Adam L. Silverman, PhD*
BillH, in the comments to the Secretary Panetta's Comments thread indicated that Scott Pelley reported that the SecDef indicated a time frame for Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. The transcript of his Face the Nation interview can be found here. I don't see any reference like that, but click over and see for yourselves.
* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College (USAWC). The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of USAWC and/or the US Army.
To clarify what I was driving at, in Face the Nation Panetta said, "Are they developing a nuclear weapon? No." and then went on about "nuclear capability" and "bright lines."
Wednesday night, in a piece about the killing of the nuclear scientist in Iran, Scott Pelley talked with a reporter and then sort of tossed of the comment as part of the thank you to the reporter. "And Sunday SecDef Leon Panetta told CBS News that Iran was within one year of being able to build a nuclear weapon. Thanks [whoever]."
Posted by: Bill H. | 12 January 2012 at 12:34 PM
Mr. Silverman
I believe that Bill H was pinpointing the 'inconsistencies" from the networks on that subject. I did not watch CBS but I was listening to ABC News last evening whilst making supper and I couldn't smile when I heard Diane Sawyer's mantra "our allies in Israel"
If I am not mistaken, someone did define what "an ally of the US is" on SST
Posted by: The beaver | 12 January 2012 at 12:38 PM
Verrrry interesting, Bill H., your media hard at it.
Except I've read the three pages several times now and it doesn't say anything like that any where in it. Perhaps somebody can beard Mr Pelly on the issue, or link us to that CBS transcript.
Never mind what the SecDEf said or didn't, there were other interesting nuggets in the FTN transcript for me, to wit:
John MCCain opining that "We needed to keep residual force there and that was what the Bush Administration envisioned and that is what we should have done and we never gave them a number until, in the words of General Dempsey, the numbers cascaded down to 3,500. The Iraqis were ready to deal on the issue. This administration did not give them a number . . . "
So that's Obama's rather than Maliki's fault.
And the report on p3 that Santorum doesn't think McCain understands torture gave me a doubletake, missed that pearl.
Posted by: Charles I | 12 January 2012 at 01:19 PM
ChsrleI
This administration did not give them a number . . ." Not true. Very specific numbers were discussed on both sides. The sticking point was the Iraq unwilligness to give US forces immunity from Iraqi law. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 12 January 2012 at 04:06 PM
you're misunderestimating my irony, my point of course, any fool with google can show the Senator to be a compulsive serial fabricator
Posted by: Charles I | 12 January 2012 at 04:33 PM
Thanks very much. Pelly, A talking head talked with a reporter. As I say the media works hard, as hard as numerologist Senator McCain of my earlier post.
Used to listen to a lot of Circle Jerks back in school. . .
Posted by: Charles I | 12 January 2012 at 04:37 PM