U.S. report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^^ Add this to your list. Testimony by Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar who said the follow in front of congress in July:

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States? concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran?s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Link to congress site
He is, according to reports, one of the three main authors of the report.

Maybe this is the guy who briefed Bush a 'few' months ago?
Amazing how these guys changed their mind in just a few months.

Something strange is going on here.

Oh do you think it's a conspiracy by the Intellegence Community???:roll:

Well there are those who claim the people who wrote this bit are anti-Bush types, and there are many of those around especially at the State Department.

But I am more interested in why the guy gave a speech in July saying that Iran is "determined to develop nuclear weapons" and now says they ended their program 3? years ago?

Explain how/why such a dramatic change took place please.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^^ Add this to your list. Testimony by Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar who said the follow in front of congress in July:

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States? concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran?s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Link to congress site
He is, according to reports, one of the three main authors of the report.

Maybe this is the guy who briefed Bush a 'few' months ago?
Amazing how these guys changed their mind in just a few months.

Something strange is going on here.

Oh do you think it's a conspiracy by the Intellegence Community???:roll:

Well there are those who claim the people who wrote this bit are anti-Bush types, and there are many of those around especially at the State Department.

But I am more interested in why the guy gave a speech in July saying that Iran is "determined to develop nuclear weapons" and now says they ended their program 3? years ago?

Explain how/why such a dramatic change took place please.

He came to his senses and stopped parroting what the White House told him too? It wouldn't be the first time someone lied on their orders.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He came to his senses and stopped parroting what the White House told him too? It wouldn't be the first time someone lied on their orders.

So he lied in the past but is telling the truth now?

What if he was telling the truth in the past and is lying now?

For the record I do NOT think we are going to bomb Iran any time soon so to me this is not about having evidence to support that type of policy. I just question how we can have such a huge about face in a few months time.

BTW shouldn't congress go after this guy for commiting perjury back in July?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He came to his senses and stopped parroting what the White House told him too? It wouldn't be the first time someone lied on their orders.

So he lied in the past but is telling the truth now?

What if he was telling the truth in the past and is lying now?

For the record I do NOT think we are going to bomb Iran any time soon so to me this is not about having evidence to support that type of policy. I just question how we can have such a huge about face in a few months time.

BTW shouldn't congress go after this guy for commiting perjury back in July?

My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
He came to his senses and stopped parroting what the White House told him too? It wouldn't be the first time someone lied on their orders.

So he lied in the past but is telling the truth now?

What if he was telling the truth in the past and is lying now?

For the record I do NOT think we are going to bomb Iran any time soon so to me this is not about having evidence to support that type of policy. I just question how we can have such a huge about face in a few months time.

BTW shouldn't congress go after this guy for commiting perjury back in July?

In spite of the spin to contrary, the two reports are quit similar. There really isn't much different other than going from a belif that Iran is pursuing nuke weapons, to a "we don't know their intent position" (the latest report stillpoints that Iran is pursuing all the pieces neccessary, just not sure if it;s their "intent".

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

No, not the "exact opposite". Went from high confidence that Iran was pursuing nuke weapons, to a "we don't know". The report does NOT give strong assurance that Iran is NOT intending to pursue nuke weapons. The exact opposite w/b a report giving strong assurance that Iran was NOT pursuing nuke weapons (prolly would have to also note that the elements needed to develop nuke weapons were also not in place. Contrary to this report).

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

And just give Bush a free pass on this??:shocked::roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

I disagree because I have terminal BDS, and Bush eats babies.

:thumbsup:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

I disagree because I have terminal BDS, and Bush eats babies.

:thumbsup:

Yeah, misquote the mod, classy. :thumbsdown:

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

I disagree because I have terminal BDS, and Bush eats babies.

:thumbsup:

Yeah, misquote the mod, classy. :thumbsdown:

He's not misquoting, he's reading things that don't exist it's a talent.

Anyway, I for one am going to celebrate the fact there will be no war with Iran by playing violent video games.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think, perhaps, that we need to parse a sentence being touted by our resident Bushfans-

We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons

Did the speaker say that the Iranians were actively doing so? No.

Did the speaker take into account the presence of the IAEA in relation to the ascribed intentions of the Iranians? No...

The statement merely attributes intention in a truly vague fashion, strictly on the basis of suspicion rather than fact...

And needs to be evaluated in such context...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
My answer was just a wild guess so don't try to use it to question this guys honesty unless you are willng to question Bushes honesty.

It is odd that one of the NIE authors gave a speech in July saying the exact opposite (and quite forcefully so) as what he has down now. Assuming that Iran really had shut down its entire nuclear weapon program in 2003, how could the underlying premise of the guy's report change in only 4 months?

And I think with the intelligence failures of the last decade we had better be asking all kinds of questions.

I disagree because I have terminal BDS, and Bush eats babies.

:thumbsup:

Yeah, misquote the mod, classy. :thumbsdown:

fyi - He's not a mod when posting arguments in a thread. He's just Red Dawn.

Not only that, but I'm merely giving him a shot of his own favored beverage. Since he loves to serve it up to others surely he likes to gulp it down too?

 

[Lemon law]

Well speak of gulping it down TLC with --Not only that, but I'm merely giving him a shot of his own favored beverage. Since he loves to serve it up to others surely he likes to gulp it down too?

You will therefore thrilled to hear that Russia has just taken a page out of the US playbook. And if Israel can get a perpetual pass from the US on sanctions and resolutions, looks like Russia is now going to do the same with Iran according to reports on yahoo news. Thats going to be a supersoaker gulp of bad news for GWB&co.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...VL8Ie0TO0ihCSfPb6s0NUE

And to think the US could have been aboard monitoring Iran's nuclear program and now is going to be on the outside thanks to GWB.

Funny how GWB tries to dish it out and always end up drinking it down instead. Surely GWB must find drinking it down is delightfully addictive.

As a taxpayer, I find that addiction is proving awful expensive, piss poor results not withstanding.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And just give Bush a free pass on this??:shocked::roll:

No, I never said that.

Where did I say that?

I think your BDS Red has taken over.

I said that we have to be asking all kinds of questions, what with the intelligence shortfalls we've experienced during the past decade.

As for Bush, let's be realistic. A POTUS takes the words given to him by his cabinet and high-ranking officials from the various intelligence agencies. He has to make a judgement based on that information, often with little (or none) first-hand, personal experience with the issue at hand. So yeah, you can blame Bush, he deserves some blame. But Bush wasn't the one tasked with gathering and presenting credible, reliable intelligence data.

 

[Lemon law]

At the end of the day, I find it hard to believe no one in the intel community told GWB there were some contradictory evidence and theories on Iran.

And GWB has the responsibility to see his intel appointees just don't try to feed him the condensed MY Pet Goat version. But hopefully that will be a testable hypothesis Pabster.
Cherry picking intel and making the resulting blunders has already proved to be in the realm of trillion dollar mistakes. We should not tolerate any more from GWB who NEVER SEEMS TO LEARN.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Yeah, misquote the mod, classy. :thumbsdown:

fyi - He's not a mod when posting arguments in a thread. He's just Red Dawn.

Besides that, it's the only way I can respond when I can't refute what he says about my Svengali.

We've gotten use to it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.

1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop.

2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago.

3. Bush says that he did not know this.

4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.

5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.

Do I have the story right on this one?

This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.

13 months until he is out of power.

Is there any basis for Impeachment?

BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.

:claps;

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Everybody check me on this one.

1. GWB says Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is a threat and something should be done about it if Iran does not stop.

2. A report comes out that Iran stopped development years ago.

3. Bush says that he did not know this.

4. A report comes out that Bush was told about the status of Iran's nuclear program months ago.

5. Bush says that Iran's nuclear program does not matter because Iran is a threat anyway.

Do I have the story right on this one?

This incident and the Iraqi war has convinced me. I can not believe anything Bush says. Apparently he will say anything to forward his agenda.

13 months until he is out of power.

Is there any basis for Impeachment?

BTW, I do not care what Bill Clinton said anything because Mr Clinton is not the president Mr Bush is.

Your # 4. is wrong. Bush was not told the "status" months ago. He was told that there was a new assessment under way but was not provided any specifics. Even if he had been given specifics, until the final report came out it would be ridiculous for him to make statements based on preliminary information. And right around the same time that Bush was, according to you, told the status, one of the report's main authors was claiming that Iran was still a nuclear threat. If anyone should have known differently shouldn't it have been one of those involved in the actual report and who had been working on it for over a year at that point?

This entire ordeal on the Iran report has firmly convinced me that not only do BDSers love to spin, misinterpret, misquote, and generally make shit up, but that timelines seem to confuse the hell out of them as well.

#4 is wrong, but that's because he wasn't told about iran's absence of any kind of nuclear weapons development program months ago... it was over a YEAR ago, last november. the cia made the report a LONG time ago, yet bush persisted with trying to start wwiii.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Fern
No, not the "exact opposite". Went from high confidence that Iran was pursuing nuke weapons, to a "we don't know". The report does NOT give strong assurance that Iran is NOT intending to pursue nuke weapons. The exact opposite w/b a report giving strong assurance that Iran was NOT pursuing nuke weapons (prolly would have to also note that the elements needed to develop nuke weapons were also not in place. Contrary to this report).

That's true. I pointed out several times the "moderate degree of confidence" but, of course, the lefties have yet to respond to that. It doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Fern
No, not the "exact opposite". Went from high confidence that Iran was pursuing nuke weapons, to a "we don't know". The report does NOT give strong assurance that Iran is NOT intending to pursue nuke weapons. The exact opposite w/b a report giving strong assurance that Iran was NOT pursuing nuke weapons (prolly would have to also note that the elements needed to develop nuke weapons were also not in place. Contrary to this report).

That's true. I pointed out several times the "moderate degree of confidence" but, of course, the lefties have yet to respond to that. It doesn't fit their agenda.

So I guess it's OK for the chickenhawks to be banging the war drums because Iran might "intend" to purse nukes. You realy expect intelligence to be able prove a negative here?

I hate to say it, but it's time to reintstate the draft, it really is. That's the only thing that can reign in the chickenhawks bastards and force them to live in the same reality as everyone else.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Fern
No, not the "exact opposite". Went from high confidence that Iran was pursuing nuke weapons, to a "we don't know". The report does NOT give strong assurance that Iran is NOT intending to pursue nuke weapons. The exact opposite w/b a report giving strong assurance that Iran was NOT pursuing nuke weapons (prolly would have to also note that the elements needed to develop nuke weapons were also not in place. Contrary to this report).

That's true. I pointed out several times the "moderate degree of confidence" but, of course, the lefties have yet to respond to that. It doesn't fit their agenda.

So I guess it's OK for the chickenhawks to be banging the war drums because Iran might "intend" to purse nukes. You realy expect intelligence to be able prove a negative here?

I hate to say it, but it's time to reintstate the draft, it really is. That's the only thing that can reign in the chickenhawks bastards and force them to live in the same reality as everyone else.

I say we have a draft for the chickendoves like you who assume Iran has no intent to pursue nukes. Then if they do develop nukes we can send all you guys over there to correct the problem as contrition for your bad assumption. Are you so sure Iran has nothing but peaceful intentions that you'd be willing to do that?

 

[bamacre]

Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

Ok, but doesn't matter really.

How about addressing the rest of my post. That's utterly more important.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: bamacre
Unfortunately, this administration has been able to make the argument about what we should do to prevent Iran from having nukes, instead of why Iran shouldn't have nukes.

To think Iran would use nuclear weapons pre-emptively is insane. They want them because they feel threatened by us. And who could blame them?

We should be talking to Iran, and doing business with Iran. Iran has a massive crop of young and intelligent people, and they would make a great trading partner.

Instead of leading by force, we should lead by example.

What were we doing that Iran felt threatened by us?

Consider the timeline. They were secretly developing nukes in the 90s and up until 2003 when an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was working on nuclear weapons. We invaded Iraq and Iran shelved the program. If Iran was developing nukes because they felt threatened don't you think they would not have been working on having nukes UNTIL we invaded Iraq?

Sorry, but I don't buy the "They felt threatened" line of reasoning. It just doesn't fit.

Do you remember the 1980's ?

LMFAO.

OR the 1960's and 70's?

You played yourself again.