Skip to content

Mohamed ElBaradei is Leaving, and Good Riddance.

November 4, 2009

elbaradei and ahmadinejad

This is Mohamed ElBaradei’s last month as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is charged with monitoring nuclear proliferation, with special emphasis on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Although the IAEA is an autonomous organization and not under direct control of any United Nations body, it does, in fact, report its findings to both the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.  Under ElBaradei’s stewardship, however, the IAEA has become nothing more that another politically charged, anti-American, anti-Israeli corrupt entity following the standard UN blueprint.

Democracy Now! made note last night of ElBaradei’s final report before he turns over leadership of the Agency to his successor. True to form, ElBaradei took the opportunity to both congratulate himself on a job well done and to criticize the United States:

Mohamed ElBaradei: I will always lament the fact that a tragic war was launched in Iraq, which has cost the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. This was done on the basis of false pretext, without the authorization from the Security Council and despite the Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations monitoring, verification and inspection commission having found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapon program or programs involving other weapons of mass destruction. It gives me no consolation that the Agency’s finding was subsequently vindicated.

The United States, he concluded, invaded Iraq under “false pretenses,” despite his protestations.

Democracy Now!’s coverage pretty much ended on that note, which is not unusual for a program which makes no real effort at presenting a balanced view of any story they choose to cover. There were, however, other examples of “false pretenses,” involving ElBaradei himself, that the network completely glossed over.

No mention was made by Democracy Now!, for example, of ElBaradei’s pro-Iranian bias. He is almost an apologist for Iran and has taken positions regarding that country that are in direct violation of three United Nations Security Council resolutions. He was so soft on Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program, in fact, that France publicly accused him of deliberately hiding evidence of Iran’s work on a nuclear bomb.

Nor was any mention made of reports that the ElBaradei’s IAEA actually suppressed evidence given to it by Western intelligence agencies, which suggested that Iran had secretly combined uranium processing with airborne high-explosive tests in an effort to revamp a missile cone in a way that would allow it to carry a nuclear warhead.

The report on ElBaradei also glossed over the fact that Director ElBaradei emphatically stated a few years ago that there was absolutely no evidence of a “concrete, active nuclear weapons program” going on inside Iran, and that attacking Iran would “lead absolutely to disaster,” even though he knew that they were working on a nuclear weapons program.

Predictably, Democracy Now!’s report was little more than a puff piece glorifying ElBaradei on the eve of his departure.

There is one other fact that Democracy Now! failed to note in connection with its piece on ElBaradei: the fact that he will not be universally missed.

  1. Hass permalink
    November 4, 2009 5:07 am

    The incoming head of the IAEA has also said there’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Even the US accuses Iran of seeking the “capability” of making nukes rather than having an actual weapons program. So het a clue.

  2. Jack Hampton permalink
    November 4, 2009 5:48 am

    How can I put this in as eloquent a manner possible for me. I would not trust ElBaradey in an outhouse with a muzzel on. Other than that I guess he is okay.

  3. American Delight permalink
    November 4, 2009 6:28 am

    Hold the phone–Iraq was invaded “without the authorization from the Security Council”? Bull$#@+!

    Did el Baradork ever hear of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized the whole war?

    • GWB permalink
      November 4, 2009 7:22 am

      The Iraq was was about WMDs, even though the UN inspectors said there were none.

      Then it was about finding Saddam Hussein. He was found, but we stayed on all the same.

      Then it was about democracy. We arranged some sham elections, but stayed on all the same.

      Anyone would think they had something valuable we wanted?

      Now we’re accusing this chap of being some kind of cover for Iran, which (just like Iraq) “must” have WMDs.

      Anyone would think that Iran had something valuable we might want?

      • In the Know permalink
        November 4, 2009 8:23 am


        Iran does not have WMD. They do however posses weapons of mass destruction. There is no argument you can make on moral grounds to defend the regime there. Unless you sympathize with them? From your post, I would say English is not your first language. Is your first language Farsi or Arabic?

        • Jack Hampton permalink
          November 4, 2009 11:03 am

          I do know they have been crap and they have the Quds force. Be a shame if one of those bombs they are building went off accidentally on purpose near the home of Dinnerjacket.

  4. John Davidson permalink
    November 4, 2009 7:15 am

    Once we clean out the idiots in our own government, then we can address those charlatans occupying the UN.

  5. WestWright permalink
    November 4, 2009 8:31 am

    GWB, like all the lefty sad sacks have what anyone rational would consider an extreme short-term & selective memory. These wankers have the brain power of a parrot…”ack, ack, WMDs, Halliburton, War for Oil, No UN resolution, no votes in Congress, No terrorist bombings, ack, ack”. These crackheads are invaribly the most useless posters on any blogsite!

  6. Michael van der Galien permalink
    November 4, 2009 2:46 pm

    @WestWright: but they’re entertaining. And that counts for something, no?

    @Hass: I’m afraid that anyone who says that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons is per definition considered to be ‘unqualified’ for that job.

    @GWB: you guys seem to forget that Bush, Powell, etc. actually gave more than one reason to wage war and that UN security resolution 1441 did, indeed, enable the US to use force. Furthermore, after the Iraq War, it became pretty clear that Saddam Hussein had done his best to convince the outside world that he had nuclear and chemical weapons or was busy developing them.

  7. Kevroc permalink
    November 4, 2009 11:26 pm

    I saw a piece on FOX about Obama shutting down the radioactive waste storage facility at Yucca.

    How does Iran dispose of its spent nuclear energy?

    I’d like to know the answer if anyone has it.

    Thanks in advance.

    • Jack Hampton permalink
      November 5, 2009 5:40 am

      If I were in charge we would load ours on planes and fly it over the holy city of Gom or is that Goon and just dump the damn stuff. That would be a fine place for it.

    • In the Know permalink
      November 5, 2009 6:25 am

      It doesn’t. It builds nukes with it. Plutonium is a byproduct of energy producing uranium fission reactors (which are obsolete). That’s the whole point of the lie. Europe offered to build Iran “light water” reactors that do not produce plutonium by product and they declined. They instead chose the route of older, less reliable uranium reactors which “conveniently” produce low grade plutonium (which can be easily upgraded to weapons grade). They have the latest generation of mental midgets we call “graduates” in this country fooled. “Idiots of the world UNTIE!

  8. Sam Deakins permalink
    November 5, 2009 3:40 am

    Looks like MadMahx and Mohamed are getting ready for date night with the Obamas. Such lovely couples.

  9. Jack Hampton permalink
    November 5, 2009 3:55 am

    Michael van der Galien
    Saddam had chemical weapons he used them on his own people we have celluliod and photo’s of there after effect. He also used them on the military of Iran during there war. He the remaining chemical weapons moved to Syria or that is what the intel types think they even believe they have the photographs of when it occured taken by sat.

  10. victor permalink
    November 5, 2009 7:32 am

    I knew that something was wrong from the numerous times he joyfully embraced Ajad including multiple kisses on his cheeks. Is he Iranian also?

  11. Steve R permalink
    November 6, 2009 12:16 am

    Don’t worry, elBaradei will be replaced with some other weak kneed apologist for thug regimes like Iran. It’s part of the job description. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

  12. kim segar permalink
    November 6, 2009 8:24 am

    Good riddance..yes,,,but look who replaced Arafat, what next !! and the ugly un , we give more than all the nations to human care. none gets to the poor, and what about our votes to kick the UN out. they are still here , taking our money and our land. IF we do not stop this madness and kick all the bums in our gov out along with the UN, we are done folks..Remember our forefathers told us , warned us it was a Republic IF we can hold onto it. and they also warned, once you loose your freedom you will never get it back…and in war, if not going for Victory, you will be destroyed..think on it and what happened on our soil and lets kick out the treson talking !!!!


  1. Steynian 396 « Free Canuckistan!

Comments are closed.