It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


State Department is one month overdue on required Iran-Syria WMD Report

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:28 PM
The US State Department is a month overdue in issuing a semi-annual report of foreigners known to be engaging in WMD proliferation activities in Iran and Syria. The report is required by law, and is part of the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act.

Democrats in Congress wrote a letter, which is viewable here, requesting this report so they could review it pursuant to legislation that would "facilitate Presiden't Bush's proposal for nuclear cooperation with India."

From the letter:

As you know, past reports filed by the State Department have included information regarding illicit transfers of nuclear and chemical weapons related technology and goods from entities located in India. Since 2003, the United States has filed at least eight nonproliferation sanctions against at least seven Indian entities, including two sanctions in 2005.

So what's happening here is our members of Congress are analyzing why Bush wants nuclear cooperation with India when there have been known entities and resulting sanctions against proliferators in India. Well, good question. Yay Congress. And they want to see the report, but the SD won't give it up and "can't be reached for comment."

Why is the Department late on filing this report on WMD proliferators in Iran and Syria? Could it be that they don't want anyone to know, because they are about to blow the HELL out of them? Or because Israel is? (about to blow the HELL out of them).

Or is this just another blatant display of disregard for laws that this administration is becoming infamous for?

Nah. They've just been having a rough time at the office lately, and they're a wee bit late. No biggie. Give em a break.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:00 PM
I am surprised this hasn't seen any replies yet. It is a bit suspicious. Is the bad news being saved for after it's too late to stop something?

I will point out that it's ony signed by 3 members of congress, and it's not because they are all on the same committee. I have a hard time understanding why there's not more weight behind it.

They do however say something very interesting. "It is essential that the state department submit its overdue report... before any such vote takes place." in regards to the vote on legislation to facilitate the deal with India.

Are these three actually trying to say they have the support to fillibuster the bill? I'm anxious to see if this becomes an issue of if it's just preelection posturing.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:43 PM
Well, one angle they may be looking for is if any omissions are made in the new report, trying to hide the fact that WMD proliferators have already been sanctioned in India, and therefore should appear on the new report in addition to any newly discovered or sanctioned enemies. But I doubt it since they are not "crazy conspiracy theorists."

(Note: the use of the word sanctioned is as in "sanctions against," for any of those literalists out there.

I am not sure how you quite got from "reviewing a report pertenent to deciding about nuclear cooperation with India," to "election posturing," Vagabond.
My God, that's even a stretch for my old exaggerated self.

To me it seems legit from their letter (if you read it) that they really DO need for the SD to file the semi-annual report so that they can extract useful information from it. But on the other hand, it was from three democrats. So I see where you're coming from.

And oh, thanks for the nice reply, Vagabond.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by TrueAmerican]

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:15 PM
Why does the state department, a cabinet level buearacracy, think it can make itself unavailable for comment to the United States In Congress???

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:51 PM
How did I get to election posturing? Years of experience. It's not coming from the powerful, it may or may not be of any consequence. If it proves not to be of consequence, then it is likely what militarily is known as "firing the honorable shot" (before you surrender). This way these democrats from nice safe districts can ward off any potential primary challengers by establishing themself as liberal enough. "I spoke up about this issue when the committee and the party leadership didn't. I fought the war on terror the liberal way".

Republicans do it too of course. When a fight comes along that you can't even win... infact that your party probably won't even be willing to start... but it's a fight that your constituents want to see fought, you speak up and say something of no real consequence just to reassure the constituents that it wasn't your call to let it slide.

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:12 PM
Hmm, your comments are interesting Vagabond, but I really feel these people are just wanting to view that report, because it clearly contains VERY pertinent information crucial to making decisions about this "nuclear cooperation" with India. If it wasn't, then why would they have gone to the trouble of pointing out these very facts of the previously identified and sanctioned proliferators IN INDIA ITSELF? Jeez, is everything so political now that they can't even get any work done up there?

All we need is another Operation Marlin with India. :shk:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:46 PM
I'm not saying the report is not very relevant and very necessary. I think it's funny that the Clinton administration took its policy lead from a movie that was made just the year before (Deterrence). Let's definately not do that again (assuming that things really did go as badly as is claimed).

I'm just marveling that only 3 people are saying anything about it. In other words, I'm curious if anyone plans to actually DO anything about the State Department holding out on this or if it's not going to get anything more than token resistance from those who can't actually fight the fight and win.

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:20 PM

Markey requested the report be released after persistent rumors that the Department of State is withholding the document from Congress because its contents would embarrass the Bush administration.

Here is further verification on this, with the letter on Markey's government site.

I think I read somewhere that those reports are usually on time, making the overdueness sorta strange.

new topics

top topics


log in