure that you really want to continue the finger pointing and accusations on this topic? Government(s) (or) terrorists. Which has the greatest scope for disaster? Do you really want to discuss which activity has the greatest possibility of disastrous consequences? Should we discuss which group would be more likely to use nuclear weapons in a reckless manner (or) which group is more likely to target civilians?
__________________ Fair winds and following seas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ![]() < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < and long may your big jib draw. -W.R.B. (Chief Bones) FCC(SW) USN(RET)- |
| |
| | Post 4 | |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Quote:
And one could say that under the extreme pressure certain sides of the government put on the current administration aided in the recklessness (which is still not an excuse) of the administration. The major difference is that one was inadvertent and one was deliberate. So yes to answer your question I would like to continue the finger pointing. Furthermore it would be much easier for a state that harbors terrorists to acquire the necessary materials needed to build the weapon and more than likely would have the resources, i.e. scientist and engineers, to do so. They in turn would also be more likely to give that weapon to a terrorist organization for them to use so that they do not bring down retaliation onto themselves. Last edited by Donkey; November 5th, 2006 at 18:15. | |
| |