As if the botched 1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea, whereby the Clinton administration provided Pyongyang with materials for building a nuclear reactor, wasn’t enough, allegations are now being made that the Clinton administration may have also provided Iran with blueprints to build a nuclear weapon. (hat tip: Jay)

Last 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.

But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said.

The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code named Operation Merlin and “may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA,” according to Risen.

And if all of that isn’t bad enough, don’t forget that John Kerry was prepared to “offer Iran the nuclear fuel…”

Excuse me if I never trust Democrats again to keep America safe.

1. Excuse me if I never trust Democrats again to keep America safe.

   I’m disappointed, Jason! “Again” implies you were foolish enough once before to have EVER trusted Democrats with security! LOL!

   Comment by Jonathan — 9:32 pm
   

2. I seem to remember that one Republican president most definitively did indeed sell actual weapons to Iran… I find it quite ironic that this president is still beloved by nearly all conservatives.

   Additionally, how convenient that you leave out a critical aspect of Kerry’s idea: to provide the nuclear fuel ONLY on the condition that Iran’s nuclear facilties are fully monitored and thus the nuclear fuel is tracked completely, which is nearly identical to a plan that the current president also supports.

   “I have made it clear that I believe that the Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program under these conditions: that the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA inspectors to Iran to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia,” Mr. Bush said at a news conference yesterday. “I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea and I support it,” he added.

   How can you trust Bush on national security? Oh yes, thats right, next to his name there is the letter “R”.

   Comment by Forrest — 10:50 pm
   

3. The weapons involved in the Iran-Contra affair were not such that they could annihilate all of humanity. While I don’t agree with that deal, it’s hardly comparable to giving blueprints for a nuclear weapon.

   And I don’t believe Bush was seriously contemplating the proposal. I think it was a diplomatic effort to get Iran to slow down development while the U.N. dragged its feet. And once again, he called the bluff of both Iran and the U.N. and proved neither can be trusted.

   Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 9:19 am
   

4. Bubba Clinton’s Legacy - A Nuclear Iran

   Here’s an intelligence fiasco worthy of erudite Johnny English [He knows nothing.].
   There’s a dust-up in the blogosphere about the news that, in 2000, the Clinton Administration gave slightly flawed plans for nuclear weapons to IRAN in…

   Trackback by euphoricreality.net — 12:24 pm
   

5. And I don’t believe Bush was seriously contemplating the proposal.

   So what you’re telling me is, is that Bush wasn’t being honest in stating that?

   Or maybe, he was for it before he was against it?

   Both of those are actions that you criticize in those who lean left. Here’s to consistency, once more!

   Comment by Forrest — 1:54 pm
   

6. So what you’re telling me is, is that Bush wasn’t being honest in stating that?

   Or maybe, he was for it before he was against it?

   No, what I’m saying is that the President of the United States declared a possible policy in an attempt to gauge Iran’s sincerity in backing off the nuclear weapons threat. Whereas John Kerry was not in a position to set policy and was instead declaring the action he would actually take. You don’t see a difference, because you don’t want to.

   Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 8:08 pm
   

7. Who let the troll in?

   Comment by Judith — 8:54 pm
   

8. I think it was a diplomatic effort to get Iran to slow down development while the U.N. dragged its feet.

   Well, all you have is speculation and all I have is speculation.

   When Bush said “I have made it clear that I support this idea”, it certainly appears as if this was more than an attempt to “gauge Iran’s sincerity.” He also said, verbatim, “I think that is a good plan. The Russians came up with the idea and I support it”.

   Forgive me for taking the man at his word regarding this.

   Comment by Forrest — 10:29 pm
   

9. “Forgive me for taking the man at his word on this.”

   There is a first time for everything.

   Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 6:31 am
   

10. Judith, Forrest isn’t a troll. He does try to use some reasoning and back up some of his statements with sources. He isn’t degrading to name calling right now either. Calling him a troll may be a little too strong a word. Misguided and foolish may be more accurate.

    Comment by Jim U — 4:49 pm
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.