Frank regarding your last post,

My response:

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

"How in the world would you know this? – Frank Hamilton"

Please refer to the White House Press Conference of 4th December, 2007. Here is the relevant question and the answer given:

Question:
Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.

So Frank that would have meant that the President was not made aware of the content and considered evaluation of America's intelligence community until sometime during Week 48. Bobert's contention was that the President knew in Week 42 but that is based upon Bobert's unsubstantiated opinion only, he offers nothing to back it up.

"3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims."

So counter to what you have said - what is stated above is accurate and is based on verifiable information.


"4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October."

"Bush probably knew about the information long before then – Frank Hamilton."

Now that is a perfect example of pure unsubstantiated opinion Frank. Care to enlighten us on exactly how on earth you could possibly "know this to be the case". Just because the likes of yourself and Bobert want to believe it does not make it necessarily true.

The President at the Press Conference on 4th December, 2007, was asked a question and identified the advisor who can verify the following:
1.        When in Week 42 the President was informed that new intelligence had been received and was under evaluation.
2.        Can confirm that detail relating to the subject matter of the new intelligence was not passed to the President.
3.        When analysis and evaluation of the new intelligence was completed
4.        When the NIE was completed and approved for publication
5.        When in Week 48 the President was briefed on the content of the NIE.


5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not; there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

"Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them. – Frank Hamilton"

So there is not much uncertainty Frank? Again solely your opinion, which I am supposed to take as fact? Well Frank, please forgive me if I pass on that. Those who voice concern over the uncertainty that I mentioned include the authors of the NIE themselves, the IAEA and the same Iranian dissident group that blew the whistle on Iran's secret uranium enrichment facilities. Now certainly with regard to the first two bodies mentioned there I would defer to their greater knowledge and experience on the subject than such as yourself and Bobert.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat?

"Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan. – Frank Hamilton"

Correct me if I am wrong Frank but isn't North Korea in the process of disarming, having publicly renounced its nuclear weapons programme? If that is so what threat do they pose Frank? Pakistan? A threat? To whom Frank?

Now maybe you can explain why a country who did sign up to the NPT in order to gain access to the information and assistance required to establish a nuclear programme and then flagrantly disregarded the conditions of that treaty to construct massive uranium enrichment facilities in secret can be discounted so readily as "not posing a threat"? Or is this only Frank Hamilton's baseless and unfounded opinion?

"The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is. – Frank Hamilton"

Can you tell us when the US withdrew from the NPT Frank? According all sources I have looked up the US is still very much a fully signed up party to that Treaty. Israel on the other hand Frank has never been a signatory but Israel started her nuclear programme in 1958, ten years before Ireland first proposed the NPT in 1968.

"Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied."

"There is no evidence here to support that claim. – Frank Hamilton"

On the contrary Frank, I think that there is rather a great deal of evidence to support the above conclusion. Perhaps you and Bobert should start coming up with some form of evidence that can be substantiated as opposed to what can clearly be seen as your own baseless unfounded opinions.