Cheney said he has no reason to question the intelligence released this week showing that Iran is not an imminent nuclear threat, putting him at odds with conservatives such as presidential candidate Fred Thompson of Tennessee and others who have raised doubts or disputed the findings.
"I don't have any reason to question what the [intelligence] community has produced," he said. "Now, there are things they don't know. There's always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they've done the best job they can with the intelligence that's available."
However, the vice president said the administration is "still concerned" about Iran's enrichment activities
"We still think there's need to continue the course we've been on to persuade the Iranians not to enrich uranium," he said. "The long pole in the tent in terms of developing nuclear weapons, traditionally, historically, has been developing fissile material, either highly-enriched uranium or plutonium. In this case, they're embarked upon the program to develop uranium, obviously."
Asked how badly the NIE would complicate the administration's strategic objectives, the vice president replied: "We don't get to say we only pursue those policies if they're easy. It's very important, I think, and the President clearly does, that we proceed down the road of trying to persuade Iran diplomatically to give up their efforts to enrich uranium. That has not changed. There's nothing in the NIE that said we should be ? not be concerned about their enrichment activities."
Cheney said the assessment was released because "there was a general belief that we all shared that it was important to put it out ? that it was not likely to stay classified for long, anyway," he said.
Cheney said that "especially in light of what happened with respect to Iraq and the NIE on weapons of destruction," officials wanted to be "upfront with what we knew." He said he agreed that was "the right call."
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Sounds like a lame vice-duck talking to me.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Sounds like a lame vice-duck talking to me.
And what's your position again? :laugh:
My point wasn't about enriching uranium. My point was to correct your error. The NIE already details their opinion of how long it would take Iran to enrich enough uranium for a bomb.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The truthinator, do you have a problem with that?
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, chucky2, it seems obvious that the IAEA has sufficient access to the Iranians' declared facilities, and that they're the kind of thing that's tough to hide when the US is searching intently for any evidence that others might exist.
So you're just working the scaremonger angle, unless you have some sort of proof that the Iranians are concealing secret facilities, or that they're sneaking HEU past under the nose of the IAEA at their declared facilities...
Jumping to unjustified conclusions and taking action on them is not in our interest, at all, particularly in view of the ongoing Iraqi debacle...
Originally posted by: chucky2
When moderate Iranian Leadership is elected and the trump card influence of religious backing is greatly diminished, then I'll jump on the World bandwaggon of actually trusting the Iranian Leadership. Until then we ought to be taking the cautious route and not putting our eggs in the Oh, everything all OK now, peace and love for all basket...
Chuck
When moderate Iranian Leadership is elected and the trump card influence of religious backing is greatly diminished, then I'll jump on the World bandwaggon of actually trusting the Iranian Leadership. Until then we ought to be taking the cautious route and not putting our eggs in the Oh, everything all OK now, peace and love for all basket...
Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of "intelligence."
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
John Bolton... the Yosemite Sam of the Neocon foreign policy establishment...
He's right about the difference being one of perspective, however- 9/11 has worn off, fearmongering like his doesn't sell the way it did...
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The truthinator, do you have a problem with that?
Truthinator? :laugh:
I'd say you're a few steps below even a "lame duck" Vice President.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You say lots of things..... almost exclusively stupid things. As a matter of fact your noted for that and your lame troll threads so I'd say your as many (or more) steps down from this lame duck administration as I am, ergo it's a mystery to me what you think your gloating over?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You say lots of things..... almost exclusively stupid things. As a matter of fact your noted for that and your lame troll threads so I'd say your as many (or more) steps down from this lame duck administration as I am, ergo it's a mystery to me what you think your gloating over?
You expect me to take seriously a guy who can't discern the difference between your and you're? :laugh:
Take your and run.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You say lots of things..... almost exclusively stupid things. As a matter of fact your noted for that and your lame troll threads so I'd say your as many (or more) steps down from this lame duck administration as I am, ergo it's a mystery to me what you think your gloating over?
You expect me to take seriously a guy who can't discern the difference between your and you're? :laugh:
Take your and run.
LMAO run from what, your incessant, incomprehensible babbling about nothing? I make syntax mistakes like that all the time and I'm sure you have to. It proves nothing, but then you never do, you just babble on and on and on and dig your hole deeper and deeper until you run and then start another troll thread. It has nothing to do with the argument or your personal attack on me so.... as expected you do nothing but troll. It seems it's all you know and your not even very good at that. :laugh:
Is that really the best you can do? :roll:
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Bush knew about this back in August
The statement from Bush on Tuesday was that he was given no specifics, which is certainly a fabrication or, as Biden said, a gross level of incompetence. Are we really supposed to believe that Bush was briefed in August about some significant info on Iran and he didn't even get a hint about it? I don't believe it for a second. He sat on this info and continued to let the distaste of Iran foment, same fvcking thing he did before Iraq despite some real dissention in US intelligence prior to Mar/03 about what was being reported as fact.
This whole middle east WMD thing has been a travesty for years. How some people still don't get that infuriates me. Get a fvcking brain, people.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...2-05-cheney-iraq_N.htm
Cheney said he has no reason to question the intelligence released this week showing that Iran is not an imminent nuclear threat, putting him at odds with conservatives such as presidential candidate Fred Thompson of Tennessee and others who have raised doubts or disputed the findings.
"I don't have any reason to question what the [intelligence] community has produced," he said. "Now, there are things they don't know. There's always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they've done the best job they can with the intelligence that's available."
However, the vice president said the administration is "still concerned" about Iran's enrichment activities
"We still think there's need to continue the course we've been on to persuade the Iranians not to enrich uranium," he said. "The long pole in the tent in terms of developing nuclear weapons, traditionally, historically, has been developing fissile material, either highly-enriched uranium or plutonium. In this case, they're embarked upon the program to develop uranium, obviously."
Asked how badly the NIE would complicate the administration's strategic objectives, the vice president replied: "We don't get to say we only pursue those policies if they're easy. It's very important, I think, and the President clearly does, that we proceed down the road of trying to persuade Iran diplomatically to give up their efforts to enrich uranium. That has not changed. There's nothing in the NIE that said we should be ? not be concerned about their enrichment activities."
Cheney said the assessment was released because "there was a general belief that we all shared that it was important to put it out ? that it was not likely to stay classified for long, anyway," he said.
Cheney said that "especially in light of what happened with respect to Iraq and the NIE on weapons of destruction," officials wanted to be "upfront with what we knew." He said he agreed that was "the right call."
Sounds like a lame vice-duck talking to me.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: chucky2
When moderate Iranian Leadership is elected and the trump card influence of religious backing is greatly diminished, then I'll jump on the World bandwaggon of actually trusting the Iranian Leadership. Until then we ought to be taking the cautious route and not putting our eggs in the Oh, everything all OK now, peace and love for all basket...
Chuck
Did it even occur to you once writing that how much it applies to our own government?
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your characterizations are classic trollery, chucky2-
When moderate Iranian Leadership is elected and the trump card influence of religious backing is greatly diminished, then I'll jump on the World bandwaggon of actually trusting the Iranian Leadership. Until then we ought to be taking the cautious route and not putting our eggs in the Oh, everything all OK now, peace and love for all basket...
Classic strawman, in case you hadn't realized it. Several, in truth.
It's not an issue of trust, at all- that's why there's the IAEA and a myriad of intelligence sources.
As it stands, calls to "Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!" and the associated fearmongering have been largely discredited, the rush to military action for entirely different purposes along with them, and that's a positive development.
Lame obfuscations and denials from the Whitehouse and their rightwing sycophants merely confirm that they've been exaggerating and extrapolating all along in an effort to expand the Iraqi blunder into an even wider conflict. There was no real justification for that at the time, and there's no justification for military action against the Iranians at the present time, either.
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your characterizations are classic trollery, chucky2-
When moderate Iranian Leadership is elected and the trump card influence of religious backing is greatly diminished, then I'll jump on the World bandwaggon of actually trusting the Iranian Leadership. Until then we ought to be taking the cautious route and not putting our eggs in the Oh, everything all OK now, peace and love for all basket...
Classic strawman, in case you hadn't realized it. Several, in truth.
It's not an issue of trust, at all- that's why there's the IAEA and a myriad of intelligence sources.
As it stands, calls to "Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!" and the associated fearmongering have been largely discredited, the rush to military action for entirely different purposes along with them, and that's a positive development.
Lame obfuscations and denials from the Whitehouse and their rightwing sycophants merely confirm that they've been exaggerating and extrapolating all along in an effort to expand the Iraqi blunder into an even wider conflict. There was no real justification for that at the time, and there's no justification for military action against the Iranians at the present time, either.
It's interesting that you create a whole nother magnitude of strawman here about calls for Nuke'm etc.
Bush simply is leaving the military option on the table, that doesn't mean he's calling for GulfWar3.
Stop being sensationalistic, it doesn't make your argument stronger, it just makes you a BDS'r...
Chuck
Originally posted by: eits
all pabster is is a troll... just hit him with a stick and tell him to get back under his bridge.