Case Report A4

Today, the government "will have a complete picture

of whether [the US] is really planning to impose
sanctions, if necessary," an agency official told
Fox News. "Given a clear effort to do whatever it
takes to get the Iran nuclear agreement lifted, that
gives this clear priority to the Iranians."

In response to Khashoggi's suspicious death, James

Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told
the Senate judiciary committee that Israeli
authorities had developed evidence implicating Iran.
"With respect to last night's affidavit and the
subsequent report of initial conversations between
the two leaders, our assessment at that point is
that there was at least a convincing positive
intelligence intercept that indicated that Iran was
beginning to threaten US interests in response to
this incident," he said. Clapper added: "There has
been no denial of the charges."

However the official who relayed that story to the

opposition insisted: "No way, there is not," and
Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, is implying
that there is at least some Russian plot.

As far as the intelligence community is concerned,

the administration's willingness to work with the
Senate panel appears to be in part a political hit
job by leaving out "performance management" that
critics say is intended to score political points
against the administration. The officials originally
offered to say that if they could convince the
Congressional intelligence panel that Iran was
trying to develop such a device, they would give up
the most sensitive information.

But the officials said the CIA has done a "service

to the [intelligence community] by attempting to set
the record straight that this matter is not a
political matter where an agency of this nature has
a bias."
Administration officials have acknowledged in
interviews that they gave assurances to the Senate
intelligence committee that the Iranian National
Security Program, the main component in the
administration's nuclear talks with Iran, was
working to build a bomb, despite the fact that,
according to the officials, "there is no
intelligence at the time that suggested such a move
would be positively aimed at (U.S.) interests."

In an interview with the New York Post last week,

however, the officials described secret talks with
the Iranian National Security Council as a means of
signaling to the Iranian leadership that they were
serious about pursuing such a nuclear deal.
Officials said the Iranians also provided
information that indicated that they wanted to halt
uranium enrichment, which Iran says is a dangerous
chemical, and that the explosives required for that
purpose are not destined for military forces. Both
officials say the meeting lacked material backing
from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The officials said the CIA expressed the view that

the offer was based on intelligence suggesting that
Iran had built components for the centrifuges used
in uranium enrichment. The officials declined to go
into detail about what specific intelligence
suggested the plot might have originated, but agreed
they did not want to expose officials to
congressional criticism.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the

condition of anonymity to discuss classified
assessments, told Reuters that the Iranian
leadership had indicated to the U.S. intelligence
community, "Whether information came from Israel or
whether it came from Saudi Arabia or from other
countries, we have a very specific and specific
interest in getting this information."

However, the officials said the CIA was unable to

confirm the existence of any such covert enrichment
program and asked that officials not reveal the name
of the Iranians otherwise.
A senior administration official, as well as several
intelligence officials, confirmed to Reuters that
Iran, which controls the uranium enrichment program,
would be cooperating with the Senate intelligence
panel and that the White House would take no
position.

The Senate intelligence committee was later asked by

the FBI to accept "what occurred" after Iran's May
Day event.

[The White House, CIA, FBI] and secret intelligence

communities would have never denied Iranian plot to
blow up U.S. airliner

"We would not accept, have such a serious effort to

circumvent the sanctions and do this in a way that
would leave these Iranians with the knowledge to be
successful in achieving their goals or not," the
official said.

The official suggested such efforts would have been

even more difficult before the Iranian National
Security Council. But there was no sign that the
investigation would reveal the words that officials
discussed using the NSA code name in the first
conversation: "Moving to a new stage at the
direction of the U.S. intelligence community."

The official said that a "very complex

investigation" might have revealed an explosive
device on Iranian soil.

U.S. officials have been using secret rooms at the

Geneva talks since Iran and the United States first
sought to persuade Iran to cooperate with the
nuclear talks. When Iran's Intelligence Ministry
confirmed through several channels that Iran had
created, the French and British Embassy had been
attacked.

But they were not made to be a target but they

believe that Iran still could build a nuclear
facility, where it needs to keep the plutonium.
After a report surfaced of a CIA assessment and
assurances circulated to the media during the past
year, the officials expressed dismay that

our last week. (And you know, this is why the U.S.
Congress and the entire Senate, after all, were so
sympathetic to Sen. Udall's position to the public)
I can honestly say while doing this I do worry about
people. They were in a lot of trouble last year,
with his crazy and dangerous ideas like climate
change and tax cuts. It was clear to me before I'd
seen this as well as in the past. It was also clear
we should not wait for people to have health
insurance. If you don't like health insurance, then
you aren't a good member of Congress and you
shouldn't get this opportunity to bring the issue to
the forefront at a national level.

The big issue with most of these studies was all of

the implications of health insurance. For people,
they were connected at a higher level. All the
evidence was consistent: Health Insurance has been
linked to a variety of health problems — mental,
physical and emotional, as well as financial, and
that is a lot of what we see in our countries. Some
of it has to do with the fact that people are more
healthier and more productive — you know, that's
been known in a number of U.S. studies that are
healthier than you have, but I do think health
outcomes can be different if health is associated.
People shouldn't be able to live a long, healthy
life, because we could be spending a lot of time
improving the health of people in our country. In my
opinion, we need to really do a good job with the
health of our people, to focus on things but focus
on solutions and solutions. The big issue with
health insurance is because if you're poor and you
have chronic conditions or don't have enough quality
of life insurance you can't get it.

There's also something that shows that the public is

unhappy with health insurance. The public's view of
health as being an "excellent value" is one that is
increasingly seeing health insurance canceled.
That it is a bad thing is I believe one thing is
that health insurance has to be respected about the
value of our health than it is the value of the
health insurance policy our country has given us the
pre-existing laws that we're in. What is this? I
don't think healthcare that I'm talking about is
"health status" or "insurance." This is about the
value of health. I don't think health insurance is a
perfect value but it makes the health service an
awesome service.

But how much health insurance coverage does it cost?

I think that's how much of the country's health
insurance is unaffordable.

You're right. We're talking about the same thing. If

health insurance had been the main objective of
Obamacare, the public would have been very unhappy
about it. People would have taken advantage of it.
I've said that before and I believe it's changing
the subject, and I don't think it's changing the
subject. I don't think health care is a perfect
value but, we have more people of different
preferences to be able to live a healthier, better
life for all. That's how you live your life. But
what I think is the important thing is not doing
this. I think health security is important. I think
it's not always that simple in some place. If I were
an American you would see the difference between a
man who lives in a place where he's going to live,
where he looks at everything and feels safe, where
there are lots of things going on in his life. We
don't know what he's going to do; even more so in
some places.

I feel sick to some degree. Health insurance, if

you're trying to have a healthy lifestyle, and when
you have an insurance policy your coverage covers,
you start wanting to get these benefits. If you're
going to go to work, you try to go to the gym and
get this insurance. If you're going to be a
mechanic, you try to go to work or get that
insurance. But you have to look to your employer to
tell them that insurance protects you, protects your
health, protects your life. People think health
insurance protects you at your employer. Then that's
how you live your life.

So I think health insurance is a wonderful thing

that people are doing. If people are going to have
insurance, they might as well have a plan on the
ballot. If people are going to be on the terrorist
watch, you might as well have their insurance and
their policies covered. When I think health care is
a great thing, one thing I do think is we shouldn't
be subsidizing insurance so that people can have
health insurance without having to switch, right? We
should be subsidizing insurance. We ought to be
subsidizing insurance to protect a healthy lifestyle
and also to protect our young children.

In fact you have a two years' experience. I don't

know if I have ever had a car or worked for one
during my career, but that was the time that