 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 07 - 01:30 PM Revamped US Intellegence Services??? What are you smokin', T-zer... What Bush has done is politicized intellegence... Cheney spent alot of time in Langley during the sellin' of the Iraq War... What was that all about??? (But, Bobert, can you provide a list of dates and contacts???) Well, no, like Cheney's "Energy Plan" (whatever his energy plan is/was???) Bush is using executive privledge to keep the American people from knowing precisely how many visits Cheney made to CIA but the Washington Post has reported on several occasions over the last few years that Cheney not only made many trips but also pressured career intellegence people... BTW, many career intllegence folk have quit citing the politicization of the agency as their reason for leaving... Now, T, if you think that the CIA should be a political arm of the Republican Party, then, yeah, Bush has at least tried to make it that... If that is what revamping means to you then I'll give Bush credit where it's due... He has run off a lot of folks who don't believe it is the CIA's job to furnish cherry picked intellegence... As for the "You're either with us or against us"... That is just plain stupid as the cornerstone of diplomacy which involves dialogue... This world ain't all black and white except in the minds of the fringe radicals... UIf they want to get in a big room and duke it out, I'm all for that but leave the rest of us alone... Yeah, next to "Mission Accomplished", "You're either with us ot against us" is the most rediculous statement that has come out of Bush's mouth and the next administartion is going to have to put in alot of overtime in fixing a failed foriegn policies that that one statement has brought down on US... As for the DHS... Bush fought it tooth and nail but the Dems out-muscled him and got it... It was a Dem plan from the jump... Lets see what else you have claimed... Oh yeah, "Taking the fight to the enemy"... Is that why the US invaded Iraq??? Was Saddam in on 9/11??? I thought we have had this discussion but if we have to conduct a refresher course on this we can... Intellegence gathering powers??? I guess if you think that running habeas corpes thru the shreader is a worthy endeaver then, yeah, I can see where you might see this as a positive... Personally, I think that habeas corpes as a centuries old rule of law that seperates civilized nations from uncivilized nations... I guess we see things much differently here as you seem willing to have folks arrested without charges, tortured and then held forever without any recourse... As for Bush acting to protect US quicker now then before 9/11 I'd only point to New Orleans... Real fast, heh???... That's about it for now, T... I still don't see one thing on your list that Bush has done that has made me or the world any safer... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:16 PM I'll grab that hundred as I go past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Folkiedave Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:08 PM Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies. Not just a little tinkering here and there then? Were they no good before? mproved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data. Goodness knows what happened before that!! Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world. And the net result of that has been.......? IMO ISPS Code MJOF (Meaningless Jargon Old Fruit) Department of Homeland Security I was in the USA this time last year for Xmas. Had a great time. At Washington Dulles Airport as I left there were so many bags left unattended anyone could have blown the place up. I hope things have improved. Intelligence gathering powers Whereas before this there was............... Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train. I am not sure why enemy is inverted commas. You don't actually know what sort of time Al Queda is having because you don't actually know who it/they are, and you don't actually know where it/they are. Otherwise you would have got rid of them by now - wouldn't you? And frankly neither does the intelligence services of the nations that are looking for them and the army that is fighting them. Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim Oh! good! It'll soon all be over then! Teribus - this is the net result of all this intelligence and change. Well done Bush. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ardg6 http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:06 PM Jeeze, T, I would offer that crediting Bush with improving intell is kinda like crediting Cheny with advances in fuel-consumption standards and reduced emissions. He may have been in the vicinity, but I doubt he has the brain power to even imagine how intell works. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:22 AM Have you ever wondered why you are so blood thirsty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:53 AM Bobert you wouldn't credit Bush with anything period even if he single-handedly saved the planet and all the ills of mankind. Here is what I give him credit for: - Complete revamp of US Intelligence Services and Security Agencies - Improved lines of communication to ensure overview of intelligence data. - Drawing the line in the sand - "You are either with us or against us" Which concentrated the minds of some waiverers and increased the amount of information and degree of co-operation with US Intelligence Services from around the world. - IMO ISPS Code - Department of Homeland Security - Intelligence gathering powers - Taking the fight to the "enemy" whenever and wherever that enemy can be found. Al-Qaeda is having a tough enough time struggling to survive at the moment, it doesn't have time to plot or the facilities to train. - Forced the leadership of Al-Qaeda to very publicly declare war on their own kind (Tends not to go down well in the "muslim world" when muslim is ordered to kill muslim). Oh yes everybody is now naturally more vigilant, but the reforms introduced by George W Bush and his administration in the wake of 911, now mean that when somebody notices something or hears something that information is processed and acted a on a damn sight quicker and more effectively than ever it was before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:47 AM Everyone has learned to be more vigilant since 9/11, T... That was the point I was trying to make about the Middle Eastern guys who wanted to learn to fly the planes but not land or take them off... Things like that won't happen again... Just the heightened awareness of everyone since 9/11 has made it harder for cells to pull off the "biggies"... I don't credit Bush with people having learned to be more observant and vigilant... 9/11 did that all by itself... And I stand by Clark's testimony that the Bush administraion did not have the focus on terrorism that Clinton had... Do you deny that portion of the testimony??? And if so, why would Clark make that up??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:31 AM Fact still remains Bobert: Successful attacks against the US under Clinton = 4 Clintons response completely ineffectual according to the man you currently seem so fond of quoting at the moment (Richard Clarke). Successful attacks against the US under Bush = 1 Bush's response to displace the Taleban in Afghanistan and put Al-Qaeda very much on the back foot. Now then Bobert tell us why Clinton did not arrest the 911 hijackers and have them imprisoned or deported? It was your contention wasn't it that he would have detected them? Now tell us why he didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 07 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM See Richard Clark's testimoney before the 9/11 Comission, T... He tsaid, in essence, that he tried to get the Bush administartion to take terrorist groups seriously but that the was purdy much stonewallled by the incoming administration... In other words, the ball was handed off to Bush and his folks and they fumbled it... Al Bore wouldn't have fumbled it... He would have been as vigilant as Clinton, who BTW, was the president during several attempted terrorist's plots that were stimied... And as for terrorists attacks, there have been several... One right there in you country... And incidents of terror have increased... Not every plot has to bring down skyscrpers... The US government had to revise the number of incidents upwards a couple years ago because they weren't counting correctly but the number is in the thousands... Maybe Amos or someone who has a faster computer than my pea-shoooter will provide a link to that... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 07 - 06:04 AM Now then Bobert - talking about being full of dung... I mean lets get real..."Bill Clinton would have wondered why these folks had no interest in learning how to land or take the danged thing off." Really Bobert? Then why didn't he? The operation in its entirety was planned on his watch and should have taken place not on 11th September 2001 but in August 2000. It was delayed because of problems related to co-ordination of the attacks. The guys you fondly but incorrectly assume that Clinton would have noticed in flight school applied for positions in flight schools and trained on his watch - so tell us Bobert why did he not arrest and deport them? "9/11 wouldn't happened under Clinton..." It was planned during his watch and should have happened on his watch if the operation had gone ahead as originally planned. If it wouldn't have happened under Clinton Bobert, what went wrong with thedetection and prevention of the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993? - Who was President then Bobert? Who was President in 1998 when the US Embassies in East Africa were attacked? Who was President when the USS Cole was attacked? "It wouldn't have happened under Al Bore..." Well at least you got his name right, sorry to disillusion you but Al Gore was part of the Administration that was in office when all the ground work for the attacks of 911 was done. It happened under Bush for one reason and for one reason only and that was because the attack was delayed by thirteen months. But correct me if I am wrong there has not been an attack since - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 07 Dec 07 - 03:28 AM I think its scary that the U.S. has a nuclear device and even more scary that Pakistan has one too. They all scare me thats why war mongers are so dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM "While U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that covert work on a bomb was suspended "for at least several years" after 2003, there is only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not restarted the military program. Iran's massive overt investment in uranium enrichment meanwhile proceeds in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions, even though Tehran has no legitimate use for enriched uranium." Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM And you imply that I am still unemployed. You have no proof- the IAEA has stated it has no proof, and the report states it does not have confidence that the program has remained halted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM I'll tell you whose lying. Alot a people in a lot of graves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:04 PM Bush lied.... I didn't... I have shown my evidence... Show me yours... He said that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons.... The intellegence community says it ain't so... The intellegence community says that the Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program 4 years ago... Who is lieing??? Bush, or the intellegence folks??? And why??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:28 PM Fine. You are a great musician, whose work I like and respect , and who insists on saying things that are not true instead of bringing facts to the discussion. But don't you call Buush a liar unless you have some fact to back it up. I have shown that IN THIS INSTANCE ( yelling) you are not correct in your statement. Bush has probaly lied many times- as have all the politicians I have ever read of. But IN THIS CASE, your label is false, misleading, and mean-spirited. If that is an example of "I have made my life's work one of standing up to thigs and corportaists and I will not allow you to continue to badger me..." I feel sorry for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:05 PM There is a big difference between me calling George Bush a liar and you, a fellow, Mudcatter, a lira... Big difference... That is personal here in this "folk music" commuinity where just about everyone are musicans... I don't go callin' you a "liar"...That is protocol here... When fols go callin' each other names because they don't agree then it becomes very bothersome... Dickey went after me qwith the name calling and you see where Dickey is now.... Well if you don't see, it's like, ahhhhhh, friggin' gone... I will not allow you to tag me with your "liar" badge... I have made my life's work one of standing up to thigs and corportaists and I will not allow you to continue to badger me... I mean it, bruce... Don't you ever call me a liar again... If you want to argue whatever then fine... Argue until the cows come home... But don't call me a "liar" again or I will beat the loving sh*t out of you... You get it now??? Stop it... Regards, B~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Others, I am sorry to to have displayed my tmeper here... Whe3n I was in martial arts my sansai taught us that is never right to fight but... I've had enough of bb tghinking that he ahs some right to call fellow Mudcatters "liars"... I don't know of any Mudcatter that I would consider a "liar"... Okay, Spawzer, might have toild a story or two... But telling stories and pokin' fun ain't like lieing... Again, I am sorry but, as God as my witness, it bb calls me a liar one more time it won't be like I didn't warn him... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:39 PM Bobert, When you stop making false statements, I will cease to c all you a liar. If that means you have to attack ME because you do not like the truth, so be it. You seem to have no problem in calling others liars: Why do you think you are some special case who does not need to be accountable for your statements? Find some other ways of attacking Bush short of calling him a liar without having actual facts to back you up. You do not loike his actions: Fine. But to call him a liar when you cannot demonstrate he is lying, then complain when you are called one after making false statements is hypocritical, and below you. To threaten those who point out your false statements, rather than to back up your claims with facts is the mark of someone who knows that he is in the wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Peace Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:08 PM NPR.org, December 4, 2007 · The controversy over Iran's nuclear program is complicated by the country's decision to resume efforts to enrich uranium — defying the United Nations despite saying it had stopped researching nuclear weapons. Iranian officials said they wanted the enriched radioactive material as fuel for peaceful nuclear reactors. When President Bush and other administration officials accused Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, they often referred to Iran's uranium-enrichment program as proof. Here's a timeline highlighting what was said and known about the program since early 2003: February 2003: Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, find evidence that Iran has secretly begun enriching uranium. May 2003: Iranian President Mohammed Khatami offers to talk to the United States about the countries' differences. But the Bush administration rejects the offer. In part because of this refusal, the Europeans act on their own to negotiate with the Iranians while trying to persuade the Bush administration to join the negotiation process. October 2003: The EU 3 — France, Britain and Germany — reach an initial understanding with Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. The Bush administration refuses to support this, insisting suspension of nuclear enrichment is not enough. The Bush administration insists that before it will enter into any negotiations with the Iranians, Iran must commit to abandoning enrichment altogether. November 2003: The IAEA announces that Iran has been violating its safeguards agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It accuses Tehran of failing to report that it was handling nuclear material and building facilities to process it. It says Iranian officials hid key parts of their nuclear program for nearly 20 years. The latest National Intelligence Estimate now says it believes "with high confidence" that the fall of 2003 was about the time Iran shut down a secret nuclear weapons program. December 2003: After talks with the European Union, Tehran agrees to allow IAEA inspectors to expand their operations in Iran, by questioning its scientists and officials, reviewing documents and conducting further examinations of some of its nuclear research and development facilities. November 2004: Iran promises negotiators from the EU that it will suspend all its activities for processing nuclear fuel. Although Iran continues to deny that its activities have any military purpose, President Bush calls it a "nuclear weapons program" and chides Iran's leaders for suspending it, rather than ending it entirely. "Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program," Bush says. February 2005: President Bush accuses Iran of being "the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons, while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve." June 2005: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States will not support a third term for Mohammed ElBaradei as head of the IAEA unless he takes a harder line against Iran's nuclear program. April 2006: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iranian scientists have successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, pure enough to run a nuclear reactor. He says, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." Uranium for a nuclear bomb would require around 90 percent enrichment. July 2006: The United Nations Security Council passes a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities or face international sanctions. December 2006: The U.N. Security Council unanimously imposes sanctions on Iran for failure to halt its uranium enrichment program. It bans U.N. member states from providing Iran with equipment or technology that could be used in its nuclear program. January 2007: IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei calls for a "timeout" on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, saying the United Nations should suspend sanctions against Iran if Iran will freeze its nuclear program. He tells CNN, "The key to the Iranian issue is a direct engagement between Iran and the U.S., similar to North Korea." Spring 2007: A National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was expected to be delivered to Congress during this period, but is repeatedly postponed as intelligence agencies re-assess information about Iran's nuclear program. August 2007: President Bush says, "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." The latest National Intelligence Estimate says, "we assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007." September 2007: U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director Michael Hayden, begin a reassessment of their information on Iran, according to unnamed officials quoted in the New York Times. The newspaper says White House officials knew at the time that the intelligence agencies were reviewing their conclusions, but did not know until later that those conclusions were drastically being changed. October 2007: President Bush says, "we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." November 2007: A final draft of the National Intelligence Estimate is presented to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. It concludes that Iran stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and since then has shown no signs of resuming it. December 2007: A day after the NIE is made public, President Bush says he was first told by Director of Intelligence Michael McConnell in August that there was new intelligence about Iran's nuclear program, but that he wasn't told what that new intelligence was at the time. President Bush, in a press conference, says he still regards Iran as "dangerous." He asks reporters, "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 09:04 PM Oh, make no bones about it, bb, Bush has lied here... The evidence is in and the intellegence community ain't gonna get bullied on this one... As for you calling me a liar? I mean it... You call me a "liar" again and I'm gonna give you a karote lesson that will stick with you for some time... I don't go calln' you a liar and I won't take you callin' me one either... And I mean it... Stop it... Period!!! I'm serious here, pal... You have used up all the "liars" on your punch card... Find some other ways of attacking folks arguemnts short of calling folks who you disaghree with as liars... I am very serious here... This is your last warning... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM "2. You called me a "liar" yet again... Next time you call me a "liar" will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and..." So, you can make false claims about other people, and insist on NOT being called a liar, but you call Bush one even when I have demonstrated that in this case he did not lie any more than you did? SOunds like you think you have some special dispensation to make false statements and not be held accountable. Welcome to the Dark side! "will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and..." You need some serious anger management... I point out that IF Bush was lying, so are you- so all you need do is acknowledge that your claims that Bush lied are false, and there will be no problem. If you insist he did lie, than I have no choice but to consider that you have lied as well. Conditionals, remember? IF... THEN... Bush has no problems with them- are you not a bright as he is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:14 PM Oh, T, You are so full of dung... I mean lets get real... Busgh aain't protectin' us from anything... He has screwed up everything he has touched... How many countries does he have to invade and occupy to make you happy??? 20??? 50??? 200??? I mean, let's get real here... All he is foing is bankrupting our country, turnin' its middle class into some kind 3 World population that works it brains out paying for and makin' all of the human sacrifices for what??? So Bush can pump out his chest and say that there ahasn't been a majot attack on the US since 9/11??? Big friggin' accomplishment considering that 9/11 woke everyone up to the reality that a Middle Eastern guy who wants to learn how to fly a 737 but has no interest in knowing how to lane on or take one off might be, ahhhhh, bad news... No, Bush doesn't get any credit here, pal... Bill Clinton would have wondered why these folks had no interest in learning how to land or take the danged thing off but Bush thought that it weas his job to do the opposite of whatever Clinton did... Thus: 9/11.. 9/11 wouldn't happened under Clinton... It wouldn't have happened under Al Bore... It happened under Bush because Bush, as he had done all his life, wasn't concerned... He was too buzy at the pretzel bowl... Too busy acting as if he was imporatant... Too busy acting as if he was some kind Ninga Turtle when in reality he was a failure who got propelled by his daddy and his daddy's friends.. This is the real story... He has cretaed more terrorism... Not less... He is Osama's dream recruiter... He is a total screw up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 07:49 PM This sums it up perfectly: "If Iran attacks you I will do whatever I can to help you." Very obvious comment, taken to its fullest - "Too fuckin' late by then Donuel ould son!!!" And that is exactly what your President is actually protecting you from - that is his primary concern and his job, irrespective of who holds the post. Great pity some of you tossers don't appreciate it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 07 - 06:33 PM Well, first of all three comments to bb: 1. You obviuosly didn't read the "(lol)" at the end of my comments about your being unemployed or you would have understood that the intent of that oportion of the post was somewhat teasing. But you missed the intent so... 2. You called me a "liar" yet again... Next time you call me a "liar" will get you a big ugly stick up against your head... Don't know when or where but you can take it to the bank and... 3. You back to SCREAMIN' again... Have you no idea of how that weakens your positions... People are getting purdy sick and tired of being SCREAMED at... No one but you does it... You need some serious anger management... -------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems to me that Bush is no longer capable of accepting reality... He keeps inventing scenerios where he is called upon to do his best Joh Wayne immitation... Problem with Iran is that there's no fight there... There is, however, a window of opportunity for the US to use diplomacy but... ... Bush is not capable of pursuing a sane foriegn policy so we and the rest of the world are just going to have to endure Bush for another 13 months and hope like heck if he does order an attack on Iran that the Jopints Chiefs will refuse and arrest the nutball... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 04:19 PM Washington Post: The Flaws In the Iran Report By John R. Bolton Thursday, December 6, 2007; Page A29 Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly. All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function. Consider these flaws in the NIE's "key judgments," which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified. First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout." The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause. Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. 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." Third, the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism. In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was "possible" but not "likely" that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions. One contrary opinion came from -- of all places -- an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that "we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda. Fourth, the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data. In the bureaucracy, where access to information is a source of rank and prestige, ramming home policy changes with the latest hot tidbit is commonplace, and very deleterious. It is a rare piece of intelligence that is so important it can conclusively or even significantly alter the body of already known information. Yet the bias toward the new appears to have exerted a disproportionate effect on intelligence analysis. Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments." That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this "intelligence" torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:19 PM I can still google and pull up the genome and viral blueprint for the 1918 flu that killed 40 million. Ain't science grand. A weapon of that sort is more insidious in the contagious fear it can produce when compared to incineration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:09 PM Sorry. Both Montgomery County MD and Dulles, VA will be in the fallout zone. Well outside the firestorm, though- so our fire departments can still be of use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM Its OK Bruce, relax.Take a breath in the midst of this harried holiday season. Look at the big picture. Remember you are in a glamorous profession to some and your political attitudes mean very little. If Iran attacks you I will do whatever I can to help you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM "Coming from the only country ever to have used nuclear WMDs against targets knowing it would inflict massive civilian casualties," Of course, you seem to overlook it was the DEMOCRATS who developed and used those weapons. Maybe we should only let the parties who did not use them into office? As for the civilian casualties, that is another debate- but the estimated dead from an invasion of Japan were an order of magnitude or two higher. I guess that would have been ok: it was mostly Japanese civilians who would have been killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:09 PM More like "Tell the IAEA all the information you promised under the NPT to make available, and then we can talk." But you seem to want to make your own words up about what is said, rather than try to understand what actually is stated. Go ahead, feel free. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when you DO have something valid to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:04 PM sic "If Iran comes clean we might meet them at the bargaining table." gwb (admit you are a criminal and we might do business) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 02:02 PM Amos, "It takes an elephantiastic sort of brazen effrontery to assert that he was right because the program was discontinued 4 years ago, because that proves it once existed, and therefgore the risk is just as vivid and scary as he said it was" And who besides those OPPOSED to Bush are stating that Bush was right BECAUSE the program was discontinued? Bush stated a conditional- IF Iran had a nuclear device THAT would be a scary thing. Will you state that it would not be scary?????? Any claim that this is an example of Bush lying is both false to the facts, and a deliberate attempt to tell a falese statement- and THAT qualifies as a lie to me. The report does not give anyone with any ability to read what was stated by the IAEA any confidence that the Iranians are NOT presently, or will not in the near future ( when they havbe sufficient fissionable materials) restarting that WMD program. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:53 PM "Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse" Problem with Bush is that he can't clearly speak a sentence that communicates a solid idea. Is he actually saying what we think he's saying or does he mean something else? It's anyone's guess, even those that know him. What I hear him saying is that he's gunning for Iran & using this "un-new-clear" cloud of mis/info to push his aggenda as he's done in the past. And why not, it's worked well for him then, why stop now! Why would he know anything about where Nelson Mandela is? He's not sure where Africa is & people got upset when Mandela called him an "idiot"! If he only had an ounce of the courrage, brains & heart of Mandela we would no longer be in Oz, we'd be home in Kansas. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:28 PM Bush's remark was typically inept and obtuse; but if he was making the point T says he was making, it is a fair point -- that the spirit of independence had been heavily suppressed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and the culture was not likely to be generating heroic leaders. It takes an elephantiastic sort of brazen effrontery to assert that he was right because the program was discontinued 4 years ago, because that proves it once existed, and therefgore the risk is just as vivid and scary as he said it was. Nevertheless, I would really like to know what is going on in the collective mind of the Persian mullahs and technological leadership. I do not trust Bush or his company to speak the truth or even find it; but I do not much more trust Ahmadinjabad or whatever the correct spelling is. Oddly, though, I have never met an individual Iranian who was not thoughtful, polite, and hard-working. I am mindful, looking over the devestation of Iraq, of where it was that the game of chess was first developed into its modern form. (It was arguably born in India or perhaps Afghanistan; but it is from Persia that it went forth into the Arabic and Western worlds.) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM Fair enough for me, Stig. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:23 AM "at worst a blatant lie, at best a deliberate misrepresentation." Wrong - I was just poking fun at the post you made before - just the rough and tumble of debate, not a lie, not a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone. Perhaps I should have checked my sources, but then I the intention was only to illustrate the shite your mate speaks. Given your lengthy explanations for this quote, perhaps I was right. The gentleman doth protest too much. You may think I'm a tit, a tosser, deluded, a hypocrite or a left-wing marxist wanker - all fair in the cut and thrust of a vigorous discussion but one thing I am not, is a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 06:22 AM "Actually I cut and pasted the quote from another site, none of the input was mine. Bang to rights on that one!" Well not really, "Bang to rights" on anything Stig, what I wrote was - "Now I take it that the "(Nelson)" is yours plus the "on the former South African president, who is still very much alive" is also your input" My assumption being made as neither the name in parenthesis or the note with regard to subject appeared in any quotation I read with regard to the content of the Press conference as reported. Even so, it does not alter the fact that your 'cut 'n' paste', irrespective of source, was inaccurate and misleading - at worst a blatant lie, at best a deliberate misrepresentation. Now having read, I take it that you have read the Associated Press transcript of the Press Conference, you will have the honesty to admit that the President was not talking about Nelson Mandela erstwhile President of South Africa at all, and that the context is as Associated Press have described it. Remembering that of course you did state rather emphatically - "Careful son - you know full well that's not my style and I resent the accusation." We can pass on to "cherry-picking" - He is an example of yours: "President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure." Now what is that like when quoted in full and in context: "I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?'" - Meaning in the context of what was being talked about, where was the 'Nelson Mandela' figurehead, or leader, in Iraq that could draw the different factions together politically in a similar environment of reconstruction, co-operation and reconciliation that the real Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa at the end of the Apartheid era. President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure. Saddam Hussein for 24 years had brooked no opposition whatsoever and had ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who dared to challenge him. Had Nelson Mandela been unfortunate enough to have been an Iraqi who opposed Saddam during that period the world would never have heard of him, he would have been arrested, tortured and executed immediately, along with most of his friends and family." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:34 AM "I certainly do not. If you are going to quote something, quote it accurately and put that quote in the context it was set. You should not under any circumstances do as you have done cherry-pick a quote and then invent the context it was supposedly given in." Actually I cut and pasted the quote from another site, none of the input was mine. Bang to rights on that one! "Which sort of begs the question why you would deliberately go out of your way to misinform people on this forum? Are you normally in the habit of telling lies? Is this the sort of behaviour that you deem acceptable?" Careful son - you know full well that's not my style and I resent the accusation. "President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure." Even with your explanation it's still a ridiculous quote and all you've done is highlight Bush's own inability to articulate himself effectively. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:32 AM What a delightfully lopsided link Stigweard. Usual left-wing rant against the US and NATO. No mention of the country holding the greatest stockpile of operational Nuclear and Chemical/Biological Weapons in the world - Any reason for that Stig? No mention of Russian development of new offensive missile systems - Any reason for that Stig? Doesn't mention UK declared policy of further reducing its stockpile of weapons by 33% - Why not Stig? The UK is a member of NATO isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:17 AM Last post was mine, cookie went astray. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:15 AM Stigweard: "I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." -George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007" Now I take it that the "(Nelson)" is yours plus the "on the former South African president, who is still very much alive" is also your input OK, for anybody who is actually interested in the truth of the matter. Stigweard is perfectly correct in as much that George W. Bush did say the following during a press conference on 20th September, 2007, here's how Associated Press covered it: ***On Iraq, Bush said there was progress in local communities but that people are dissatisfied with the central government. "Part of the reason why there's not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. Sort of an interesting comment, I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas." It was a reference to the charismatic former leader of South Africa who helped reconcile his country after decades of racial division. Mandela is still alive.*** - as reported by Associated Press. So Stigweard it wasn't "on the former South African president" at all was it? Which sort of begs the question why you would deliberately go out of your way to misinform people on this forum? Are you normally in the habit of telling lies? Is this the sort of behaviour that you deem acceptable? I certainly do not. If you are going to quote something, quote it accurately and put that quote in the context it was set. You should not under any circumstances do as you have done cherry-pick a quote and then invent the context it was supposedly given in. "I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?'" - Meaning in the context of what was being talked about, where was the 'Nelson Mandela' figurehead, or leader, in Iraq that could draw the different factions together politically in a similar environment of reconstruction, co-operation and reconciliation that the real Nelson Mandela achieved in South Africa at the end of the Apartheid era. President Bush's response, "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.", was perfectly correct in relation to any potential Iraqi 'Nelson Mandela' figure. Saddam Hussein for 24 years had brooked no opposition whatsoever and had ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who dared to challenge him. Had Nelson Mandela been unfortunate enough to have been an Iraqi who opposed Saddam during that period the world would never have heard of him, he would have been arrested, tortured and executed immediately, along with most of his friends and family. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Stu Date: 06 Dec 07 - 05:01 AM BB's endless and illiterate reiteration that Iran should not be allowed to violate the NPT reeks of the sort of hypocrisy we've come to accept from neo-con apologists and reflects the increasingly desperate stomping of feet and banging of fists on tables we've all come to expect from a right-wing utterly devoid of any moral integrity, who can only make noise to try to deflect the increasing volley of criticisms aimed at them. Coming from the only country ever to have used nuclear WMDs against targets knowing it would inflict massive civilian casualties, who encourages WMD proliferation in its own interest and is creating new long-range missile systems and who have violated the NPT themselves with their dubious policy of 'nuclear sharing' - in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT - both the US and NATO have ignored this, and the US has nuclear WMDs sited in five European countries. Details available http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/nato.htm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 07 - 03:24 AM Likewise Dianavan, when have I ever said that, "Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps..". In fact Dianavan if you look back you will see that I have previously stated that Iran is perfectly entitled to run a nuclear programme directed towards the acquisition of nuclear power for power generation provided that they comply with the terms and conditions of the NPT that they signed in 1968. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM dianavan, please learn to read: "So, bb ...think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps..." I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. I HAVE stated that Iran should comply with the IAEA, a part of the UN that deals with the NPT that Iran signed. I have said thay should nnot be allowed to violate the NPT and produce, unregulated, weapons-grade fissionable materials. Sorry I can't explain it to you in simpler terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:08 AM So, bb and teribus think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear energy for domestic purposes because they might, or they could have or perhaps... In the meantime they think its perfectly O.K. that: "In the last four years, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, kept the Senate from ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to commit itself to halting future tests, and began work on two new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now spends nearly $7 billion a year for nuclear research and upgrading US nuclear capabilities, and the spending curve keeps rising." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm Such logic! Such reason! Such fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 06 Dec 07 - 12:07 AM "Yeah, call them up and tell them that you have inside information that Bush didn't know jack about jack about Iran having curtailed it's nuclear program in 2003..." Not what ** I ** said. Try reading my posts. "And as fir your arguement, bb, about how long you have been unempolyed??? After hearing you expalin it again I believe there is a good reason you are unemployed... You are dillusional!!! (lol)..." Not quite. YOU claim that since I was unemployed back in 2003 and 4, I MUST be unemployed NOW, just like Iran MUST not have a nuclear weapons program since they paused it in 2003. Thus , YOU are a liar, since I am employed now. Of course, if you want to interpret Bush's conditional comment ( which I note you do not refute) as a lie, I am free to interpret your claim that since you don't know something, what you wish to believe must be true as a lie as well. I certainly do not require any evidence, since you are so happy to make statements without any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: dick greenhaus Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:41 PM "That's not to say the United States should never attempt to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear program. But before doing so, the administration should have some indication that the Iranian regime is prepared to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address other U.S. concerns. A report by U.S. intelligence agencies is an unsatisfying substitute for a signal that has yet to come from Tehran." Huh? I guess that means that the US shouldn't listen to its own intelligence reports--or that the US should continue ignoring these reports. See how well that has worked in Iraq! What's wrong with negotiating directly with Iran? The US is clearly not the enforcement arm of the UN, and it seems to me that negotiation is a reasnable way of "addressung other US concerns." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:18 PM I really like one thing about BB's long "cut and pastes". They contain none of his characteristic and insufferable SHOUTING. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:22 PM What ake said, Joe... 'Nuff is a'nuff of the long right winged Bushite cut 'n pastes... Is there any way on earth to enforce the one screen lenght post??? And, for the record, you cut 'n posters ain't providing any rebuttals becasue no one will read thru this crap... How about reading it yourselves, which I doubt seriously if you do, then paraphrase your arguments... Long cut 'n pastes are just hurtin' whatever positions you might be trying to forward... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Arne Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:09 PM IC that Teribus and BeardedBruce haven't given up the ghost, even in the face of this last preposterous lie and misbehaviour by the maladministration (just check out my most recent blog entries for the skinny..." Lemmings off a cliff, I'm sure. Cheers, |
