Very nice site – I will have to figure out some of your technology and see if I can apply it to my blog.

Anyway, on Syria. Funny that spoots quoted the bit from Haaretz, which I wrote Thursday night for Friday's paper in English.

The plutonium may have been extrapolated but there are good grounds for such extrapolation: a. there is no evidence of uranium enrichment facilities; b. why build a structure, so similar to the North Korean reactor, with NKs around (they are not your typical tourist), and then leave it empty?

[Admin: Thank you, Michael. If you want, drop me an e-mail and I'll give you what information about the stuff I use here as I can.]

In Washington, a senior U.S. official said the facility in Syria was destroyed soon before it would have become functional, at which point testing would have begun. At the time of the attack, no uranium was evident at the site.

The Syrian reactor was similar in design to a North Korean reactor that has produced small amounts of plutonium, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information. The Syrian reactor was not yet complete, but it was far enough along to resemble the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon.

So, the plutonium aspect was more extrapolated than witnessed.