digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at guardian.co.uk —

Did the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency give Iran the bomb?

guardian.co.uk — George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • vroom101, on 06/02/2008, -3/+117Please note that "six years ago" = the year 2000 (calculated from the article's publication date: January 5, 2006).
    • PiGuy, on 06/03/2008, -4/+45So this would be during Clinton's administration then, not Bush's as most will imply from the description and image.
      • unreg, on 06/03/2008, -7/+31But it gains more attention if we can make it seem as though its George's fault.
      • CrazedLeper, on 06/03/2008, -15/+7It may have happened on Clinton's watch but that need not require his complicity. The mission of the CIA is bigger than any president. Of course, that's not to say that he didn't know, just that his knowledge is not a necessity.
        • cawpin, on 06/03/2008, -9/+18Yeah, I'm sure you would have pointed that out if it would have been during Bush's tenure. This entire article is ridiculous.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/03/2008, -10/+3Yes, I would have pointed it out if it were Bush. The Bushes are a family of evil a mass murderers and they did do 9/11. You just don't want to believe it because they told you not to listen to people who tell the truth--and you don't. The worst is yet to come.
      • vroom101, on 06/03/2008, -6/+8From the article: "Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist's fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states."
      • sodade, on 06/03/2008, -10/+10Yes, Clinton and Bush are both just tools of the MIC which has been playing the american people as fools for 60 years.
        • dforty3, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5Absolutely...
          http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/

          There is but one real political party and that's the Corporate Power Party. The Left and Right arms of the political system are indeed the arms of this same power group. They each pander to their followers, but in the end, they make things happen in the interest of the Corporate powers (Iraq, Patriot Act, Military Commisons Act, failure to Impeach, etc.) They are just role players. The Corporate media plays along with this game and is tightly controlled and manipulated to give the people a false choice. If you think that Obama is less likely to go to war with Iran than Clinton or McCain, then you haven't noticed the propaganda machine setting the stage for the single acceptable response called for after the next false flag attack. The public will demand they attack Iran at the mere suggestion of involvement by Iran of any type of attack. At the same time, they can pander, but when push comes to shove, anything less than a Nuclear attack on Iran after another "catalyzing event" will be deemed unacceptable by the drooling majority of the public.
      • 55mph, on 06/03/2008, -7/+6Let's not confuse the Traitors. Since Regean, they've all worked for masters of chaos, the NWO.

        Tell me Patriots, do you think NAFTA is in your best interest?

        Meanwhile it was recently revealed that Halliburton, using an offshore entity, has been selling restricted technology to Iran as recent as 2005.
    • blackeagle613, on 06/03/2008, -15/+3as much as I hate bush I have to bury this article.
    • morcheeba, on 06/03/2008, -3/+23Yep, that was George Tenet heading up the CIA (term: 1997-2004). You might remember him from other things, like asserting the case for WMDs against Hussein was "a slam dunk". Bush gave him the highest civilian award - the presidential medal of freedom - for this spectacular work. Oh, also, waterboarding started under his term.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet
    • themastersb, on 06/03/2008, -1/+17They set them up the bomb.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Might I suggest they make their time.
    • xtraa, on 06/03/2008, -5/+6"So this would be during Clinton's administration then, not Bush's as most will imply from the description and image."

      This doesn't really make a difference if you look at the CIA chief.

      "blablah... After John Deutch's abrupt resignation in December 1996, Tenet served as acting director. This was followed by the withdrawal of Anthony Lake, whose nomination had been blocked by Republicans in Congress. Tenet was then officially appointed Director ... Tenet served through the end of the Clinton administration and well into the term of George W. Bush."
    • silverbulletky, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2Wait a minute? I thought they didn't have weapons of mass destruction??
    • OwdenBowden, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1IF THIS IS TRUE - Did anyone even consider that they did this for a specific reason? For details about what I am talking about check out the movie DETERRENCE

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(film)

      http://www.cinemasense.com/Reviews/deterrence.htm

    • MonexFRAUD, on 09/17/2008, -0/+0You should probably think about investing in gold and silver in these troubled times.
      Just don't buy your precious metals from Monex!
      http://www.monexfraud.com
  • Tangaroa, on 06/03/2008, -4/+96The answer to "why" for the lazy who didn't click through: the CIA plan was to give Iran faulty schematics that would set their nuke program back a few years if they tried to incorporate them. Their go-between noticed some problems in the diagrams and offered to correct them...
    • jferrari, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8Wasn't that an episode of spooks?
    • brjohnson789, on 06/03/2008, -4/+17This whole story doesn't make a lot of sense. There are many nuclear scientists who could easily build some sort of bomb; this isn't like the one person in the world who figured out cold fusion. And if this guy could find problems with the plan from just looking at within a few hours, I'm sure someone from Iran could find the problems eventually too. Either the people working at the CIA are very dumb, or someone actually did want to give the Iranians some help w/ their nuke program. The fact the Russian guy pointed out the problem only saved Iran a little time. Perhaps this whole story, since it IS public, is to influence public opinion. It appears we 'accidentally' gave Iran plans for a nuke, when in reality we meant to give them plans the entire time. Since we 'accidentally' gave them plans, its just 'our bad', but we'll go invade to fix the problem. In reality we wanted to invade the entire time, so we made sure they got some sort of plans.
      • EarlOfLade, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9The problem does not lie in the science of a nuclear device, I can tell you all that and in detail. There are no secrets involved in it. The problem lies in the engineering and design of the trigger mechanism and the explosives that wil bring the uranium core together to form a super-critical mass and in such a short time span that it will not fizzle.
        There is also the small problem of getting your hands on the equipment needed in order to achieve the level of tolerance needed.
        So, the problem is not so how much how-to build one, but how to get equipment needed and the engineering details on how to make all the necessary support devices needed in order to achieve an actual sustainable fission.

      • Peetweefish, on 06/03/2008, -3/+3Do you really think the CIA has stopped there? I mean, the CIA has its dirty little fingers everywhere and their plans are intricate (if we look historically at the release of details such as those from Vietnam), so looking at this small piece that the public knows about one oops without knowing everything that the CIA knows leaves us speculating and believing that the CIA are idiots or believing what equates to nothing more than another conspiracy theory about the Bush administration. They have probably already killed everyone involved in the subject of this book.

        You fail sir, you fail. The CIA pwnt your brain.
    • mrpleco, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Oops.
    • richmomz, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Well, we gave bin Laden guerrilla warfare training during the Afgan/Soviet war so it wouldn't surprise me if at some point in the past we WERE dumb enough to give Iran working nuke technology (possibly with some bizarre backwards logic of giving us an excuse to bomb them later). The CIA has a long history of doing things without much foresight.
  • OC73, on 06/03/2008, -8/+27What the CIA giveth, the CIA taketh away.
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/03/2008, -13/+13Exactly--the same as they did Sadaam. They give them the weapons to make sure they have a pretext for killing them. That's true evil like only America can do.

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Is_the_handwriti ...
      • acdcfanbill, on 06/03/2008, -4/+6Technically they gave him weapons so he would beat Iran, who we gave weapons too before, but then there was a regime change and suddenly Iran wasn't our friend anymore.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4So why, then, are "we" selling them dangerous weapons? So that there will be pretext to disarm them later.
      • retawd, on 06/03/2008, -5/+6Me believe anything I read on Internet as long as it fits into my particular political paradigm. Me no think further than that.
    • flaknugget, on 06/03/2008, -1/+5Um no, that has never been the case.

      The CIA has a habit of applying extreme, short-term solutions to contemporary problems. Often with political fallouts that last for generations afterwards, sometimes the political fallout lasts for so long time it becomes a cultural trait.
      • GhostFreeman, on 06/03/2008, -3/+2A mushroom cloud over a big american city -- its just a cultural trait!
        • worldchanger, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2yeah, because there seem to be a lot of those happening.
  • spyderbc, on 06/03/2008, -6/+56"Pick up the gun."
  • ripple01, on 06/03/2008, -9/+102Somebody set up Iran the bomb?
    • TomFrost, on 06/03/2008, -1/+21I came into this thread specifically to post that. Cheers on beating me to it ;-)
    • impei, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8They did it to Iraq. Why not Iran as well? The list of Iraq's WMD's were just copied from sales receipts from the 1980's.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/03/2008, -10/+3Guys its the GUARDIAN from the UK.

      Will you please:
      READ the f*cking article
      READ the f*cking date
      and READ to see if they have credible sources!

      This is a poorly unfounded, propaganda article that is flatly untrue!
    • ThantiK, on 06/03/2008, -9/+1Your doing it wrong. - "Somebody set us up the bomb" would be:

      "Somebody set Iran up the bomb?" - please fail less next time.
    • miatman, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8Make your time!
    • rz8472, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5Launch all Digg for Great Justice.
    • Observer001, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I think they get signal with complicated encoded data about constructing the bomb, and later a shipment of parts, but yes, basically. We have no chance to survive, one supposes, and making your time might be something to consider.
  • Rizmaster, on 06/03/2008, -20/+5If they have it, it's our fault.
  • supaklaw, on 06/03/2008, -19/+10Hmmm, gee, giving or selling someone WMDs... sounds familiar... hmmm.
  • crapmatic, on 06/03/2008, -12/+10What you say?
  • craighoxton, on 06/03/2008, -9/+63Iranian women are the bomb.
  • Guldu, on 06/03/2008, -32/+79America has a trillion dollar defence, has America ever explained that to the world? Yet when China increases its defence budget say from 15 to 20 billion dollars, America demands an explanation. America and its allies have the sole right to spend lavishly on defence, this is what America wants to say. When America arms to its teeth and invades other countries under false pretext that does not destabilize the world, but when other nations take steps to secure their sovereignty, according to the Americans that is a destabilizing step. I just wonder how long the world will tolerate this heinous policy of the America.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-f ...
    • skribble, on 06/03/2008, -3/+12Yes, but our military toilet seats are very expensive.
      • michaelzhao, on 06/03/2008, -1/+4i think to the tune of over 100 bucks?
        • 55mph, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5no, $100 is what we pay for Halliburton to have someone else do 1 pound of laundry in Iraq. Maybe theres a 99.8% profit margin in that.

          Halliburton will need the money to build their new corporate headquarters in the UAE when they move there 30 seconds after Bush and Cheney leave office.
    • trumpcard, on 06/03/2008, -7/+4You missed soviet russia.
    • sodade, on 06/03/2008, -5/+10The real atrocity is the 60 years of fleecing the american middle class to buy all this military crap that has not once been used (post ww2) for the actual benefit of the american people.
      • digitalpencil, on 06/03/2008, -5/+5Yeh, i think the real atrocity is the number of brown people America's blown the balls of under the flag of 'freedom'.
      • lajaw, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Wow, I'm actually agreeing with a socialist. You are correct. Let's put the military on the borders and flip off the rest of the world.
        • sodade, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I am not a socialist, I am a pragmatist and I am all for keeping the population of our country under control. I don't think we should "flip off the rest of the world," but I am all for flipping off Israel and the neocons who sold us to them.
        • lajaw, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1If any country needs our protection, it is Israel. And the best way to keep our population under control is to control immigration. And we should "flip off" the rest of the world as far as our military goes. Trade yes, military no.
          and yes, you are a socialist. "you kinda NEED a certain degree of socialism." How can you say that and not be one?
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/03/2008, -10/+12The world will tolerate this policy until they are removed under the false pretext of a "war on terror". The dream of the Nazi/Aryan movement is a world of 50 millions Aryans and nobody else. That is why they *know* the "war on terror" will last 100 years, because that is how long it will take to kill over 6 billion people. It is also why a missile shield is being built over Europe (protect the queen first). China isn't likely to take their scheduled eradication lying down.
      • ender7074, on 06/03/2008, -10/+6You do realize you are an idiot right?
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/03/2008, -4/+9You'll find out--when it's too late. Also, your mother.
      • digitalpencil, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3I'm aware that the shield system is comprised of radars and interceptors but am I the only one that envisioned a simpsons style dome dropped over the EU?
      • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2Eradicating the Earth's population would not serve anybody's interests. The current world order is a lot more rational than Hitler was. That's not to say they're not evil, but why kill all those cheap sources of labour and contaminate all that land?

        Plus, "scheduled eradication" of China? They could pull the plug on our economy in a heartbeat. China is also a major nuclear power, and it's virtually impossible that the US' NMD system will be able to stop 100% of the arsenals of powers like China, Russia, etc. anytime soon.

        The purpose of the War on Terror is to keep the population complacent while making certain people obscenely rich. Genocide is immaterial to them; many in power are amoral enough not to mind committing it, but they're not gonna kill the world for fun. They want money and power. Why collapse the global economy when you can control it?
        • buckrogers1965, on 06/03/2008, -2/+1Your assumption is that because a group of people are rich and powerful that they are somehow magically sane. This is not necessarily true. Like Michael Jackson at his wackiest, many rich people are used to never being told no, even when they are loony toons.
        • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1So your argument is that all the world leaders happen to be completely insane? I have a simpler theory: you are paranoid.

          There's plenty enough to get pissed off about without creating fantastical scenarios for omnicide. Please tell me which particular world leaders you expect to want to annihilate the entire world population, what they think this will accomplish and how/when they will attempt to do it. You make less sense than most Ron Paul supporters.
    • Updesh, on 06/03/2008, -6/+10American invades a country and those responsible >could, but not may be< voted out, China invades/threatens a country - Tibet, Taiwan, Mongolia, etc. and guess what no one can do anything other than the US

      Americans may not be as good as they can be, but it sure beats dictators that murder their own citizens and sell their organs to line their pockets, that's why we need to care
      • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4The idea that democracy makes everything OK is precisely how ***** like Iraq happens. Put down your 18th century political theory and look around. How, exactly, would you propose mobilising a population that is utterly saturated with fear and propaganda against something like a war? The only major war in modern US history to end due to civilian discontent was Vietnam, and not before many years of complacency. Many argue that the draft was what motivated young people to take a stand and end Vietnam; the government learned its lesson and realised that they could just bribe the poor who have little economic opportunity to serve as 'volunteer' troops, or hire mercenaries like Blackwater.

        China has done some ***** up things to Tibet and Xinjiang, but "invaded" is hardly accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Chinese troops have *never* waged a war of conquest outside historic Chinese lands, unless you count their brief foray into Vietnam. The current regime represses ethnic minorities brutally (they actually studied the American campaign against Native Americans to model their programs after), but China is not an aggressive nation.

        Our government murders its own citizens, too. We have the death penalty, and our 'anti-terror' ad hoc legal system gives any country's political prisons a run for their money. Our leaders do more to line their pockets than the leaders of almost any (non-OPEC) nation on the planet. We have fought more major wars on foreign soil than almost any other country; since we became a nation, we've averaged a major war every 20 years or so, and since the Civil War every one has been primarily fought off American soil (the notable exception being, of course, Pearl Harbor, but the vast majority of American fighting in WWII was in Europe and the Pacific). But, because we get to vote for one of two nearly identical candidates every four years, we imagine that everything our government does is legitimate. Pretty nice scam they've got going there, isn't it?
    • jabberwolf, on 06/03/2008, -8/+6Updesh is making a point that Guldu makes a poor poor comparison and does not compare other countries that actually invade and then annex the countries.

      The USA doesnt take over country and then add them to the USA. They dont even have anything like a "commonwealth"

      So the fantasy of imperialism is a farce. The USA is one of the only countries that actually does do something AGAINST imperialism if anything.
      • caramba420, on 06/03/2008, -3/+5"The USA doesnt take over country and then add them to the USA. They dont even have anything like a 'commonwealth'"

        I'll just assume you haven't heard of Guam, The Marshall Islands, American Samoa, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, the US Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico.

        Or maybe you'd like to learn about a little country of 90 million people called the Philippines. Pay special attention to the part that happened right around the turn of the 20th Century.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines

        Please, please, please, for everyone's sake READ before you start spewing ***** out of your mouth.
      • JinnRikki, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3The U.S. isn't so much concerned with territorial acquisition as it is concerned with what is under that territory. The coming battle for rights to the North Pole will be...interesting.
      • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2I like how caramba gets buried for listing a bunch of factual responses to jabberwolf...

        What difference does it make whether we use the word "Commonwealth" or not? American troops are still in virtually every country they ever have been in, in addition to all the above mentioned territories we've essentially annexed. Also, anyone with even a basic understanding of modern geopolitics can tell you that official sovereignty over territory isn't nearly as important as strategic access (e.g., those military bases we build in almost every country) and resource control (e.g., invading Iraq and giving contracts to American companies for 'reconstruction.' Of course the US isn't following 19th century models of imperialism; name one country that is. Name one single country that regularly engages in wars of territorial acquisition now, in the 21st century. That's not how neo-imperialism works.

        I'm not making this ***** up. There is, in fact, a whole body of scholarship ADVOCATING neo-imperialism as the "rich man's burden" to "fix" the world. The entire neoconservative ideology in the US is premised on the need for the US to remain an overwhelming superpower, capable of exerting its will as it needs to anywhere in the world. The extremist neocons like Podhoretz advocate the need to 'splatter a country up against the wall' with overwhelming force, e.g. what we did in Iraq (Podhoretz is one of the most vocal advocates of a follow-up war in Iran to re-establish our military credibility as well as protect US interests).
      • buckrogers1965, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2So when we put a military base in another country they get to put the same size military base inside our country too right? I mean after all, we are only putting military bases on our "friends" countries, so it should be just fine letting them put one on our soil.

        What? You aren't OK with letting foreign troops on American soil... because it means that we have given up sovereignty to foreign powers?

        Yeah. It does. And any country that lets us put a military base on their soil has given up sovereignty to us. Even if only a little bit.

        The United States is an Empire as surely as Rome was an Empire.
        • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, and we sure seem to be following in their footsteps... Establishing long-term bases in far-off, desolate regions of the world, relying more and more on mercenaries to fight our wars... Nothing bad happened to Rome after they started doing all this stuff, right?
    • ozjonesjr, on 06/03/2008, -1/+4It's actually a lot closer to $500 billion (just in case actual facts are important to you).
      • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1The Department of Defense budget is a little over $500B nowadays, but when you factor in other defence spending like Veteran's Affairs (budgeted separately from the DoD), all nuclear related spending which goes through the Dept. of Energy, non-military defense spending like much of the work done by intelligence agencies, etc., the total amount of the US budget spent on defense-related programs has passed the trillion dollar mark.
    • tehxen3, on 06/03/2008, -2/+2Maybe that's because USA is a liberal democracy which never attacked a free country, and China is a transitioning corrupted communist semi-dictatorship?
      Free countries have every right to try to keep potentially dangerous regimes in check, dumbass.
      • caramba420, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2BZZZT Wrong!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_W ...

        Not to mention the assassination of Salvador Allende, and subsequent install of Pinochet, though that doesn't really qualify as an invasion
      • solistus, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2We redefine our enemies as enemies of freedom. "Free country" is relative. When was the last time China invaded a country that would meet your definition of free?

        Countries don't have "rights." Rights can only exist within a legal framework established by countries. Countries exist in a state of international anarchy and are limited by capabilities and goals, not rights. Come on, this is International Relations 101 type stuff. The fact that western democracies grant themselves the 'task' of keeping the world 'safe for democracy' if and when it suits them does not legitimate imperialism.

        If free means respecting the democratic rule of law, didn't the US cease to be free when it did things like abandon habeus corpus or ignore international law to invade Iraq? Please give me a comprehensive definition of what it means to be a 'free' society that the US meets and its military targets do not. While you're at it, explain why the US is so cozy with non-democracies like Saudi Arabia and so hostile toward democratically elected leaders like Chavez? For *****'s sake, we ASSASSINATED Allende back in the day and installed a military dictator in his place! When you get out of grade school, you'll learn that the true motives of countries and their geopolitical strategies have little to do with the ***** lines you get fed about freedom and democracy.

        The US does not spend its defense budget keeping potentially dangerous regimes in check. We ignored North Korea when they threatened to turn New York and LA into a sea of fire, and we invaded Iraq when Saddam gave Bush a funny look or whatever the ***** happened there. We have a long and proud tradition of negotiating with terrorists, sponsoring dictatorships and death squads and basically taking a nice big dump all over our professed virtues and ideals. Wake up and smell the Iran-Contra.
        • Qumahlin, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2shhhhhhhhh, talking about what America actually does instead of what America advertises to its citizens is considered being un-american. Whats amazing is that given our long corrupt history our citizens refuse to believe it, or are convinced its all been for our own good...
    • clickx, on 06/03/2008, -3/+4Who the hell diggs a person that doesn't have their facts right? The US Defense Spending is not over a trillion dollars. More like 500 billion.
      • buckrogers1965, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Most of the money that goes into servicing the national debt we owe counts as military spending too, since we borrowed the money to support our military programs.
      • Qumahlin, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Correct, 500 billion plus interest compounded every year on top of interest still owed from the 500 billion borrowed the previous year. and the year before that and the year before that.

        America's "defense" spending is essentially limitless and is rarely justified. The pentagon learned long ago that if they don't make sure to spend all the money allocated to them...then they won't get as much the following year.
    • Ortheos, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Chinas true defence budget when adjusted for PPP and when you consider that they DON'T consider military related research and other factors into their budget (border guard/military police etc) is closer to $300-$400 Billion.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 06/03/2008, -18/+12Nobody on this planet consistently misspeaks and miscalculates so much. Especially when their daddy was director of the CIA and a US president.

    This is about setting up Iran.

    They're following Abraham. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel.

    Mesopotamia ---> The land of Canaan.

    We live in a sick, insane world.
    • MaynardJK, on 06/03/2008, -7/+5Read the very first comment *****.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 06/03/2008, -5/+5Guess who was director of the CIA in 2000:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet

        Clinton =/= CIA.

        "Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq."
        • SRSco, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5Tenet...who was appointed by Clinton.

          Tenet =/= Bush guy only.
        • vexingmodstwo, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4Do you think ElAssoWipo realizes what he just did?
        • jamesrdorn, on 06/03/2008, -4/+3I think he was referring to Bush Senior. This is well documented.
        • SRSco, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4Referring to Bush senior how? "Nobody on this planet consistently misspeaks and miscalculates so much. Especially when their daddy was director of the CIA and a US president." He's not referring to Bush senior there. He's referring to W. Who has nothing to do with this.
    • unreg, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5Read the article. It was the Clinton administrations brainstorm
    • torressr3, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4Its always the same *****.
      america has one enemy, so they give weapons to their enemies.
      With time their interests change, and suddenly they have new enemies, their old friends.
      They bomb the ***** out of them, destroy everything, steal what they can (in this case they are still stealing in Iraq the oil). And then leave saying: "We freed you should be thankful."

      Afghanistan, Iraq, it is independent from the president, its the world power of war.
      • XminorXthreatX, on 06/03/2008, -1/+0I'm pretty sure if the most powerful country in the world wanted the oil in Iraq we would have gotten it, I wish we were stealing it haha, and get that nice 78 cents a gallon they have.
    • toowired77, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0How do you connect Ur with Afghanistan? I never knew that Abraham lived in Iran? This is about OIL and power. Its that simple.
  • Steinr, on 06/03/2008, -13/+4something like this would never happen. after all the US is the worlds most peaceful nation and the CIA is just a friendly cop organization.
  • plizard, on 06/03/2008, -18/+4well somebody set them up the bomb
  • LooterMcBeer, on 06/03/2008, -8/+68If the article was published Jan5 2006 and 6 years previous they got the bomb which would make it Jan 5 2000 then George Bush and his administration had absolutely nothing to do with giving Iran Nuclear weapons that would be the Clinton administration.....
    • slvrbullet87, on 06/03/2008, -7/+32Dont bring truth into this, we are gettin sum bush hatin done


      /sarcasm
    • vroom101, on 06/03/2008, -3/+18From the article:

      Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist's fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states.
    • Proctor, on 06/03/2008, -7/+2Bush still did it.
    • IamJustinM, on 06/03/2008, -6/+2nothing to do with it? read the article numb nut.
  • kuatto, on 06/03/2008, -18/+19the us also gave aids to blacks. i heard it on my church
    • zeabu, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5They actually did. (It has been on cracked.com for eg.)
  • YZBot, on 06/03/2008, -1/+24Faulty information. Besides, as an added bonus, you can also follow the paper trail resulting to see where they sell their information. Find hidden connections and alliances. Just as an example, You give faulty plans to Iran. Iran claims they do not support 'xxxx' terrorist group. Intelligence finds out that 'xxxx' terrorist group has identical faulty plan copies. Oops, someone just got caught in a lie.
  • lead2thehead, on 06/03/2008, -3/+12It seems more likely that they intentionally gave them botched blueprints, hoping that they'd blow themselves up.
    • themonkman, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1The article stated they gave them blueprints that would create little more than a fizzle. If they gave them something that would cause a substantial nuclear fission and explosion, then everyone would wonder how they obtained the technology. There are only several sources of that information in the world.
      • Katana314, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1That IS what they intended to do. But as they said, while it works for small weapons, it's far too high-risk to do it with an atom bomb.
  • Taktic, on 06/03/2008, -3/+20Last 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.
  • zyl0x, on 06/03/2008, -8/+5Oh rhetorical questions, how I never tire of seeing you on Digg.
  • cutekelvins, on 06/03/2008, -8/+4Now the strategy has changed. They want to give it to India. But I dunno why they are not taking it.
    • webcrumb, on 06/03/2008, -1/+3Russia is supplying a lot of nuclear tech to India, including building reactors and supplying fuel.
    • Tenlow, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5India already has the bomb anyways.
    • ramprasadh, on 06/03/2008, -2/+0You should sit down and think about why you are gettin' buried....
  • banderwocky, on 06/03/2008, -8/+5Probably. Wouldn't be the first failed nation building tactic from an incompetent organization.
  • tman84, on 06/03/2008, -8/+13Judging by these comments, someone needs to give digg some English lessons.
  • nirvanix, on 06/03/2008, -7/+3So they could tell everyone else that Iran has a bomb and justify their conquest of the Middle East? It's just crazy enough to work.
  • Oboeshoes, on 06/03/2008, -2/+16Why does it even matter? Can't anyone get schematics for nukes online?
    • TheOther1, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9Only as a torrent. Try piratebay
      • webcrumb, on 06/03/2008, -1/+6Though that's not a search I'd want to try on the open 'net.
      • citymadness, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1scared the NSA is tracking? aren't they supposed to have a complete duplicate of all the traffic routed through the web? (the world's web traffic is supposedly routed through the US in a lot of cases, i read it on wired)
  • chaoscode, on 06/03/2008, -9/+4I have one word for the CIA. Epic FAIL.
  • Wargalas, on 06/03/2008, -7/+23From the article:

    Iran has spent nearly 20 years trying to develop nuclear weapons, and in the process has created a strong base of sophisticated scientists knowledgeable enough to spot flaws in nuclear blueprints. Tehran also obtained nuclear blueprints from the network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and so already had workable blueprints against which to compare the designs obtained from the CIA. Nuclear experts say that they would thus be able to extract valuable information from the blueprints while ignoring the flaws.

    But....but...Keith Olbermann said that "they're making it all up about Iran"?!!? Someone's head is going to explode. I think it's going to be diggers. Of course, they won't bother to read up on the issue, including looking up the IAEA report that says there are "serious questsions" that remain that the Iranians have stonewalled about.
    • ender7074, on 06/03/2008, -14/+12Digg only exists for self-righteous liberal whack jobs to pat each other on the back for being self-righteous liberal whack jobs. Truth, intelligence, or anything thats not about either Obama or the THEORY of global warming doesnt have a chance here.
      • SuperVepr308, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4Good Lord! You could not be more correct in your estimation of digg. In simpler terms, it is a daily liberal circle-jerk.
    • WikiEasy, on 06/03/2008, -4/+7LULZ ender, your post should be written in bold on every Digger's forehead.
  • BCCStu, on 06/03/2008, -8/+2They set us up the bomb?
  • vexingmodstwo, on 06/03/2008, -1/+7Umm... I thought Iran didn't have nuclear weapons (or nuclear technology for weapons vs for energy production)?
  • thesandbender, on 06/03/2008, -0/+21Buried for an article summary that is wrong and blatantly misleading. From TFA : "The story dates back to the Clinton administration and February 2000..." Additionally, the operation was an attempt to provide Iranians faulty bomb plans. The whole thing has been covered by Frontline, The Discovery Channel and print media several times.
  • WHUFCIrons2, on 06/03/2008, -2/+9Thanks, Guardian. Another shoddy piece of two-bob journalism.
    • webcrumb, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Are there any sources of information you actually consider decent? You seem to make a habit of casting doubt over journalism like this...
      • Monk22, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1because the same crappy sources are posted day in and day out. god forbid someone go to Reuters or something respectable.
        • webcrumb, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2It's not a news article, it "is an edited extract from State of War, by James Risen, published by The Free Press"

          "This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday January 05 2006 on p10 of the ***Comment & features section***. It was last updated at 09:52 on January 05 2006. "
        • Monk22, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1"This article appeared"
  • levelred, on 06/03/2008, -9/+8Iran-Contra
    • tito13kfm, on 06/03/2008, -2/+6↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A Select Start
      • vroom101, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Where did you get those symbols...how did you get the two up arrows above the word "Start"?
  • katorga, on 06/03/2008, -6/+2Please....anyone can get plans for building a fission bomb. The physics is simple and well documented. The requirements for uranium enrichment are clear as are critical mass values. Scientists can calculate any variables and engineers can design around them. What is HARD is developing the infrastructure to make the component pieces - and that was sold to Iran by France, Germany and Russia. A fusion bomb is more difficult, but still possible.
  • britblogger, on 06/03/2008, -8/+2it's because the Americans have historically "Indian-given" - here you go, oh hang on, can we have that back?

    for further information, read up on the history of Thanksgiving.

    • stubear, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1At that time it would have been Europeans, America had yet to become a sovereign nation; see Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Revolutionary War, etc.
    • WikiEasy, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3You didn't even bother reading the article...
  • peaceninja, on 06/03/2008, -9/+4an interviewer asks condi, bush and cheney about this article. here are their responses:

    condi: an eloquent, evasive response, almost abrasive
    bush: a friendly, hayseed response with some mispronunciations
    cheney: "so?"
  • reflect23, on 06/03/2008, -9/+2Are you the bomb? Say what?
    Are you the bomb? Excuse me?
    Are you the bomb? Well... yeah!
    Then blow up.
    • reflect23, on 06/03/2008, -2/+1it was a funny song that came out sometime around 1994. Around the same time as "Yo, who dat?" "It's just my baby's daddy, it's just my baby's daddy", etc...
  • elliotys, on 06/03/2008, -5/+3Russian: "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong."
    • themonkman, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3Dugg for Sesame Street reference in a nuclear bomb article.
  • known, on 06/03/2008, -10/+2An appeal to Americans:
    Please shun ignorance and innocence towards rest of the world.
  • NewGTGuy, on 06/03/2008, -9/+7Problem, reaction, solution...

    Welcome to the Military Industrial Complex.
    • NewGTGuy, on 06/03/2008, -2/+3Why the hell am I being dugg down? This stategy has been used since WWI.

      Am I wrong???
      • clickx, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Cause this isn't really military industrial complex. I guess it can lead to it...
  • DaMarsMan, on 06/03/2008, -14/+3George Bush hates black people.
  • justjoehere, on 06/03/2008, -4/+5Reads like a b-rated fiction book.
    • TonyLocNE, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1yes... b-rated fiction, all from a book authored by a Pulitzer Prize winner for investigative reporting.

      The book is very hard to read though if you are not fluent in the history of the United States and their world affairs. I found myself a couple times having to jump on the internet to do more background reading before I could move on.
      • justjoehere, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I disagree, the book is easy enough for a fourth grader to read. It does require suspension of disbelief in many parts because the plot-line, and it is a plot-line, is uncorroborated; not to mention that it is not a fact-finding mission. In the end, it still doesn't change the fact that it reads like b-rated fiction.
        • TonyLocNE, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I'll give you uncorroborated on the basis that he does not cite any sources, however, many of the subjects he touches on are quite real, though hard to prove because of plausible deniability.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 06/03/2008, -13/+9Anyone else find it humorous that a large percentage of Diggers (read Obamamaniacs) are remaining silent in these comments?

    I think it's pretty funny.
    • zeabu, on 06/03/2008, -3/+1That's from before Obama. Can't see why you want to blame it on him.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 06/03/2008, -3/+3Are you high? I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm pointing out how quiet you Obamabots are on this.
        • chaosblade77, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1Is that a problem? Should people be discussing Obama on an article that doesn't relate to him at all?
        • vexingmodstwo, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1Obamabots, not Obama. Are you people dumb?
    • zeroflake, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I'm a Obamamaniac!! WOOT!!! Obama is my bomb!!! rawr!!! but yes, i kinda blame him for iran getting the bomb in 2000.
  • thepeacemaker, on 06/03/2008, -4/+5Maz Jobrani explains why Iranians are peaceful... this guy is too funny.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuC_qXwOGpc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADU1lhEb1X0
    • zeroflake, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1good links, actually somewhat educational. most people dont get the persian vs arab differences.
  • aupton, on 06/03/2008, -10/+11Does anyone still have faith in the United States government? Does anyone still trust that they are watching out for the American people's best interest?
    • TALONZ69, on 06/03/2008, -6/+6
      Of course not. The US government is evil, pure and simple. There isn't an evil on the planet they won't do. They are responsible for everything bad on the planet, even before this country was founded! Didn't you know that?

      You people on Digg make me ill..Seriously...Daily Amercia is made out to be the worst country, government, society on the planet. I just don't get it. I know Bush sucks...The Iraq war sucks, but are these reasons to constantly bash this country? We are not bad people....We are just made out to be...
  • flink405, on 06/03/2008, -5/+6The CIA really gave them the plans to a cartoon Atom Bomb. When it blows up a giant flag pops out and with the word "Boom!" on it.
    LOL.
  • dizilbdog, on 06/03/2008, -3/+4That's what we do we arm them then blow them up then arm them then blow them up it's a great cycle like LIfe.
  • moxley, on 06/03/2008, -7/+5Add valerie plame, the Reagan administration's dealing via the hostage negotiation and iran/contra (which goes back to the late 70s as they agreed to give the Iranians as many guns, missles and weapons of all sorts as they wanted if they would delay the hostage release until after the inauguation) - add all of that into this equation and it gets even more interesting.
  • nkleffman, on 06/03/2008, -9/+20So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?

    The same reason Wall Street financed Hitler, the same reason we gave the Soviet Union our industrial and military technology for decades, and the same reason the CIA trained and financed Al Qaeda / Mujahideen along with the other boogey men. Why? So that they can convince you not to just to relinquish your rights, but that you will demand of your loving leaders to strip your rights away in the name of security.
    • ClassicCon, on 06/03/2008, -4/+2Ohh..so wordly in the ways of history all from the comfort of your parent funded dorm room. So Hitler and 9/11 were government contrived boogey men huh? Let me guess you woke up about 11 a.m. today and are just now getting dressed to go get some fast food.

      Oh and by rights I am assuming not being able to steal other people's music.

      Grow up poindexter.
  • chkdg8, on 06/03/2008, -4/+4@ title: Um, yes.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 06/03/2008, -1/+19Ask Bill Clinton: "the plan was first approved by Clinton"
    • 55mph, on 06/03/2008, -1/+5Billary had more plans for us. Tis a shame they are now put on hold.
      • shwerm601, on 06/03/2008, -4/+1Lets leave bill out of this he was a good man
        • Monk22, on 06/03/2008, -1/+3i like the part where he let us get attacked multiple times with no retaliation, sent our troops to europe but he got a bj from an intern so no one heard about it. not to mention the tech boom that turned out to be tech *****. so not really a fan personally.
        • buckrogers1965, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1He retaliated. Measured responses.

          As I recall at the time the line the Republicans used in opposing a Democratic president from doing anything military was, "We are not the worlds policemen."
    • junkwheel, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1He did it for the money and women.
    • OrdinaryPanda, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Let's ask B Clinton AND GWBush, he continued the operation. It sounds like they had a bad execution of the faulty blueprints meant to set them back. The operative noticed it just by glancing at it, and instead of "going back to the drawing board" (literally!) to make a better stab at it, they were impatient and forged ahead, anyway. CIA loses big points in the rush to get it done period, instead of getting it done RIGHT.
  • davmattucci, on 06/03/2008, -2/+2Someone set them up the bomb.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.