"It also has expressed interest in Pakistani missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and Saudi officials reportedly discussed pursuing the nuclear option as a deterrent..."

The damned liberal media and the Democratic Party and their so-called "nuclear option." For how long will they get away with this until Senator Frist puts a stop the linguistic abuse on display here?

Given that the US government has stood by and done nothing while Israel developed 80+ nuclear warheads, I fail to see why the Saudis should expect anything beyond a token objection.

Oh, a correction. The US government did not "do nothing" -- it subsidized Israel's efforts with $3 Billion/year in aid as well as giving Israel the largest collection of F16s outside the Air Force with which to deliver the warheads.

I agree with the post above by don. Until the USA and the world make a serious effort at disarming Israel's nuclear weapons, it is only natural for other countries in the area to move forward with that they see as thier need for nuclear weapons themselves.

Or, to add, considering that the USA is attacking Arab counries these days and making "bunker buster" nuclear weapons with the obvious effect of threatening to use them on Iran, who on earth would not expect that countries around the world would want nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

A major lesson of the war against Iraq is that if you are a weak country with no way to defend yourself, you get attacked. While if you are an agressive country that actually has weapons like N. Korea, you are pretty much safe.

Pretty much, either there is a real effort to totally eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the entire world (especially for agressive countries like the USA and Israel) or it is worthless and hypocritical to focus on countries that have a legitimate reason to be cared they are next on the hit list.

Um... Israel is believed to have had deliverable nuclear weapons at the time of the '73 war, long before they received their Camp David summit payoffs. Furthermore, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has just as much legal right to nuclear weapons as India or Pakistan. It might be nice if they didn't have them, but... Finally, Israel is the one nation we can safely say has no incentives to use nuclear weapons for anything but defense against an existential threat. The Arab/Iranian world doesn't need nukes to counter Israel, they just need to leave it alone.

To me, this leak appears to be related to the whole 'Iran' thing, and the US efforts to justify military action against Iran, based on their nuclear policies.

Its going to be really tough for anyone to impose sanctions on Iran, which would be a necessary precursor to a "justified" attack on Iran, given that the Saudi's aren't even allowing any inspections. And now that the whole "Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons" case is falling apart (it turns out that the highly enriched uranium found on some equipment in Iran was, as Iran claimed, actually from Pakistan, which had sold Iran used equipment....) it looks like we can chalk up another failure to Bushco's approach to foreign policy....

Check out this guy's take on this issue:

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/06/et-tu-friend.html

Spot on, I'd say......

Given GW's past lack of commitment to nuclear disarmament ( getting out of treaties with out replacing them ), his lack of apparent philosophy on the issue, and apparently a complete lack of focus, I would say we will have a world full of nuclear states in the very near future.

Also I think Israel is quite capable of deploying in what they would term a "defensive strike" and the rest of us would be left wooly headed and disbelieving. Israel decides it's own terms and acts on them. They are unilateral. LIke GW. They are unilateral because they absolutely have to be, given the unwieldy situation they have place themselves in. GW is unilateral because he lacks imagination.

Re Dylan's comment "Israel is the one nation we can safely say has no incentives to use nuclear weapons for anything but defense against an existential threat. The Arab/Iranian world doesn't need nukes to counter Israel, they just need to leave it alone "
------------
I'm sure the Palestinians have assured their Arab brothers of the benevolent pacificism of the Israelis.

For example, when an Israeli F16 dropped a bomb on a Gaza apartment building in the middle of the night --killing 9 children and seriously wounding over 100 people -- it was an error.

As Sharon and senior Israeli officials explained later, they thought the apartment building was empty except for a single sinister Hamas terrorist.

Ref: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/index.html

One would have thought that Sharon and his officers would have know that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth but evidently there was an "intelligence failure". Yeh, that's the ticket. Maybe we can have the Iraq Intelligence Committee look into the matter.

Another article noted
"The Israeli air raid was carried out a day after Hamas' spiritual leader, wheelchair-bound Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said the group would consider halting suicide attacks if Israel withdrew from occupied West Bank cities"

Ref: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/24/world/main516226.shtml

Bush's coalition of over 40 nations is "unilateral"?

exclab's "imagination" appears unfettered by any knowledge of either rudimentary English or basic mathematics.

E Plurb

Yes it is unilateral. Everyone who got on the boat to go to Iraq, except the USA, had a public at home that was against the war (except the east europeans I grant you) . Of a consequence nobody but the USA sent very many. They each sent a pitance. Even the UK, (when Rumsfeld even now says security is not better in the last year), is trying to bow out gracefully. Those pitances made up Bushes claim to a great coalition but , the USA made the choice, and is paying the price. It was by no means an international aclamation of leadership. Its a silly odd war and for most people in the world, in an SEP field. A man with imagination could have thought of several different, cheaper and better ways to get terrorists. Like find Bin Laden and kill him.

BTW, why aren't there a hundred or more federally funded full-ride Arabic scholarships available? This is a war right. I would have thought our ignorance of the Arabs would have sparked some ideas along that line. I grant you , I think Clinton I should have done that and more. But on balance, neither the ditherer or the warrior come out ahead of the other.

Re exclab's comment "Its a silly odd war"
----------
Actually, it's been a very successful and brilliant war for Bush --once you realize that the "war on terrorism" is really a war for MONEY, not a war to defend the US.
Specifically, it is a war to win campaign donations, in order to win the war for political power, in order to win $Trillions in tax cuts.

Perhaps a few notes will help:

a) November 2000- 2002: The biggest campaign donor to the Democratic Party
is Israeli billionaire Haim Saban, who contributes $12.7 million in the
2000
and 2002 campaign cycles. (His wife Cheryl's donations raises the total to
$13.7
million) [1]

b) May 2002: Haim Saban funds the "Saban Center for Middle East Policy"
at the Brookings Institute. One of the four stated research areas is
"the implications of regime change in Iraq". Another task is providing
"future policymakers with a better understanding of the complexities of the
Middle East and the process of developing effective policies to deal with
them"
[2]

c) June 30,2002: St Petersburg Times notes that "leading congressional
Democrats were concerned that Jewish voters and donors were reassessing
their
relationship "with the Democratic Party given Bush's strong pro-Israel
stance [3]

d) September 10, 2002: During a conference at the University of Virginia,
high level intelligence adviser to the White House, Philip Zelikow, states:
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?
I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since
1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," [4]

e) December 19, 2002: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed "Lock and Load",
the Directors of Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy ,
Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack, state
"Saddam Hussein has failed to come clean. His denial of possessing any
weapons of mass destruction makes that clear ... As former U.S. government
officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq,
we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its
weapons
capabilities"
They then advocate launching a war on Iraq.[5]

f) January 17, 2003: Atlanta Jewish Times notes that " pro-Israel interests
have contributed $41.3 million" in campaign donations over the past decade,
with
more than two thirds going to the Democrats. Article also notes that
Republicans
are making a strong push to court those big donors. [6]

g) June 20, 2003: In a New York Times column, "Saddam's Bombs? We'll Find
Them", Saban Center Director Kenneth Pollack states "Where are Iraq's
weapons of
mass destruction? It's a good question, and unfortunately we don't yet have
a
good answer... In any event, the mystery will be solved in good time; the
search for Iraq's
nonconventional weapons program has only just begun." [7]

h) September 2004: John Kerry attempts to criticize the Bush war on Iraq
but can only make incoherent, strangled sounds.

i) November 2004: Instead of $12.7 million, Haim Saban's campaign donations
in the 2004
election only total $84,000 -- and $2,000 goes to George W Bush, in case
the Democrats don't get
the message.[8]

j) November 2000-2002: Another large Democratic donor is billionaire S
Daniel Abraham of West Palm Beach, Florida --who donates over $2.3 million
to the Democrats in 2000-2002. [9]
Mr Abraham has long been a strong advocate for Israel in US foreign policy
circles via his Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation [10]

k) March 18,2003: S Daniel Abraham donates $2,000 to Howard Dean's campaign
[11]

l) September 11, 2003: Howard Dean receives a storm of criticism from the
Democratic leadership after saying that the US needs to be evenhanded in
the Israel-Palestinian issue [12]

k) November 2003-Feb 2004: Howard Dean campaign is destroyed in Iowa
primary
by barrage of attack ads from a mysterious group "Americans for Jobs and
Healthcare". Leader of
group refuses to disclose funding sources. Disclosure to FEC not required
until end of quarter. [13]

l) March 2004: FEC report indicates that attack group "Americans for Jobs"
received $1
million in funding, with the largest donation --$200,000 -- coming from S
Daniel Abraham.[13]

m) November 2004: Instead of $Millions, S Daniel Abraham only gives the
Democrats $81,500 in the 2004 election [11]

n) October 2004: John Kerry attempts to criticize Bush's invasion of Iraq
but can only make
incoherent, strangled sounds.

-------------------
References:
[1] http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Saban, Haim" and
select election cycles 2000,2002

[2] http://www.brookings.edu/comm/news/20020509saban.htm

[3] http://www.sptimes.com/2002/06/30/Columns/Jewish_voters_noticin.shtml

[4] http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

[5] http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

[6] http://www.atljewishtimes.com/archives/2003/011703cs.htm

[7] http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20030620.htm

[8] http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp (enter "Saban, Haim" and
choose 2004 )

[9] http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Abraham, S Daniel"
and 2000,2002

[10] http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/1_abraham.html

[11] http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp , enter "Abraham, S
Daniel" and 2004

[12] http://www.cbs2.com/politics/politicsla_story_254070009.html

[13] http://www.public-i.org/report.aspx?aid=194&sid=200

Let me magnify two of the above items:

e) December 19, 2002: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed "Lock and Load",
the Directors of Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy ,
Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack, state
"Saddam Hussein has failed to come clean. His denial of possessing any
weapons of mass destruction makes that clear ... As former U.S. government
officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq,
we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its
weapons
capabilities"
They then advocate launching a war on Iraq.[5]

--------
g) June 20, 2003: In a New York Times column, "Saddam's Bombs? We'll Find
Them", Saban Center Director Kenneth Pollack states "Where are Iraq's
weapons of
mass destruction? It's a good question, and unfortunately we don't yet have
a
good answer... In any event, the mystery will be solved in good time; the
search for Iraq's
nonconventional weapons program has only just begun." [7]

==========
In that same article, Kenneth Pollack goes on to say:

"before the war I heard
many complaints from friends still in government that some Bush officials
were mounting a ruthless campaign over intelligence estimates. I was told
that when government analysts wrote cautious assessments of Iraq's
capabilities, they were grilled and forced to go to unusual lengths to
defend their judgments, and some were chastized for failing to come to more
alarming conclusions. None of this is illegal, but it was perceived as an
attempt to browbeat analysts into either changing their estimates or
shutting up and ceding the field to their more hawkish colleagues."
Ref: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20030620.htm

-------------------

2) So what is the end result of Kenneth Pollack's Dance of Seven Veils?
On March 31, 2005: The Iraq WMD Commission reports to the President
that:
" We conclude that the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all
of its
pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major
intelligence failure....
..
After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the
Intelligence
Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. What
the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was
what they
believed. They were simply wrong."
Ref: http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf

ha ha ha. Stop, please! My ribs are hurting!

1) Ah yes, but weren't Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice misled
by false intelligence from the evil Chalabi? From
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm :
"During an interview, Mr. Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled U.S. intelligence.
"We are heroes in error," he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful.
"Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."
Mr. Chalabi added: "The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if [President Bush] wants."
"

2) So after, 1600 AMerican dead, tens of thousands maimed and wounded, and $300 billion in
lost wealth, how does the Bush Administration express it's displeasure with the lying Chalabi for luring us into this disaster?

"Apr 29 - After Iraq’s new government failed to name a permanent oil minister Thursday, the coveted post was given on a temporary basis to Ahmed Chalabi, the repatriated former exile who admitted giving the Bush administration and members of the media false information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before the 2003 invasion.

Chalabi, who was also named as a deputy prime minister by Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, the country’s new prime minister, told Reuters he might be oil minister for only a short time, but one of his aides suggested that political disagreements over the selection of permanent ministry leaders might leave Chalabi in the position indefinitely.

"
Source: http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1759
-----------

Ha ha ha Well, Chalabi should certainly have a fun time dealing with Condi Rice, our Secretary of
State who has an oil tanker named after her: http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm

I am chastened