Deductive Reasoning: Syrian Facility Was No Inland Water Treatment Plant
The Washington Post headline reads "Bombed Syrian Site Appears to Have Been Nuclear Reactor." My initial response was, "Gee. Ya think?"
The Syrian facility bombed by Israeli planes last year bore multiple hallmarks of a nuclear reactor, and the ruined site was contaminated with uranium, United Nations nuclear inspectors confirmed today in a report that largely backed Bush administration accounts of a secret atomic program in the Syrian desert.
The report stopped short of declaring the Syrian facility to be a nuclear reactor, noting that Damascus had taken extensive steps to sanitize the site before officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency were allowed to visit. But agency officials said Syria had failed to provide blueprints or other documents to support its claim that the destroyed building had a non-nuclear purpose.
For the record, I expect an official IAEA report to be worded in such a manner as to stop short in declaring the site a nuclear facility.
But also for the record, I expect the IAEA and Elbaradei not to label as half-baked lunatics those of us outside the report's official process who conclude that it most certainly was a nuclear facility.
For what it's worth, the Israelis had soil samples before and after the attack, long before the IAEA was permitted to perform its post-scrub inspection of freshly renovated barren desert soil.
Perhaps the long water supply lines to the Euphrates River leaves open the possibility that the facility was a rare inland water treatment plant. The North Koreans and Iranians are surely on the cutting edge of water treatment technology.
Peaceful water treatment technology, of course.