Sources get to be "embedded"? Steve, I think that's redundant and/or misleading.

The IAEA's reports are only relevant if our media and our politicians present the American public with an honest outline of the findings. So far, obviously, that has not been the case.

Also, one must factor in the very real influence of groups such as AIPAC, who, as I have shown by directly linking to their site in the past, have exagerated, and even lied about, Iran's alleged "nuclear weapons program".

The ludicrous nature of our government's supposed effort to stem "nuclear proliferation" is laughable. As Russia's immense and readily blackmarketed stockpiles have been neglected by this administration, we have seen this steady diet of fearmongering and exageration in regards to the Iranian nuclear aims.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's Kohl walks scotfree, and our own government pursues the development of a new generation of PRE-EMPTIVE and offensive nuclear weapons.

These lying sacks of shit within our own government are FUELING a modern day nuclear arms race with thier reckless deployment of an expensive, incendiary, and unproven missile defense system on Russia's doorstep. If there is any one entity that has moved the specter of nuclear holocaust closer to being a reality, it is these lying treasonous monsters in the Bush Administration, in league with their dangerous neo-con/zionist cohorts.

Like all IAEA reports, this one will be cherry picked for any conclusions that can be used to demonize Iran and advance the neo-con/zionist agenda, while the grist of the report will undoubtedly be buried on the backpages of the our nation's increasingly subservient and complicit media outlets.

And yes Steve, I look forward to those "findings" being posted here.

I sincerely hope that that is what you intend to post, as we have had far too much of a diet of "interpretations" and "think tank analysis" of past "findings".

At first, please, as Sgt Friday used to say, "only the facts". Then, if so moved, I'd love to see you post your analysis and interpretation.

Helena -- no intention of misleading. Perhaps I used a term I shouldn't have. I'm implying I have a source close in as opposed to a source far out....sorry to set off a red flag.

steve

So when are we going to be able to read the IAEA's report on the Syrian "reactor"?