U.S. report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: bamacre

U.S. report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program

Gee, I read it quite a bit different than you.

I believe it would have been more accurate to say that the report doesn't confirm GWB's warnings about Iran. The report doesn't refute that they have nuclear weapon ambitions, merely can't confirm or deny (they don't know).

Yet the report does confirm that Iran continues to develop technical capabilities that could be used to biuld a nuke bomb? What do they require as convincing evidence? A confession by the leading Ayatullah?

Looks like a BS wussy report to me. Like they don't wanna take the responsibility of making any kind of decision.

Which agency is responsible for this report (the article doesn't say).

Finally, I'll note that Iran is moving forward with generatoring fissable nuclear material suitable for weapon purposes when other nuclear generating capabilities were offered. Yet they purposefuly choose this route - which makes weapons grade material. Manufacturing weapons grade nuclear material is prrecisely that, no matter what the report does or doesn't conclude.

Fern

But in a finding likely to surprise U.S. friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."

But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical capabilities that could be used to build a bomb and that it would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."

Sounds like the wannabe conservatives and neo-cons are using emotion and feelings instead of going with facts and evidence. Faith-based intelligence might have fooled the US once, but it's going to be a lot tougher to fool the public a second time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Shockingly enough, war isn't always the answer.

Shockingly enough, neither is diplomacy, particular where Iran is concerned and as the EU discovered.

There's a difference between war and keeping the military option on the table. It's that big stick Teddy spoke about. We are walking softly too, at least as softly as Iran deserves considering its own rhetoric. This is all part of the diplomatic tango that is necessary when dealing with Iran. Believe it or not we are making progress but neither side is going to suddenly soften their stance. There are slow, deliberate steps being taken to diffuse all of the history between us now though and we may actually be able to have somewhat normal relations in the not too distant future. Of course both Dubya and AhMad-boy will have to be gone for that too happen.

The difference between war and keeping the military option on the table is a few weeks. After all, the military option was left on the table with Iraq and it took Bush only a few weeks to go to war. Bush has proven that he can't be trusted with the military option because he is too inclined to believe the absolute worst possible reality, regardless of facts, and act brutally to counter it.

Why do we need the military option on the table now? It's not like if we take it away, Iran is going to be free to bomb everyone and we'll be powerless to stop them. This isn't a court, there are no rules against double jeopardy, and Iran will never be free of the threat of violence from the United States. But maybe, just maybe, we should wait for some shred of proof, or even evidence, that they have done anything worth attacking them for. "We don't know," is never acceptable justification for starting a war.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Why do we need the military option on the table now?

Strength through power. Why on earth would you take anything off the table?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush lied? Wow, shocking!!

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Near as I can tell, despite TLC's allusion to the EU, the Bush Admin has only ever had one option on the table, the military option.

Using the EU as a beard isn't what any reasonable person would describe as "diplomacy"- you know, where the players sit at the same table and actually converse directly with each other...

"Military options" aren't generally mentioned by parties doing their best to avoid them- some things are understood, and best unsaid if some sort of agreement is intended... well, in scenarios outside the usual cowboy movies...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Near as I can tell, despite TLC's allusion to the EU, the Bush Admin has only ever had one option on the table, the military option.

If that were true, we would have bombed NK, Pakistan, and Iran by now.

It's not true now, and never has been.

Don't forget that Iraq was given more than 12 years, and 14 chances to adhere to UN resolutions, before we gave up on diplomacy and sanctions.

My guess is that Bush will keep the military option on the table, but he will refrain from attacking during his term. The next POTUS will be faced with the final decision on Iran, which is why this is the most important issue in the election.

Regardless of the ambiguities you've all learned from the unclassified portion of the NIE, It would still be a mistake to take the military option off of the table.

Iran needs to know that we're still dead serious about them never getting nuclear weapons... and we are.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Pabster
Israel Believes Iran Restarted Nuclear Arms Work

No where is this stated in that article. Go troll somewhere else.

Oh, really, smartass?

"There are differences in the assessments of different organizations in the world about this, and only time will tell who is right," he added.

And what do you think that might convey?

It conveys uncertainty; nowhere did they say that "Israel believes Iran restarted nuclear arms work", as for one that states plainly that they have restarted anything, and secondly and more importantly, that's a definitive statement. The NIE was still strong in their assessment of Iran's nuclear program and capabilities, and "moderate confidence" certainly takes the winds out of the sails of an administration that was talking about Iran pursuing nuclear weapons as if it were consensus fact.

That's what is great about the intelligence officers here; they don't give a shit about politics because they're not supposed to.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Near as I can tell, despite TLC's allusion to the EU, the Bush Admin has only ever had one option on the table, the military option.

Using the EU as a beard isn't what any reasonable person would describe as "diplomacy"- you know, where the players sit at the same table and actually converse directly with each other...

"Military options" aren't generally mentioned by parties doing their best to avoid them- some things are understood, and best unsaid if some sort of agreement is intended... well, in scenarios outside the usual cowboy movies...

Right Jhhnn. And that's why we already invaded Iran, just like the Chicken Littles have predicted for the last 4 years or so.

Oh, wait...

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Pabster
Israel Believes Iran Restarted Nuclear Arms Work

No where is this stated in that article. Go troll somewhere else.

Oh, really, smartass?

"There are differences in the assessments of different organizations in the world about this, and only time will tell who is right," he added.

And what do you think that might convey?

HAHAHAH :laugh:

way to not make any sense at all, again.

how in the balls does that quote convey that israel believes that iran restarted a nuclear arms race? haha dumb, typical pabster. poor guy - doesn't know shit from apple butter

i'm honestly starting to feel sorry for pabster...

 

[Red Dawn]

On Tuesday the president acknowledged he had given a speech warning that Iran's nuclear development risked "World War III" about two months after his intelligence chief told him a reassessment of Tehran's nuclear ambitions was under way.

Alright Chicken, Pabs and Fern, your assignment for today is to try and spin this.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Linky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could hamper U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.

Iran says it wants nuclear technology only for civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.

Tensions have escalated in recent months as Washington has ratcheted up the rhetoric against Tehran, with U.S. President George W. Bush insisting in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.

So, why are there sanctions against Iran?

Looks like Bush fooled Hillary, and many others, again.

Fool me once, shame on..., aww fuck it, go Obama!

I guess GWB will have to come up with another reason to justify bombing Iran.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-

Shockingly enough, war isn't always the answer.

It seems to me that the only people mentioning "war" are Dems. I suppose it makes for a good campaign boogeyman.



Fern

I guess you missed McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?

 

[Red Dawn]

Americans have learned that using the words Bush and intelligence in the same sentence may be grammatically correct, but inadvisable nonetheless. The latest news about Bush, World War III, and the most recent intelligence from Iran certainly bear that out.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On Tuesday the president acknowledged he had given a speech warning that Iran's nuclear development risked "World War III" about two months after his intelligence chief told him a reassessment of Tehran's nuclear ambitions was under way.

Alright Chicken, Pabs and Fern, your assignment for today is to try and spin this.

The left is already spinning it wild, Red.

For months now we've heard that Bush has been over-playing and over-stating intelligence in some mad "push for war" ... now the argument is that since Bush only found out the contents of this latest NIE (apparently) last week, he must be incompetent. At least, according to that gasbag Joe Biden. So which is it? I thought Bush was some evil war President who has been pushing for war with Iran for quite some time. Now the left switches the argument at the last minute to "incompetent" ... talk about spinning.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On Tuesday the president acknowledged he had given a speech warning that Iran's nuclear development risked "World War III" about two months after his intelligence chief told him a reassessment of Tehran's nuclear ambitions was under way.

Alright Chicken, Pabs and Fern, your assignment for today is to try and spin this.

The left is already spinning it wild, Red.

For months now we've heard that Bush has been over-playing and over-stating intelligence in some mad "push for war" ... now the argument is that since Bush only found out the contents of this latest NIE (apparently) last week, he must be incompetent. At least, according to that gasbag Joe Biden. So which is it? I thought Bush was some evil war President who has been pushing for war with Iran for quite some time. Now the left switches the argument at the last minute to "incompetent" ... talk about spinning.

Atta boy, I knew you'd step up to the plate and start with the spinning:laugh:

 

[Jhhnn]

"Incompetent" is merely the more generous evaluation, Pabs.

Biden is just trying to be as nice about it as possible.

And being incompetent and a warmonger are not mutually exclusive, as the Bushistas have shown before.

Here's the spin from the Right-

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/podhoretz-nie-iran/

Notice that none of them actually say the NIE is inaccurate, but that releasing it is just another attack on the Dear Leader...

Maybe they can call in Reagan's astrologer to to come up with some other information... friendlier to their cause than reasoned evaluation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On Tuesday the president acknowledged he had given a speech warning that Iran's nuclear development risked "World War III" about two months after his intelligence chief told him a reassessment of Tehran's nuclear ambitions was under way.

Alright Chicken, Pabs and Fern, your assignment for today is to try and spin this.

It's what politicians do, Red. We've seen it from the Democrats too, denying the success of the Surge. btw, I'd bet that the neocons didn't take out a full-page ad in the Washington Times calling the Admiral who provided that information to Bush "Mc-Con us."

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
On Tuesday the president acknowledged he had given a speech warning that Iran's nuclear development risked "World War III" about two months after his intelligence chief told him a reassessment of Tehran's nuclear ambitions was under way.

Alright Chicken, Pabs and Fern, your assignment for today is to try and spin this.

The left is already spinning it wild, Red.

For months now we've heard that Bush has been over-playing and over-stating intelligence in some mad "push for war" ... now the argument is that since Bush only found out the contents of this latest NIE (apparently) last week, he must be incompetent. At least, according to that gasbag Joe Biden. So which is it? I thought Bush was some evil war President who has been pushing for war with Iran for quite some time. Now the left switches the argument at the last minute to "incompetent" ... talk about spinning.

Atta boy, I knew you'd step up to the plate and start with the spinning:laugh:

LMAO Pabster can spin anything it seems... I like the way he counters the BS you posted with saying the "left is already spinning it wild"... unbelievable, what a shill.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: jman19
LMAO Pabster can spin anything it seems... I like the way he counters the BS you posted with saying the "left is already spinning it wild"... unbelievable, what a shill.

They are spinning it wild. For months now we've heard wild accusations from all these left-wing nutjobs that Bush has been contorting intelligence and preparing a "push for war" ... now, when it is reported that Bush did not know the contents of this NIE until last week, the argument has suddenly changed to "Well, he was incompetent!" ...

So he's either incompetent or guilty of a "push to war" ... which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jman19
LMAO Pabster can spin anything it seems... I like the way he counters the BS you posted with saying the "left is already spinning it wild"... unbelievable, what a shill.

They are spinning it wild. For months now we've heard wild accusations from all these left-wing nutjobs that Bush has been contorting intelligence and preparing a "push for war" ... now, when it is reported that Bush did not know the contents of this NIE until last week, the argument has suddenly changed to "Well, he was incompetent!" ...

So he's either incompetent or guilty of a "push to war" ... which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Pab, I'm referring to the fact that you diverted what Red quoted (which demonstrates Bush's warhawk BS) with saying the left is spinning it... well that might be so, but that has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that Bush is rather wreckless with his words and oversimplifies the issues.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: jman19
Pab, I'm referring to the fact that you diverted what Red quoted (which demonstrates Bush's warhawk BS) with saying the left is spinning it... well that might be so, but that has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that Bush is rather wreckless with his words and oversimplifies the issues.

No, Red posted a quote that Bush's intelligence chief had told him two months back that a "reassessment" was under way. Bush didn't know the results of that assessment at the time he gave that speech, so I see nothing contradictory there.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jman19
Pab, I'm referring to the fact that you diverted what Red quoted (which demonstrates Bush's warhawk BS) with saying the left is spinning it... well that might be so, but that has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that Bush is rather wreckless with his words and oversimplifies the issues.

No, Red posted a quote that Bush's intelligence chief had told him two months back that a "reassessment" was under way. Bush didn't know the results of that assessment at the time he gave that speech, so I see nothing contradictory there.

The point is that Bush didn't know the facts and spouted off before collecting them, as usual.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jman19
Pab, I'm referring to the fact that you diverted what Red quoted (which demonstrates Bush's warhawk BS) with saying the left is spinning it... well that might be so, but that has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that Bush is rather wreckless with his words and oversimplifies the issues.

No, Red posted a quote that Bush's intelligence chief had told him two months back that a "reassessment" was under way. Bush didn't know the results of that assessment at the time he gave that speech, so I see nothing contradictory there.

so he shouldn't have opened his dumbass mouth.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
No, Red posted a quote that Bush's intelligence chief had told him two months back that a "reassessment" was under way. Bush didn't know the results of that assessment at the time he gave that speech, so I see nothing contradictory there.

Any President with half a brain and a quarter of the interest necessary to do the job should pursue the question. And since he has a platform somewhat greater than AT P&N, any President with a quarter of a brain and an eighth of the interest necessary to do the job shouldn't open his dumbass mouth and scream WW III!!! before doing so.

Your TRAITOR IN CHEIF and his criminal cabal are lying, murdering turds. They're not "conservative" by any rational definition of the word. The sooner we get rid of them, the sooner we can get back to being the REAL United States of America.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY, NOW!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eits
so he shouldn't have opened his dumbass mouth.

And neither should have you.