It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton-CIA gave Iran Plans To Build Faulty Nukes and Plan Backfired.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
NY Times reporter James Risen alleges in a new book ("State of War." ) that former President Clinton may have devised a plan that was hoped would hinder Iran's development but the plan backfired and actually helped Iran with its development of nuclear technology.





News By Us

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.


But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Former intelligence officer Sid Francis said “Don’t hold your breath waiting for the elite media to create a frenzy over this story. They will never hurt either Clintons with such a damning report.”

If this is true as alleged, I wonder what affect it will have on Hillary running for president? My guess is her hopes just went down the tubes if true that is.







[edit on 4/14/2006 by shots]




posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Amazing how one can post an important story, yet because of board bias no one responds.

I mean this is proof that Clinton could have been responsible for Iran having the technology, but I guess those biased against the current administration can not take the truth. Shame Shame Shame :shk:



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I imagine the CIA thought it was a good idea.
I doubt Clinton came up with this, although I question his judgement if they asked his permission.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   


Amazing how one can post an important story, yet because of board bias no one responds.

I mean this is proof that Clinton could have been responsible for Iran having the technology, but I guess those biased against the current administration can not take the truth. Shame Shame Shame.


Shame indeed..and it has nothing to do with board bias.

Important stories get lost in the glare cast by more dramatic fare, that's an unfortunate reality (you're not the only one who's noticed).

But for you to turn it into a partisan issue mocks the seriousness of the problem, IMO.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I wouldn't be surprised if the supposed backfire was the cover for giving them the technology. This way they know that Iran will develop the technology and they could use that as an excuse for a future invasion.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
First and foremost. *Bump*


I wouldn't be surprised if the supposed backfire was the cover for giving them the technology. This way they know that Iran will develop the technology and they could use that as an excuse for a future invasion.


Future invasion by whom? Clinton’s successor who could have been anyone at the time? Seems like stretch and a very risky gamble. However if this story is true then I can’t blame Clinton as he is not a nuclear physicists, as such he could not spot the flaws, however he takes advice from people who should know. Now those people and the CIA continue to amaze me on their sheer brilliance when it comes to protecting US security.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
First off, as Wyrde noted, this is not an issue of partisanship.

Second, this was an incredibly unwise move by Clinton. THe only reason I could think of that he would do such a thing is if he was in some sort of desparate situation and had to pull out all the stops in order to prevent something.

Even if those plans were faulty, in no way do you ever give the enemy any sort of clue whatsoever for whatever they are trying to build. That's like handing somebody a gun with no ammo. They don't have the ammo now, but they can surely get it some other way.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Even if those plans were faulty, in no way do you ever give the enemy any sort of clue whatsoever for whatever they are trying to build. That's like handing somebody a gun with no ammo. They don't have the ammo now, but they can surely get it some other way.


I agree with that 100 percent. Unfortunately though Clinton did do it so, now we face a possible nuclear threat for the callious action.

The truy sad part of this is there is no mention in the main stream media, they do not want everyone to know the real truth on where Iran got its nuclear plans.

You can also bet your biffy if the name Bush was inserted where Clinton is the media would be all over it whooping and crying foul.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
3 months before this thread was created, the issue was being discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

FYI, that could have something to do with the relative popularity of this thread.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
3 months before this thread was created, the issue was being discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

FYI, that could have something to do with the relative popularity of this thread.


Thanks I was not aware of that thread. It would appear even back then no one really took interest in that thread either which illustrates the point I was trying to make as long as it was Clinton there is no interest.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

I agree with that 100 percent. Unfortunately though Clinton did do it so, now we face a possible nuclear threat for the callious action.


I don't think you can place the blame for this entirely upon Clinton. If his military, intelligence, and scientific advisors are all preaching that this is a good plan, and that it will hinder Iran's program then you can’t blame him for authorizing it. If he was being assured and re-assured of its success then most of the blame lies with them instead of Clinton. However you are right about this, the media doesn't seem to like this story as much as they would if Bush had somehow been involved. I can see the headlines now...



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First and foremost. *Bump*


I wouldn't be surprised if the supposed backfire was the cover for giving them the technology. This way they know that Iran will develop the technology and they could use that as an excuse for a future invasion.


Future invasion by whom? Clinton’s successor who could have been anyone at the time? Seems like stretch and a very risky gamble. However if this story is true then I can’t blame Clinton as he is not a nuclear physicists, as such he could not spot the flaws, however he takes advice from people who should know. Now those people and the CIA continue to amaze me on their sheer brilliance when it comes to protecting US security.


The NWO already knew who was going to be elected next. Don't try to think that your vote actually counts.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

The NWO already knew who was going to be elected next. Don't try to think that your vote actually counts.


Right......... Ok, back to the topic at hand, which is the tale of how Clinton and his CIA buddies added another big strikeout to their illustrious record.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't think you can place the blame for this entirely upon Clinton. If his military, intelligence, and scientific advisors are all preaching that this is a good plan, and that it will hinder Iran's program then you can’t blame him for authorizing it.


Again I can agree with that. Yet being realistic knowing that if it was Bush the media would lay all the blame on him, which is not right.

What I would like to know is where were the media when this story first broke, there was little or no mention just as is the case now, yet again I know that if it was the current administration that had done this they would be crying for his head.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Hmmmm. TO simply blame the Clinton admin 9of which I am no fan BTW) is simplistic at best.

The situation with Iran is simply the byproduct of failed US foreign policy for the last 16+ years. The blame goes back all the way to Bush Sr. and the milqutoast way Crazy Kim and his merry band have been treated. The Kids glove approach he has recived has made it clear to any and all nations they only way to get respect from the US and the EU is to go nuclear.

THe blame for this mess can be layed at plenty of feet.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
This doesnt surprise me, and maybe other ATS members, at all. Maybe thats why there was little response to the board. This is such a reoccuring trend amoung American officials to fuel an allie in which almost indefinetly will become an enemy. This is clearly the reason why they are under such fire from us, because we know they have the blueprints. Now its just a matter of obtaining and enriching materials. Good post, just sad to say It doesnt at all surprise me.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
3 months before this thread was created, the issue was being discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

FYI, that could have something to do with the relative popularity of this thread.


Thanks I was not aware of that thread. It would appear even back then no one really took interest in that thread either which illustrates the point I was trying to make as long as it was Clinton there is no interest.


If the reason for no one to take notice was the fact that Clinton was involved, why did you not take notice back then?

Were you on Clinton's side at the time or just did not notice?

If you simply did not notice, why do you accuse other people of not participating in your thread of being biased just because they ignore you precious thread?

I think this thread should be closed, seeing that there is already one thread about the same subject.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
well ain't that just peachy of clinton. pally pally with the chinese, and now we find out that he gave plans for a nuclear bomb [ oh yeah i so sure believe that they weren't working plans...not] to blooming Iran of all countries. that man needs to be tried for treason - he aided so many states that could harm the usa and yet has nevver faced even an ounce of critism about it.... just who's side is the freak on? and just what damage is hilary going to do when she gets in??

Bye bye USA they'll give you away lock stock and barrell if it got them money...



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
well ain't that just peachy of clinton. pally pally with the chinese, and now we find out that he gave plans for a nuclear bomb [ oh yeah i so sure believe that they weren't working plans...not] to blooming Iran of all countries. that man needs to be tried for treason - he aided so many states that could harm the usa and yet has nevver faced even an ounce of critism about it.... just who's side is the freak on? and just what damage is hilary going to do when she gets in??

Bye bye USA they'll give you away lock stock and barrell if it got them money...



not to mention his policies with china, we are now owned by them. This man was a traitor and if they run his wife I will laugh! I hope no one i sfooled by this BS.

also the reason everyone would swarm this if it were bush is because of partisan politics. Real reason everyone seems to be a bush hater is that the liberals who were upset they lost the election have convinced moderates he is satan.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
yep if this was bush there would be hell to play on the thread - yet they cannot stomach seeing a l;ying cheating stealing intern abuser getting his name caught in a scandal that goes way way beyond an intern and a quick jobbie. The mans a traitor to the last it seems, and yes i agree bush is as bad for his price is oil, but to give China what he did and nuke tech to iran the man needs to be tried and shot for treason against the state.

I always thought he was a yellow belly scum sucker, especially after he turned down Bin Laden on a plate from africa, and now iran has a nuke because of him....



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join