Smoking Gun Images Of Syria Nuke Reactor?

Video Made By U.S. Intelligence Claims N. Korea Secretly Helped Syria Build A Reactor, Which Was Nearly Operational

(CBS/AP)  The White House said Thursday that North Korea's secret work on a nuclear reactor with Syria was "a dangerous and potentially destabilizing development for the world," raising doubts about Pyongyang's intention to carry through with a promised disclosure of its nuclear activities.

Seven months after Israel bombed the reactor, the White House broke its silence and said North Korea assisted Syria's secret nuclear program and that the destroyed facility was not intended for "peaceful purposes."

The disclosure could undermine six-party negotiations to try to resolve the nuclear standoff with North Korea. The White House issued a two-page statement after lawmakers were given details about the reactor in a series of briefings on Capitol Hill. The White House said the International Atomic Energy Agency also was being briefed on the intelligence.

While calling North Korea's nuclear assistance to Syria a "dangerous manifestation" of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program and its proliferation activities, the U.S. said it remained committed to the talks.

The administration said that after the reactor was damaged beyond repair, Syria tried to bury evidence of its existence.

"This cover-up only served to reinforce our confidence that this reactor was not intended for peaceful activities," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "The Syrian regime must come clean before the world regarding its illicit nuclear activities."

CIA Director Michael Hayden, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley briefed lawmakers, who were shown a video presentation of intelligence information that the administration contends establishes a strong link between North Korea's nuclear program and the bombed Syrian site. It included still photographs that showed a strong resemblance between specific features of the plant and the one near Yongbyon.

According to officials familiar with the presentation, it did not show moving images inside the facility or any North Korean workers, but included photographs that depict similarities between the North Korean and Syrian reactor designs.

U.S. negotiators have been trying hard to close a deal in which North Korea would admit to and give up all its nuclear activities in return for being taken off the list of countries that support terrorism, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.

But at the same time, the administration had all the photos showing North Korea was secretly helping Syria build a reactor that could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, adds Martin. The images include a photo that U.S. intelligence says shows the head of Syria's nuclear agency with one of the North Koreans who was negotiating with the United States.

By making the photos public, Martin reports, the U.S. is telling North Korea: "If you won't come clean, we'll come clean for you."

The Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by Israeli jets was within weeks or months of being functional, a top U.S. official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. The official said the facility was mostly completed but still needed significant testing before it could be declared operational.

No uranium, which is needed to fuel a reactor, was evident at the site, a remote area of eastern Syria along the Euphrates River. But the U.S. official said the reactor was similar in design to a North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which has in the past produced small amounts of plutonium, the marterial needed to make powerful nuclear weapons.

Top members of the House Intelligence Committee said the reactor posed a serious threat of spreading dangerous nuclear materials.

"This is a serious proliferation issue, both for the Middle East and the countries that may be involved in Asia," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.

Hoekstra and Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, told reporters after the closed meeting that they were angry that the Bush administration had delayed briefing the full committee for eight months.

"It's bad management and terrible public policy to go for eight months knowing this was out there and then drop this in our laps six hours before they go to the public," Hoekstra said.

President Bush's failure to keep Congress informed has created friction that may imperil congressional support for Bush's policies toward North Korea and Syria, he said.

"It totally breaks down any trust that you have between the administration and Congress," Hoekstra said. "I think it really jeopardizes any type of the agreement they may come up with" regarding North Korea.

A senior administration said the White House went publc with the evidence now to prevent an even broader confrontation in the Middle East region, reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.

"We feared that if knowledge of this event spread quickly Syria might feel greater pressure to react," the official said.

The White House also stressed that North Korea's assistance on the Syrian reactor was an issue of "great international concern."

"The construction of this reactor was a dangerous and potentially destabilizing development for the region and the world," Perino said in the statement. "This is particularly true because it was done covertly and in violation of the very procedures designed to reassure the world of the peaceful intent of nuclear activities.

"The United States calls upon the international community to redouble our common efforts to ending these activities and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction in this critical region."

[tucano2]

This guy, geo. bush, is certifiable. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then No. Korea, then Syria, then kissing buttt with the vatican (wow talk about axis of evil)

[trishab4]

We are US citizens, and many of us do not believe our government anymore. You guys are going to start a world war and you don''''t even question your superiors or their rationale. You don''''t question all the suspicious activity that has been going on. And yes, I am talking to you guys that always write here and in other blogs that completely do not statistically represent most bloggers opinions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ttinsly at 04:44 PM : Apr 25, 2008

- Agreed! There is so much hypocrisy from all sides. We need to be vigilent and diligent, question all superiors'' intentions, ''cause despite obvious confidence we give them in shaping our future, they still abuse it, way more then a child could if left alone with sweets. LOL!

-I remember the CollinPowells'' presentation to the UN and that caused the UN to approve the first Iraq Invasion ( by Bush Senior). It was pretty similar to this story, combining animation techniques and hazy, unclear pictures... and as many have clearly indicated earlier; fool me twice... shame....

-Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, told reporters after the closed meeting that they were angry that the Bush administration had delayed briefing the full committee for eight months.

-Was this document intelligence being doctored?????

[twowheelcowboy]

Yeah right. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, major combat is over and the surge is working. Now the Bushit express wants us to believe a bunch of camel jockeys know how run a nuclear reactor.

[twowheelcowboy]

Yeah right. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, major combat is over and the surge is working. Now the Bushit express wants us to believe a bunch of camel jockeys know how run a nuclear reactor.

[twowheelcowboy]

Yeah right. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, major combat is over and the surge is working. Now the Bushit express wants us to believe a bunch of camel jockeys know how run a nuclear reactor.

[twowheelcowboy]

Yeah right. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, major combat is over and the surge is working. Now the Bushit express wants us to believe a bunch of camel jockeys know how run a nuclear reactor.

[twowheelcowboy]

Yeah right. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, major combat is over and the surge is working. Now the Bushit express wants us to believe a bunch of camel jockeys know how run a nuclear reactor.

[speakinup]

JoeCoolSwat - I don''t believe they are demented at all.


I can''t believe they are US citizens, given that most US citizens are afraid that Terrorists will bring WMDs into the US.

I believe they are Syrian folks pretending to be US Citizens.

[joecoolswat]

fedupwithit1, are you guys so sick, demented and filled with Bush-Hate, to the point that we show you before and after actual satellite images of the nuclear facility and even those are considered Bushie''s home computer photoshop software.

[joecoolswat]

Hungry...well, you still have not addressed my point that the UN has no real military power to enforce any of its resolutions. So, if we did "let the UN deal with it", what exactly would the UN do ? (other than sanctions, which is doing nothing)

[speakinup]

fedupwithit1 - so tell me, what time is it in Syria right now, about 9 PM ?

[speakinup]

"If you''''re that uneducated, then please don''''t post like you''''re stating a fact, unless you''''re actually going to take the time to research the issue, that you apparently know little about. Posted by hungry1968


So I recognize that we all get a little frustrated deling with the personalities on here Hungry.

I believe you and I went at it yesterday - right.

Wouldn''t it be better to try not to call each other names, and ask for sources.

I''m not trying to yank your chain, just trying to stop the esclation of name calling - we get no where with our conversation.

AND, I''ll be the first to admit, I''m JUST AS GUILTY.

Deal ?

[hungry1968]

then why didn''''''''t the UN do something about it?
Posted by hungry1968

The UN did. It passes a resolution that allowed the US and its coalition forces to invade Iraq and work on creating a government more friendly to its own people and to the world.

Posted by yongamerica at 12:37 PM : Apr 25, 2008




The UN NEVER passed a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. They needed 9 votes for the authorization, and they only got 4.

If you''re that uneducated, then please don''t post like you''re stating a fact, unless you''re actually going to take the time to research the issue, that you apparently know little about.

[yongamerica]

then why didn''''t the UN do something about it?
Posted by hungry1968

The UN did. It passes a resolution that allowed the US and its coalition forces to invade Iraq and work on creating a government more friendly to its own people and to the world.

[sevenveils]

In plots of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction the two countries, Iran and Syria must be studies as a whole and not individually.

Syria operates the only and thus largest chemical welfare development program in the world.
Syria and Iran work very closely with their common goals, supporting international terrorist groups.
Iran has been working on refining uranium supposedly suitable for running a nuclear reactor and possibly weapon grade uranium, and yet has no reactor (the Russian constructed reactor is using only Russian supplied uranium) where this uranium could possibly be used.
Syria has a reactor whose sole purpose was to create weapon grade uranium and plutonium.
While Iran states its nuclear enrichment process is entirely for peaceful purposes, Iran was to peacefully supply Syria Uranium for the reactor that was destroyed.
The resulting nuclear weapons would be developed and deployed in Syria, thus allowing Iran to live up to its peaceful purpose pledge.

[hungry1968]

"Like it or not, the Geneva Conventions still prohibit "Preventative War," whether
Bush & Israel like it or not.

Care to share your source ? The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. Not the laws of war.

Posted by speakinup at 12:15 PM : Apr 25, 2008




It''s not the Geneva Conventions - it''s the UN charter.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter

"Chapter VII also gives the Military Staff Committee responsibility for strategic coordination of forces placed at the disposal of the UN Security Council. It is made up of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Council.

The UN Charter''s prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded in the wake of the destruction of World War II: to prevent war. This overriding concern is also reflected in the Nuremberg Trials'' concept of a crime against peace "starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements..." (crime against peace), which was held to be the crime that makes all war crimes possible."

[speakinup]

"Like it or not, the Geneva Conventions still prohibit "Preventative War," whether
Bush & Israel like it or not.

Care to share your source ? The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. Not the laws of war.

[hungry1968]

Because I keep telling you (but you dont get it) The UN has no ability to act militarily ! period. you keep saying the UN should have been the one to do something. The UN is a building in New York, with talking heads. Not a force to act and hold anyone accountable, for anything. they can sanction, which is the Liberal way of fighting. "I''''ll sanction you" LOOK OUT ! sanctions are dropping.

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 12:11 PM : Apr 25, 2008




So what do you think gives the right to the US, to push aside the UN, and attack a country on their behalf and enforce THEIR resolutions and peace agreements, WITHOUT THEIR AUTHORIZATION?!?!?!

[hungry1968]

No war ends, if the surrendering country does not keep up with it''''s surrender agreements, then the war is back on, regardless if it is 10+ years.

Posted by JoeCoolSwat at 12:03 PM : Apr 25, 2008





Then the UN should have addressed it - IF it was an issue.

It IS NOT the United States of America''s job to enforce UN resolutions, or the UN''s peace agreements. It''s the UN''s JOB!!!

And that is NOT WHY we invaded Iraq in March 2003 - it''s just your pitiful attempt to steer the argument away from the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq from day one of his presidency.

[joecoolswat]

Because I keep telling you (but you dont get it) The UN has no ability to act militarily ! period. you keep saying the UN should have been the one to do something. The UN is a building in New York, with talking heads. Not a force to act and hold anyone accountable, for anything. they can sanction, which is the Liberal way of fighting. "I''ll sanction you" LOOK OUT ! sanctions are dropping.