Getting It Backwards
Getting It Backwards
The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency met today to decide whether to reappoint Mohamed ElBaradei to a third term as the head of the UN’s atomic watchdog agency. They had to postpone the decision: thirty-four out of the 35 IAEA board member countries support naming Mohamed ElBaradei to a third term. One, however, opposed: The United States wants to block his nomination.
Yep, it’s payback time. El Baradei, remember, spoke up against the White House’s campaign of misinformation in the days before the invasion of Iraq, providing intelligence that shot down White House rationales for going to war. And he made the grievous mistake of being right:
He Was Right About Nuclear Weapons: IAEA Director ElBaradei told the United Nations that nuclear experts had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In February 2003, he warned the White House “We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.” President Bush’s nomination to the U.N., John Bolton, attacked him, saying that was “impossible to believe.” (Today, two years after the invasion of Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and, in fact, the “intelligence” provided by Bolton’s Office of Special Plans turned out to be “dead wrong.”)
He Was Right About Uranium: In March 2003, El Baradei said the “documents which formed the basis for [the White House's assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic.” Vice President Cheney, asked about this a week later, said, “Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.” (The documents turned out to be fakes. Cheney, frankly, was wrong.)
He Was Right About Aluminum Tubes: In March 2003, ElBaradei said nuclear experts found “no indication” that Iraq tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for a centrifuge to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ignored that finding and claimed in July 2003 that “the consensus view” in the intelligence community was that the tubes “were suitable for use in centrifuges to spin material for nuclear weapons.” (The tubes, in fact, were not for use for weaponizing uranium. They were the wrong size — “too narrow, too heavy, too long” for a centrifuge. They had a special coating to protect them from the weather, which was “not consistent” with use in a centrifuge, as it could cause bad reactions with uranium.)
Guess the White House would rather have people who are serially wrong — like John Bolton — in positions of international power than those who’ve been consistently proven right. Way to get it backwards.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe Bush wants to appoint him head of the CIA instead.
April 27th, 2005 at 6:36 pmIf liberals are going to suceed we need to stop defending people like El Baradei. No matter how right he was, we can't be seen as supporting foreigners over our own government.
April 27th, 2005 at 7:05 pmMaybe we'll never be xenophobic enough to carry the South and Midwest.
April 27th, 2005 at 7:45 pmI would expect nothing more for this adminstration that to vote against El Baradei especially when he proved them all wrong, but at least he won. I think the the US needs to listen to foreign agencies a little bit more especailly when we're crafting foreign policy.
April 27th, 2005 at 7:51 pmLynda, so we should support the people who are wrong so we seam more patriotic? They call it the "-->International< -- Atomic Energy Agency" for a reason.
April 27th, 2005 at 8:35 pmWe should support our own Country and its interests - not the UN, or foreign agencies. I am not defending bad intelligence or arrogance or being wrong. This is not mindless loyalty - its smart statecraft to be focused on one's own national interest - it is categorically unpatriotic to support our nation's adversaries because you disagree with its leadership.
April 27th, 2005 at 10:40 pmChris, supporting Mohamed El Baradei promotes the interests, safety and security of the United States. He was right about the situation regarding nuclear components in Iraq. Had we heeded his information we would not have killed 100,000 Iraqis, 1600 Americans, 100+ allies, destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq to turn it into yet another failed state and spent $300 billion we didn't have to prosecute the war. Oh, we also wouldn't have broken our military. Just how does supporting El Baradei go against the United States interests? Are you confusing the interests of the United States with those of Dubya and the posse and the Republican Party? It seems like it to me. In your circles, people who put party interests above the nation are called traitors. Does the appelatio apply to the folks supporting Dubya accordingly? The evidence says yes. But, of course, that's fact and reality based. So, pre-9/11, donchyaknow.
April 28th, 2005 at 12:12 amLynda, have you considered that maybe the solution is to raise the level of politics in the US instead of lowering it even more? Winning is pointless if what you win is not worth it anymore.
April 28th, 2005 at 12:17 amThere is a MISTAKE in your post here. The "impossible to believe" link shows that Bolton was talking about IRAN ..not IRAQ.
April 28th, 2005 at 8:21 amThought I'd let you know so that people don't start saying that you are distorting the facts.
PS..I love this site...keep up the good work!
It's not U.S. against them, there is only ONE earth on which we all live. Blindly supporting the Dubya's team group-think against reality is not patritotic, it's just plain stupid.
Not supporting ElBaradei's re-appointment to a post for which he's obviously qualified is the same type of behavior that we have come to expect from this administration.
It's just like Dubya said, "You're either with us (meaning me - GWB) or with the terrorists." When you color the world with only two crayons, it's easy to see who's on your team...
April 28th, 2005 at 8:25 amFor the record, Bush applauded Europe's efforts regarding Iran, and said we were working with them.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:23 amI think it speaks to the GW administration's inability to think globally that he's opposing El Baradei. EB is very popular in the Middle East. If we depose him it's going to give them one more reason to hate us. Do we need to keep handing terrorists recruiting slogans on a silver platter? I mean, this and the fact that EB does an excellent job. This is ham-handed and silly and it's not in the interests of US citizens.
April 28th, 2005 at 1:18 pm[...] Why did the administration want him out so badly? They disagreed with ElBaradei about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program. ElBaradei, if you’ll recall, turned out to be right. [...]
October 7th, 2005 at 2:20 pmmerrell shoes
merrell shoes Merrell shoes turned away uncomfortably, conscious again, as she astonied often emboss'd before, of the jarrin
October 9th, 2005 at 7:02 pm[...] Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to donate the $5 million he was awarded as part of the Nobel Peace Prize to the developing world. ElBaradei publicly questioned Bush administration claims about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. The U.S. “campaigned unsuccessfully against ElBaradei’s reelection this year to a third term as IAEA chief.” [...]
October 14th, 2005 at 11:50 amback gammon voyforums
speaks repast joyous acquisitive Einstein reunite
December 28th, 2005 at 6:59 pm[...] U.N. nonproliferation chief Mohamed ElBaradei (who had a far better track record on Iraq than the Bush administration) said of the Iran nuclear impasse: the “only durable solution is a negotiated solution,” and the time has come to “lower the pitch” of debate. [...]
March 31st, 2006 at 9:14 am