Today WND indirectly accuses Iran of building a plutonium reactor, citing one Retired Navy Captain Chuck Nash. The WND article calls Nash "an expert on the Iranian nuclear threat", but, for whatever Zionist reason, fails to mention who Nash is an 'expert' for.
Can you guess?
I'll give you a clue.
NASH WORKS FOR A SIGNATORY TO THE PNAC STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES!
Yes. Nash works for The Centre for Security Policy, which was founded by Frank Gaffney, who is the current President of CSP.
So Gaffney is up there with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. And for whatever Zionist reason, WND fails to mention this.
But for fairness, I will copy what Nash had to say, but which also shows his bias.
“They should not be enriching any uranium. Reactors that are used for nuclear power burn three-and-a-half percent enriched uranium. Twenty percent is for medical isotopes, and that’s what Iranians are claiming they need. Ninety percent, and you’re talking weapons grade,” said Nash, who noted that despite Iran’s insistence the nuclear program is not for weapons, the facts to the contrary are very clear.
“They’re building a plutonium reactor at the heavy water facility at Arak,” he said. “You don’t use plutonium in power plants. Plutonium is used for nuclear weapons. So the fact that we would allow them to do enrichment is against all the rules and treaties. Once you give into these people, they won’t take an inch. They’ll take a mile.”
...So are the discussions timed to stall Israeli action?
“It very well could be because Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu once said, ‘Leadership in the absence of a threat is very difficult, but leadership in the presence of a clearly defined threat is a no-brainer,’” Nash said. “He and the Israelis have been facing a direct, existential threat from Iran for many decades, and now they are on the verge of being able to produce their own nuclear weapons. And what they are not producing and what they are conducting inside the borders of Iran, they are working with the North Koreans and their research programs. It’s not just static inside Iran. We have to look at what’s going on in North Korea, because they are joined at the hip in these development programs.”
[source : Analyst: Iran now 'building a plutonium reactor', WND, http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/analyst-iran-now-building-a-plutonium-reactor, 12th November 2013]
Nash was recently criticised for being one of those commentators who frequently appeared in the media to push a pro-war agenda without revealing their industrial and commercial ties, much like WND has done. Here is what Nash had to say about Syria earlier this year:
MARTHA: What do you think should be done? Do you think Congress should vote to approve this strike?
NASH: It depends on what this strike really entails. If this strike is nothing more than poking our nose in there and not changing the game then, no. Because if you take a shot at somebody, you should expect them to take a shot back at you. Therefore, this ought to be part of an overall plan that achieves certain strategic political ends, and if it doesn’t, if all it is is “doing something” then, no, I don’t support that at all. But if it’s to change the events on the ground and we have a plan on what we want that outcome to look like then, yes, I can say support it because the President has already gotten far out in front of the whole process with his rhetoric, and now the United States and our reputation abroad is really swinging in the balance.
[source : Conflicts of interest in the Syria debate, Public Accountability Initiative, http://public-accountability.org/2013/10/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-syria-debate/, 11th October 2013]
So pro-war on Syria Nash, who works for PNAC mobster Gaffney, is cited in a WND article praising Netanyahu and Israel, but the article omits any mention of Nash's current links or hunger to illegally install al Qaeda as de facto rulers of Syria.
Hmm. Is that journalism? Or propaganda?
No comments:
Post a Comment