ABC News: Iran has secretly tripled its enrichment capacity
posted at 7:15 pm on April 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Reuters put out a story earlier today in which they quoted Russia’s leading nuclear physicist laughing over the predictions about when Iran will have the bomb. He must already know, or else it’s a hell of a coincidence.
The timeframe here — a bomb by 2009 — isn’t the news here. A British think tank said that was theoretically possible earlier this year. The newsflash is that they’re on track right now to actually do it.
Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material…
The addition of 1,000 new centrifuges, which are not yet operational, means Iran is expanding its enrichment program at a pace much faster than U.S. intelligence experts had predicted…
Previous predictions by U.S. intelligence had cited 2015 as the earliest date Iran could develop a weapon.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly predicted his country would have 3,000 centrifuges installed by this May, but few in the West gave his claim much credence, until now.
“I think we have all been caught off guard. Ahmadinejad said they would have these 3,000 installed by the end of May, and it appears they may actually do it,” Albright said.
A few things. First, Ahmadinejad has been making noise lately about “good news” coming on the nuclear front. I guess we know now what the good news is. Second, the 2015 date is wrong. Follow the link to the USA Today piece above and you’ll see that John Negroponte thought they could have the bomb within four years. He still overshot, but not as badly as ABC makes it sound. Third and most importantly, note well that number 3,000. That’s how many centrifuges Iran said it was planning to install back on January 31, the same day they announced they were banning UN surveillance cameras from the area of the Natanz facility where the centrifuges would be located. It also happens to be a sort of magic number as far as bombmaking goes. Again, from the USA Today piece:
A diplomat knowledgeable about Iran’s enrichment program said last week that Tehran may not be technologically advanced enough to put together thousands of centrifuges in series — work that would take months even for more developed countries.
Chipman on Wednesday agreed. “Getting the centrifuge cascades to function properly is then another task of an entirely different order of magnitude” from installing the centrifuges, he said, adding that this process could take at least a year.
Once Iran’s planned 3,000-centrifuge cascade was operational, the institute predicted it would take another nine to 11 months to produce about 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for a single weapon, he said.
Another nuclear expert, Charles Ferguson of the Council on Foreign Relations, has corroborated that timetable, calling 3,000 centrifuges a “starter kit” that could produce enough material for a bomb within one year. If ABC’s right and Iran’s actually on track to make that happen by May, it’s going to escalate the crisis considerably. On the other hand, if they’re fast-tracking their nuke program to intimidate the west, why wouldn’t they want UN cameras in the centrifuge corridor recording it for propaganda purposes? One possibility is that it’s all a lie: according to diplomats interviewed by the Observer back in January, Iran’s program is actually a shambles and their announcements about centrifuge installations “will more probably be about propaganda than reality.”
Which brings us to our two exit questions. One: Is this just more Iranian bluster, part and parcel of the hostage crisis to distract the public from the fact that they’re actually rationing gas now? And two: given how nuke timelines tend to play out, when do you figure the Sunnis will have the bomb? 2012? 2011?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Brian Ross: We go now to our fat irish lesbian bat reporter in the field Rosie O’Donnell, Rosie?
Rosie: Yes Brian, I’m here in Iran and I can tell you I don’t see anything like what you’re talking about. I think what we have here is another case of the Bushinati lying to further their goals of world domination.
Brian Ross: I’m sorry… what? We must have a bad connection on the satellite phone…
Rosie: WTC 7, Google It Brian!
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Two problems:
1. We (the United States) should have seen this happening when we took part in the IAEA.
2. We’ve (the United States) been backing a foreign policy that ensures the safety of those countries with nuclear weapons and the invasion of those without.
Something needs to be done to stop any more countries from getting nuclear weapons (it should have been stopped before Israel and definitely before Pakistan), but invasion of Iran certainly won’t be the answer.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Time to roll out the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). A 30,000 lb bunker buster.
darwin on April 2, 2007 at 7:26 PM
No real surprise and I guess one of these days we will actually start reading those Israeli intelligence assesments. Besides I thought the US started saying in 2000 that Iran was 5 to 10 years away from a nuke.
LakeRuins on April 2, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Been telling you for awhile now…
It only took us 4 years to create, from nothing more than a theory, the first atom bomb.
Iran does NOT been a MIRV capable bomb, just somthing that goes boom. Heck, load it on an old Bear bomber, built in with a suicide crew…
Or put it into a merchant ship, surrounded by lead and concrete and pull into New York Harbor… or even better, a SuperTanker…
They don’t need a suitcase nuke…
Romeo13 on April 2, 2007 at 7:41 PM
I though Allah (Dog Sh*t Be Upon Him), was peaceful? Oh well, scrap that theory. Could a bunkerbuster reach 70 feet underground?
amerpundit on April 2, 2007 at 7:46 PM
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly predicted his country would have 3,000 centrifuges installed by this May, but few in the West gave his claim much credence, until now.”
Maybe it is time for everyone to take him at his word.
America1st on April 2, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I’m tired shrugging off these people who say they want to kill us simply because we speculate they arent able to right now.
Resolute on April 2, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Seeing the Mad Mullahs aren’t reasonable folks, I wouldn’t take that chance. Remember, most North Koreans live in the 17th Century and Krazy Kim has nukes.
Just as soon as Pakistan ships some over.
steveegg on April 2, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Allah,
He wasn’t laughing about Iran developing the bomb which he seems quite serious about. He only chuckled at the thought of the Soviet Union catching the US by surprise. It’s an important distinction imho.
aengus on April 2, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Exit Questions:
1) Is it just Iranian bluster?
Well, Saddam proved that it’s a bad idea to bluster at the United States. He made us believe that Iraq had WMDs and that his defiance was based on something that could back it up. Apparently he was just blustering, but it’s too late now, isn’t it?
2) Nukes for the Sunnis?
I’m sure Saudi Arabia will do (is doing) all it can to make sure Sunnis have nukes not long after Iran and the Shiites.
As for Ahmadinejad and his promises/threats, they don’t always pan out. But enough of them do that I do think we should probably take better note of the things he says (and perhaps, I don’t know…prepare?).
aero on April 2, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Many of you are also forgeting the reports that at least 3 major Pakistani nuclear scientists were “kidnapped”…
Romeo13 on April 2, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Plus, didn’t a whole bunch of Iraqi scientists (and probably supplies and equipment) disappear into the wind just before and after we invaded?
aero on April 2, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Our intelligence on WMDs was pooh poohed by these same morons in the media and yet we should now believe ABC’s? The minute Bush takes action on Irans nuke program, these same scum will bash the hell out of him for doing so.
roninacreage on April 2, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Three thousand nuclear centrifuges hastily constructed at great expense in the fourth largest oil producing country on Earth?
Why, there’s only one possible explanation:
This behavior is obviously part of a soverign nation’s program to provide clean energy and lower their carbon footprint. The only reason the fascist Bushitler Regime wants to bomb Iran is because their RethugliKKKan big money contributors at Haliburton will lose oil revenues in the switch to non-fossil fuels!
Bush’s e-e-e-e-e-e-vil plan is as plain as a hand-over-your-heart pledge for truth. Google it.
ScottMcC on April 2, 2007 at 8:20 PM
aero, see this?
Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam’s WMD
A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein “cleaned up” his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them. Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John Shaw told an audience at a privately sponsored “Intelligence Summit” in Alexandria: “They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml
TheBigOldDog on April 2, 2007 at 8:29 PM
You know, if we just got the UNSC to issue a statement of extreme regret, or utter consternation, or absolute not-so-happiness (or whatever it was the the Brits noodle-armed them into the other day), this situation would have ended long ago.
Or maybe the free world is willing to let the US and Israel once again be the bad boys. I can just imagine the EU circle-jerk of recrimination and secret relief.
SailorDave on April 2, 2007 at 8:31 PM
TheBigOldDog,
Assad’s got them. At least according to Mossad and one of Hussein’s most trusted ex-generals. But er, they’re probably just cogs in the BusHitler conspiracy.
aengus on April 2, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Nonfactor-
A. Q. Khan. Google him and Iran and N. Korea. Then throw in Russia. Just for giggles, then do a search on N. Korea and Iraq.
The “Islamic Bomb” has it’s origin in one man who, with the acquiesence of the Pakistani gov’t, sold his technology to any Islamic state who would pay including Iran and Libya. The jury is still out on whether he sold anything directly to Iraq but that problem may have been resolved when he started selling nuclear secrets to N. Korea, who, coincidentally, was a huge weapons supplier to Iraq.
There’s a reason that N. Korea started enriching uranium after shutting down it’s plutonium effort. There’s a reason Iran has hundreds if not thousands of centerfuges enriching uranium with a design that looks just like N. Korea’s. There’s a reason Iraq was searching for yellowcake. And there’s a reason that Bush called Iraq, Iran and N. Korea the axis of evil.
There’s also a reason we invaded Iraq, they didn’t have a bomb yet, tried to isolate Iran with international pressure, they were getting close and froze out N. Korea unilaterally, they had a bomb. The Bush administration made sure Khan was put out of business and put Pakistan on notice.
And yes, we should have done something before it ever got this far. But Clinton was President.
JackStraw on April 2, 2007 at 8:34 PM
I have read/heard about the truck convoys from Iraq to Syria just before the liberation. I believe that WMDs and/or WMD-related equipment were very likely moved across the border. But why hasn’t anyone used them yet? That’s what confuses me. I’m really surprised that they haven’t unleashed something unspeakable on Israel by now. I’m also surprised that Saddam apparently sent his big guns away instead of using them to defend against the United States. Was he hoping we would come in much more hesitantly, and that once we saw that there were no WMDs he could get them back? And why Syria? Isn’t Syria basically Iran’s mini-me? Iran and Iraq certainly aren’t allies.
But if Iran is in possession of programs, scientists, and equipment that Saddam had already moved pretty far along, that could explain why Iran seems to be moving so much faster with its nuclear program than our intelligence seemed to expect.
aero on April 2, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Who cares?
Once all the Repulbigans are out of the way, they will have no reason to continue with nuclear bomb production.
It’s the fault of all Conservatives that they are doing this.
benrand on April 2, 2007 at 8:49 PM
It’s just a matter of time… tick, tick, tick… BOOM!
Mojave Mark on April 2, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Ok, I’m gonna dip my toes in here and expect a big shark to teach me a lesson…(no offense to any ex-intel guys out there)…..
When is the intel perfect? When has the intel ever been perfect? Isn’t the final product of an intel report a best-guess of all the best-guesses? Where does the political intermediary come into the process who makes the final call as to what the leadership actually sees?
Or is all this just more stupid questions?
Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 8:54 PM
If Assad used WMDs on American troops that would be the end of him. Likewise, if Assad used WMDs on Israeli troops that would be the end of him. Hell just two years ago Turkey threatened to invade if he didn’t stop attacking them covertly. Yet he had Gemayal assasinated recently and got away with it. It’s the incremental jihad that gets results. The WMDs are a last resort option.
aengus on April 2, 2007 at 8:58 PM
If Assad has WMDs from Iraq, perhaps that explains why all these members of Congress have felt the need over the past couple of years to go kiss Assad’s hiney. Otherwise, why do they treat this little nothing dictator of a little nothing country like a powerful and influential head of state worthy of our top leadership’s attention?
aero on April 2, 2007 at 9:04 PM
To what end? Assad is not a radical Islamist. He is a practical dictator who wants more than anything to be a practical dictator tomorrow. Just like Saddam. An attack on Israel would mean the end of Syria.
Syria and Iraq have a long history. A good part of Iraq’s former ruling class is sitting in Syria as we speak along with a good deal of Iraq’s wealth. Syria plays along with Iran now cause it’s expedient. Once you go B’ath you never go back.
Don’t confuse The Blotter with what our intelligence community knows. Iran has always been the key to the problems in the middle east. They have high grade Islamic crazies mixed with incredible oil wealth. Again, Iran hasn’t been developing a nuke from scratch. They bought the know how. Same as N. Korea. This is well known in the intelligence world and was confirmed when Lybia went belly up with their nukes after the invasion of Iraq started. Ask yourself, how did a country like N. Korea that can barely feed part of it’s population develop the technology for both plutonium and uranium bombs? They didn’t. They bought it.
Sadly, this is probably true.
JackStraw on April 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Thanks for answering my questions, guys. I don’t understand enough about Middle Eastern politics and power. I know they’re generally unstable and they hate us and Israel–that’s been enough for me to understand until recently. Now I feel that we’re on the verge of a full-blown regional or world hot war, so I want to understand more.
aero on April 2, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Well the mutual defense pact with Iran is one reason but that was only a few months ago. Should have neutralised this clown years ago. When the British were fighting the Malay communist insurgency (1948-60) they eventually figured out that it could be defeated by going into Indonesian territory and destroying their bases and causing them problems. So 95% of the insurgents are coming from Syria as the US government claims and the response is to warn Syria to stop it or else, or else.. we’ll issue another warning! Wooh well I don’t know about you but I’m shaking. It’s not enough to be the world’s only superpower. That power has to be wielded effectively or its essentially useless.
aengus on April 2, 2007 at 9:24 PM
There is A LOT of evidence that Saddam did have the WMDs, despite liberals insisting it’s just one former general trying to sell a book. There are satellite photos of trucks going across the border, reports of Russian military trucks moving them, 2 generals saying they were taken to Syria, and reports every few months in the first year that they were moved… stories that seemed to never have been followed up on. And a U.S. official in charge of locating the WMDs insisting he identified locations in the first year of the war, but was constantly ignored. He believes they are still there, or have by now possibly been moved since no action was ever taken by the higher ups to confirm his findings.
I just wish Bush would grow a pair and talk about all of this, and I can only guess he knows much much more. Some claim that he hasn’t because it would embarass Russia and we’re desperately trying to keep them on our side in dealing with Iran.
As for why Saddam didn’t use them, we know why… He didn’t think we’d really take him down. He was confident that we’d do something similar to what we did in the first Gulf War, and not actually take and occupy Iraq and end his reign. This is known. So in his mind, if he used the WMDs, he’d have sealed his fate. He’d have been the bad guy, we’d have been the heros. He thought he’d come out of this on top, with us looking like the bad guys.
As for why whoever ended up with them hasn’t used them… It all depends on who actually has them now. I’m also not totally convinced that we don’t have some CIA type folks (but probably not exactly CIA) tracking the stuff, and may have already rounded it up. I just find it hard to believe we could have screwed up that badly, and let it slip through our fingers. It’s obviously possible, and actually seems likely, that we did screw up that badly… but I’m just not totally convinced we haven’t picked this stuff up.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 9:45 PM
He had asssurances from France, Germany and Russia until the very end that they’d save him. After 12 years of appeasement who could blame him for believing them? From what I’ve read about Saddam he was completely irrational and could’ve been described as having been quite literally insane. During the Gulf War he was semi-convinced he could win. His generals were too scared to tell him the truth.
aengus on April 2, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Exactly.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 10:17 PM
By the way guys, the American who I mentioned earlier who identified highly probably WMD sites, but the US Government never followed up (and he remains pissed) is Dave Gaubatz.
I first read about him here, and there have been similar articles at other papers since
http://www.nysun.com/article/27183
More importantly he set up his own site where it seemed he wasn’t going to let the issue die, and was talking all about his first hand experiences as it pertains to being ignored when asking that the sites be inspected, etc.
Oddly, he’s removed all reference to these sections of his site from the main page now
http://www.davegaubatz.com/
This is more than a little disturbing… but I am able to link you to some of the pages, simply by doing a site search on the term “iraq”:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.dcuhFGGOEAcwBXNyoA?p=iraq+site%3Adavegaubatz.com&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&n=10&fl=0&vm=p&x=wrt
Check some of that information out… Food for though, directly from someone who was on the ground and charged with locating WMDs.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Even the U.S. government has admitted that there were no WMDs and still some people can’t accept the fact that we went to Iraq for a false purpose.
Nonfactor on April 2, 2007 at 10:57 PM
It’s just a little hard to believe, given that Democrats spent 13 years leading up to the war, making the WMD case stronger than Bush ever did. (yeah, especially the ones that call him a liar today)
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 11:01 PM
The problem with this is we didn’t tell it like it was….
we didn’t go to Iraq for WMD…….we went to Iraq to kill what needed killin……..if we would have laid it out like that in the first damn place nonfactors crowd wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Nonfactor’s crowd doesn’t have a leg to stand on as it is, because it was his boys and girls who spent 13 years making the case leading up to the war… the problem is that the media has hidden this fact from the public, allowing a division in the country. The Dems and media are running divide and conquer strategy for the enemy, and that’s the problem. They are emboldened by promises of surrender and by hyping and lying in the news all day every day.
In reality, there is no leg for NF’s side to stand on… but perception is everything. It’s sad that the wars in Washington determines the outcome of real wars.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Sorry RightWinged, I wasn’t trying to offer him a pass….
but behind closed doors I am sure that the WMD argument had both sides convinced (I still believe it). Saddam and all he harbored needed killing. That was the real bottom line.
That argument gets you only two answers, yes or no. All this he said/she said/they said stuff is wearing me out….I am sick of tired of all the pussyfooting. We either kill the SOBs or stay home and wimper.
Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Don’t worry, I didn’t interpret you as giving Nonfactor a pass at all, I’m just a hardliner in believe that the WMDs were there, and obsess about it more than is healthy.
RightWinged on April 2, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Though great things are happening throughout the world have you noticed that pretty much every Islamic country is a mess? Churchill had it right, their religion precludes them from succeeding.
Think about almost every country where Spanish is the primary language. How are things in Latin America? Generally, it’s a mess down there with a few eceptions like Chile. How you view God and the world really matters.
Think about everywhere on the planet that English is the primary language. How are things in those countries?
Get it? Your worldview, your Godview, and the purpose that you believe for your existence matter tremendously when it comes to world politics. When it comes to the Middle East things are going to get far, far, worse before they get better.
Mojave Mark on April 3, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Why is this a surprise to anyone???
It has been over a year since (those of us paying attention, anyway) saw actual video of their big centrifuge facility that was 85% completed at the time.
————————————————
As far as the Iraq WMD situation:
There were satellite photos broadcast of extensive Iraqi convoys headed into Syria 2-3 days before the 2003 invasion. There have been several independent intel confirmations (including from a Russian defector and a now ‘friendly’ Iraqi general who were both actually part of the evacuation) that there were lots of completed WMDs and WMD components in those convoys (and airlifts) into Syria.
As to why the President (and everyone else who should be shouting it from the rooftops) is going along with the ‘no WMDs’ meme, I can’t begin to understand…. Oh, I can think of several reasons that they might rationalize not talking about it, but none of them make as much political sense anymore.
Well, enough of me torturing the English language for a while.
LegendHasIt on April 3, 2007 at 2:15 AM
You can bash Clinton all you want (rightfully so) for mistakingly thinking there were WMDs in Iran, but Clinton didn’t invade, Bush did. The blame is put on Bush for invading and too bad for him that Iraq ended up not having any WMDs.
I do have a leg to stand on. Who cares what case people made before 2002? You’re supposed to get new intelligence over time, analyze that intelligence, and then act upon it. Bush’s crowd analyzed it and was wrong. I can’t believe the two people arguing with me still believe Iraq had WMDs, and they’re telling me that I don’t have a leg to stand on.
This is a fallacy. What does speaking Spanish have to do with economical success or religion? And correlation does not equal causation.
Let me make this clear to all of you holdouts: This is a conspiracy theory not rooted in reality.
Nonfactor on April 3, 2007 at 3:19 AM
I didn’t say it was because of the Spanish language but rather their worldview which leads to all the problems. Think of Africa too. Rich and abundant with resources far beyond the other continents yet it’s a perenial mess. Why? Worldview.
Mojave Mark on April 3, 2007 at 3:25 AM
They why did you bring up Spanish at all? And what proof do you have that the “godview” of people in South America is what makes them economically worse off? Don’t 90% of the people in Mexico claim to be Catholic? Going by your logic they should be similar to Vatican City, or at least Italy.
Nonfactor on April 3, 2007 at 3:32 AM
Oh, Wow, What a conundrum.
Do I simply take the word of the aptly named NON-FACT-er, Nonfactor, or do I believe my own eyes. A difficult choice indeed.
OK! Make it clear. I’m afraid that it is going to take more than just your mere denial to make me believe that my own eyes lied to me.
LegendHasIt on April 3, 2007 at 5:00 AM
I’m not bashing Clinton, I think he was right to spend his administration making the WMD case, then making regime change in Iraq American policy, and then attacking them in December of 1998. That’s not bashing, it’s stating a fact…
But it wasn’t just Clinton. It was those who have called him a liar. It was Kennedy. It was Rockefeller (who by the way visited Syria among other countries in the region a year before the invasion, telling the leaders that he thought Bush was determined to go to war.) It was Kerry who I can specifically give you quotes for 13 years, right up until practically Shock and Awe. It was Hillary. It was Albright (who has said even after the Dems turned on the war that she was convinced they had WMDs)… Do I need to go on? It was all the top Democrats.
But that’s not even the point, you liberals do this everytime. You like to whine about how the WMDs weren’t there (I don’t see that you’ve said “lied” here, though I have no doubt that you have before and probably do among your liberal friends regularly). But again, that’s off the point.. This is how it always goes with you bait and switch libs – You guys complain that we shouldn’t have gone because Saddam didn’t have WMDs – We point out that all of your favorite top Democrats made an even stronger WMD case for many more years than Bush ever did – You in turn change the complaint to “but they didn’t invade, Bush did”. It’s one of the other buddy.
RightWinged on April 3, 2007 at 5:35 AM
Your point being?
A totally asinine argument, I agree.
Nonfactor on April 3, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Nonfactor- Think about all the different continents and how good or bad off they are. Their place in the world economically and socially is determined by worldview.
Is it a coincidence that North Africa is a mess?
Is it a coincidence that sub-Sahara Africa is a mess?
Is it a coincidence that Latin/South America is a mess?
Asia is coming out of its communist nightmare because it’s making itself more like Chistendom. Europe is becoming worse because it’s allowing itself to become more Muslim. We in the US must be vigilent (which we haven’t been) lest we allow our hedonism and apathy to get the best of us.
As for WMD’s… Hey Sadam, nice bluff!
Mojave Mark on April 3, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Mexico is screwed over because of corrupt officials, not because 90% of Mexicans are Catholic and speak Spanish. Parts of the Congo are vicious not because they don’t believe in the Christian God, but because of years of guerrilla war.
You’re seeing a correlation in some nations with their belief in a god to their economy and making the judgment that they must have bad economies because of the majority of the populations beliefs. There is no evidence to back up your claim.
Let me quote your original post so people can see how absurd it is:
Need I point out again that almost 90% of Mexicans are Catholic and their economy isn’t doing as well as other Catholic countries?
Anyone can make a claim like you did right there, but it doesn’t make it true.
Nonfactor on April 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I was quite clear in my point. Just because you chose to only quote one line, doesn’t mean the whole point wasn’t fully explained.
RightWinged on April 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Comment pages: