In yesterday's American Congress for Truth blog New Documents Show Iran Still Working on Nukes, evidence is shown to the IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency that proves that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon.

Reading through the article, which I highly recommend, evidence is presented that blasts the former NIE of the CIA to shreds. To wit:

…a videotape of a “mock-up chamber and internals” of the missile re-entry vehicle, as well as laboratory preparations to test them, which could only have been obtained from sources inside Iran.

He also showed an Iranian animation demonstrating how a Shahab-3 missile could be programmed to detonate at about 2,000 feet over a target. Heinonen noted that detonation at that altitude only made sense for a nuclear warhead.

Key to the clandestine programs was a private Iranian company called Kimia Maadan, which the Iranians acknowledged had been set up in May 2000 to work on a secret uranium mine at Gachine.

Kimia Maadan was run by Revolutionary Guards Brig. Gen. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of a number of alleged nuclear weapons designers the IAEA has sought to interview, without success.

schematic drawings of the missile warhead

Flow sheets for a secret uranium conversion plant

Test reports on high voltage detonators

Production documents on an exploding bridgewire detonator

Procurement documents showing that Iran had purchased spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources, special steel parts, and radiation measurement equipment, all of which are relevant to nuclear weapons work

Documentation on Iranian training courses on neutron calculations, the effect of shock waves on metal, enrichment/isotope separation, and ballisic missiles

Information on the construction of what appeared to be a nuclear test site, with a 1,300 foot shaft connected to a monitoring station six miles away, which the Iranians claimed was used to test conventional explosives.

As I was thinking about this situation it occurred to me that if medicine were practiced the same way as international politics, a lot of people would be dead. Think about this: you find a lump under your arm and faithfully show it to your doctor. Your doctor says, let's wait and see if it grows. After a few months, you return to show the doctor and it has grown and gotten ugly. The doctor does a biopsy that indeed shows it to be cancer.

Your next logical question would be - when is the surgery? Any fool knows that cancer must be cut out especially when it sits on top of the skin.

I would like to know if our government and the leaders of the world are fools or not. The time has come for surgery. Instead of doing fifteen more tests to confirm that it is cancer - we should be scheduling an OR.

The Israelis Should Be Very, Very Nervous

World: Paul R. Hollrah

February 28, 2008

To read more...

An article in the February 5 edition of Investor’s Business Daily asks, “What happens when an Islamofascist state gets the bomb and the White House falls into the hands of a president who thinks such enemies can be defeated with diplomacy?”

The article goes on to speculate that, “If that person is either of the two front-runners for the Democratic nomination, it could spell unprecedented danger. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem committed to the magic powers of negotiating a deal with Iran’s fanatical mullahs...”

For example, Obama’s foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice of the Brookings Institution, has said,

“...the United States could dangle various incentives the Iranians might find attractive. For instance, in exchange for a full and verifiable halt to Iran’s nuclear program, as well as termination of its support for terrorism and anti-U.S. elements in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States could offer to lift U.S. sanctions, normalize relations, pay some Iranian claims against the United States, promote new trade and investment flows, allow Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization, guarantee access to civilian nuclear power, or provide regional security guarantees.”

Meanwhile, Clinton’s “experts,” Iranian-Americans Ray Takeyh and Vali Nasr (both born in Tehran), recommend,

“...engagement as a means of achieving a more pluralistic and responsible government in Tehran.” They have suggested that “to liberalize the theocratic state, the United States would do better to...embark on a policy of unconditional dialogue and sanctions relief. A reduced American threat would deprive the hard-liners of the conflict they need to justify their concentration of power.”

So what happens if the Iranians responded to a President Clinton or a President Obama with, “Okay, but only if the U.S. will also agree to cease and desist in the defense of Israel, pull all troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, end the NSA program of monitoring international telephone calls of Muslims with al Qaeda ties, and cease tracking the worldwide financial transactions of people of Arabic and Persian descent.”

In other words, Democrats would have us believe that, if we would only surrender unilaterally to Ahmadinejad, as he continues to enrich uranium, he might just conclude that he’s won and leave us alone...while he proceeds with plans to blow Israel off the map.

The idea of either of the two Democratic nominees making it into the White House is enough to keep me up at night. Obama's advisor, Susan Rice, seems to be in some parallel universe and hasn't a clue as to what Ahmadinejad has said publicly or what Iran is currently doing. That he would choose her as his foreign policy advisor speaks volumes about his intelligence.

Clinton's advisors at least recognize the need to change the current regime in Iran if hopes of peace and security in the Middle East can be achieved. Their views are idealistic and naive but are at least rooted in the reality that no dialogue with Ahmadinejad is possible.

Either view is lacking in the most basic understanding of what radical Islam is and why it is doing what it is doing. Both views assume that the radical Islamists are attacking the West because of Israel and both views are wrong. Radical Islam is attacking the West because it is the West. They will attack moderate Muslims who don't agree with their policy of terror. Anyone who disagrees with them is fair game in their pursuit of global jihad.

You cannot negotiate with such a mindset. This evil that is radical Islam sends mentally disabled women as suicide bombers prompting officials in Iraq to round up the homeless and beggars to protect them. This evil hides in hospitals and uses ambulances to send bombs into crowded markets. This evil treats women as property, thinks "honor killings" are ok, cuts off arms and legs as punishment and stones victims of rape. This evil cut off a journalist's head with a dull sword.

We have to understand what we are fighting against and from the comments above from the policy advisors to the Democrats - it's obvious they don't have a clue.