Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]


BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

dick greenhaus 04 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM
Bobert 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 05:53 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM
Teribus 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM
Bobert 04 Dec 07 - 06:23 PM
Jim Krause 04 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM
wysiwyg 04 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM
beardedbruce 04 Dec 07 - 07:36 PM
Bobert 04 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM
Don Firth 04 Dec 07 - 08:11 PM
Amos 04 Dec 07 - 08:20 PM
dick greenhaus 04 Dec 07 - 08:50 PM
Little Hawk 04 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM
GUEST,282RA 04 Dec 07 - 11:07 PM
Barry Finn 05 Dec 07 - 02:22 AM
Barry Finn 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 AM
GUEST,PMB 05 Dec 07 - 06:17 AM
Rapparee 05 Dec 07 - 09:08 AM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM
bankley 05 Dec 07 - 09:42 AM
Donuel 05 Dec 07 - 09:43 AM
GUEST,Winds Of War 05 Dec 07 - 09:52 AM
Teribus 05 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM
dick greenhaus 05 Dec 07 - 10:42 AM
Donuel 05 Dec 07 - 11:05 AM
Stu 05 Dec 07 - 11:17 AM
Stu 05 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM
Rapparee 05 Dec 07 - 12:30 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 02:53 PM
Rapparee 05 Dec 07 - 02:59 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 03:00 PM
Barry Finn 05 Dec 07 - 03:08 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 03:24 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,petr 05 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM
GUEST 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM
Donuel 05 Dec 07 - 06:36 PM
Teribus 05 Dec 07 - 06:41 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 07:06 PM
beardedbruce 05 Dec 07 - 07:08 PM
McGrath of Harlow 05 Dec 07 - 07:18 PM
Bobert 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM
akenaton 05 Dec 07 - 08:49 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," Bush said.

The new NIE, made public Monday, said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 partly because of international pressure and scrutiny.


NOW THAT WE HAVE LOST SIGHT OF OUR OBJECTIVES, WE MUST REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:39 PM

Yeah, I mentioned something about this on the Maliki thread, Dick...

Seems that Bush was told that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program in 2003 *before* he made the speech about Iran and World War III!!!

The boy just can't stop telling lies...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 05:53 PM

The man is clearly a psychotic, who when assured that the enemy he is frothing about is not there just takes that as proof that the enemy is being unusually wily.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:00 PM

From Time, the observation that Bush's administration had to bless this National Intell Estimate (NIE) before it became public:

"...And explode is what the hawks in and outside the Administration are about to do. They were counting on Bush being the one President prepared to take on Iran. As recently as last month, Bush warned of World War III if Iran so much as thought about building a bomb. Bush's betrayal is not going to go down well. The neocons, clinging to a sliver of hope, will accuse the intelligence community of incompetence, pointing out that as late as 2005 it estimated "with high confidence" that Iran was building a bomb.

Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, put the best face on the new report, claiming that it was our diplomacy and saber rattling that forced the Iranians to back down. As for the intelligence community, it explained its reversal by hinting that new intelligence had surfaced.

Neither explanation is entirely accurate. The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman.

Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head.
Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they're not going to help the United States. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don't even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the United States can't do.

So how far is Iran from a nuke? The new NIE says 10 to 15 years, maybe. But that's a wild guess. The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it's entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn't know until they tested it.
Yet for now we should at least be happy with the good news: Armageddon is postponed."


Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:09 PM

He did not "lie" as you put it. When asked specifically about that he said that last August all he been told by his Intelligence Agencies was that there was new information under evaluation. He was not told that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme.

Many have often mocked your President for his use of language. In Dick Greenhaus's open post in this thread, where he is quoting what the President said, I think I would only change one word for it to make perfect sense. I would substitute the word renounce for the word suspend:

"I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program," Mr. Bush said. "The reason why it's a warning signal is they could restart it."

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) "provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community – continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to renounce its program," Bush said.

But I am pleased no-one seems to be in any doubt that Iran did have a secret weapons programme running.

Your President is perfectly correct, action by the international community as a whole is required to induce Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons programme not merely halt it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 06:23 PM

"Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to tpoduce nuclear weapons and abllistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them"... Bush Ocober 23rd...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Jim Krause
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM

Wouldda, couldda, shouldda, mightta....seen it all before. It's really all about oil.

Jim Krause


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM

I'm SHOCKED! ;~)

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:36 PM

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/


"Iran is pursuing the technology that could be used to tpoduce nuclear weapons and abllistic missiles of increasing range that could deliver them"... Bush Ocober 23rd... "

And what part of this do you think is a lie?

Are you claiming the IAEA is wrong about the centrifuges?


FACT:

* I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material.

FACT:

The number of cascaded centrifuges Iran has implemented allows for the real likelyhood of weapons grade material.

Are you claiming that the Iranians are less competant than I am? That they are so dumb they can't do what a college grad in Physics can?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 07:55 PM

Back to screaming, bb???

That always means you are on shakey grounds as you are here in your loyal-Bushite-dog defense...

Are you so partisan that you don't understand the implications of what Bush said on October 23rd of this year???

I mean, geeze... Is there any lie that Bush could tell that you wouldn't defend???

He said that "Iran is pursuing..."

Fact:

No, Iran was not, according to the intellegence community "pursuing"... "Pursuing" is an active verb... It says that someone is ***actively*** doing something... The US intellgence community has said that is not true... In other words, it is a lie...

Now I know how you love to split hairs on what is or isn't a lie but your dog won't hunt... Bush lied... Iran is not "pursuing"... Okay, Iran might have "pursued"... Taht would be an accurate statement but "pursuing" is present tense...

I can't wait to hear the crapola you are going to write that changes the entire way in which English is spoken... This oughtta be a bb doozie of crapolla...

(No, Bobert... Bb will probably just try to outSCREAM you since he has no defense here...)

Normal... Some things never change...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:11 PM

Bush's remarks included something about preventing the Iranians from learning how to make a nuclear bomb.

Hell's bells, any competent physics student knows how to make a nuclear bomb. I'm no physicist, and I know how to make a nuclear bomb.   Whether I have the engineering skill to do so is something else, but I know the principles of how both a fission bomb and a thermonuclear bomb work. From that point on, it's a matter of getting the necessary material together, and combining it with the ability to run a screwdriver!

Our president—once again demonstrating that he is a clueless twit—has seen far too many John Wayne movies!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:20 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.


Senator Harry Reid said the assessment was "directly challenging some of this administration's alarming rhetoric" on Iran.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran's nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely to keep its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is intended for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new report essentially disavows a judgment that the intelligence agencies issued in 2005, which concluded that Iran had an active secret arms program intended to transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. The new estimate declares instead with "high confidence" that the military-run program was shut in 2003, and it concludes with "moderate confidence" that the program remains frozen. The report judges that the halt was imposed by Iran "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."

It was not clear what prompted the reversal. Administration officials said the new estimate reflected conclusions that the intelligence agencies had agreed on only in the past several weeks. The report's agnosticism about Iran's nuclear intentions represents a very different tone than had been struck by President Bush, and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who warned in a speech in October that if Iran "stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences."

The estimate does not say when intelligence agencies learned that the arms program had been halted, but officials said new information obtained from covert sources over the summer had led to a reassessment of the state of Iran's nuclear program and a decision to delay preparation of the estimate, which had been scheduled to be delivered to Congress in the spring.

The new report came out just over five years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it proved to be deeply flawed, and most of its conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said the specter of the 2002 estimate on Iraq hung over their deliberations on Iran even more than it had in 2005, when the lessons from the intelligence failure on Iraq were just beginning to prompt spy agencies to adapt a more rigorous approach to their findings."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:50 PM

"Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said, sounding defensive at times, during a news conference dominated by questions about the assessment, known as a National Intelligence Estimate. "What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" GWB

":FACT:

* I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material."   BB

Conclusion? We should bomb Bearded Bruce


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 09:16 PM

Good old Lapp-Goch! Gotta love it. The pre-emptive self-defence techique for homicidal maniacs once advertised by National Lampoon as a ridiculous joke has had the USA presidential stamp of approval ever since 2003. What was once a joke goes mainstream.

Hitler and Tojo's interesting approach to national defence has thereby been exonerated by the Bush administration as just "good common sense in a dangerous world". Yes, it IS okay after all to attack others first, just because you think they might someday pose a threat to you. It must be all right or the president wouldn't have done it. Would he?

Yes, dick, there does appear to be solid evidence that Bearded Bruce poses a dire threat to the world, because he has stated that HE KNOWS how to make a nuclear bomb... Pretty worrisome! He is clearly an unstable maniac who must be stopped, and we can't take the military option off the table or he won't take us seriously.    Mind you, he doesn't have the fissionable material yet (or at least we don't think he does...), so now is the time to move decisively and make sure he NEVER gets it. To do this, I think the powers that be should freeze his assets, shut down all his bank accounts forthwith, suspend his driver's license, remove his cookie, and set his credit rating at zero. Then apply sanctions and suspend trade till he sees reason. Turn off his power too. And his water. That should teach him a lesson.

While he mulls all that over, surround his residence with a heavily armed swat team, ready to attack at a moment's notice if any sign of aggression by Bearded Bruce or the intent to commit future aggression is detected! (Such signs could include frowning, turning red in the face, yelling, and/or the use of foul language and rude gestures.)

I call this program of firm action "Tough Diplomacy...the Road to Peace and Freedom". Bearded Bruce is either going to knuckle under and meet all the conditions for peace and freedom that the Free World demands of its members or he is going to pay the consequences...

;-) Tough love. Tough diplomacy. Lapp-Goch. First strike. Shock and Awe. It's how you get things done in the modern world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:07 PM

>>>I * can build a nuclear device right now, if I had the weapons grade material."   BB

Conclusion? We should bomb Bearded Bruce<<<

Let's not be rash. I want to be totally fair about this.

Bruce, please prove to us that you are not building a nuclear bomb. This is your last chance to disarm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:22 AM

Oh shit! Bearded Bruce was just spotted in West Africa trying to buy enriched yellow cake flowers! We are 45 just minutes away from Blooming Blossoms, flower power is our only option, we've hit pay dirt, plant the bastards now!

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 AM

Georgie's gonna have to find a new enemy to refocus or redirect the national attention on, who or what's it gonna be?? Please don't dicusss or bring up health or education reform or ending the war, those topics are taboo, maybe he'll want to tackle the Mid East disagreement/conflict & start redrawing a few more road maps or maybe he can focus on whaling, whoops, that might get him to close to the topic of global warming! And we all know that he doesn't want to go there either.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:17 AM

Who cares about the facts? If you really believe something to be true, it's true for you, and it's showing disrespect for another's faith to oppose them with mere evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:08 AM

I too could build both fission and fusion weapons. I've know how ever since I was in high school. Or go read the book "The Circle of Binding Energy."

'Tain't hard to build a gun-type fission weapon. And you can even trigger it with a suicide-type fanatic (I can find plenty around here who would do it because killing "Liberals" will insure their entry into Heaven, the provision of 144 wild virgin bikini dancers and an eternity of light beer).

A human-triggered fission weapon wouldn't have the yield of a well-engineered one or an implosion weapon, probably only about .8 KT and a LOT of fallout -- mind you, that's the equivalent of about 800 tons of TNT and a "dead zone" of radioactivity.

Don't go bad-mouthing BB or Don Firth -- they're dead right about building nukes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:25 AM

Well, okay...

Lets do a little review here...

Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right??? 'Cept now it appears that Iran isn't do that at all but...

Well, if bb is "pursuing the technology that could be used to produce nuclear weapons" would that also be the beginning of WW III??? I've got the WGSR down on the bomb shelter workin' on this one...

"144 wild virgin bikina dancers and an eternity of light beer", Rap??? Where do I sign up???

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: bankley
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:42 AM

I somehow see W. replacing Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, riding the Big One like a wild horse all the way down.... then again that would take guts which, along with brains, are sadly lacking in this man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:43 AM

I found him in a hidey hole. bb won't be bobmbing anyone again.

So the NIE ganged up on poor ol George Jr. I remember when they got the exact reports that they ordered up like breakfast at the Silver Diner.

Not to worry Georgie, if you and your MIC friends ever need a war in Iran it won't matter what anyone says after one singular little tiny nuke goes off in the region. It won't even matter if its ours :) heh heh (of course it is) All you need to do is pay some experts to declare the uranium signiture is that of Iran and repeat it every ten minutes for 2 weeks on FOX.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Winds Of War
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 09:52 AM

A new U.S. intelligence analysis claims that Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program in 2003. This is odd, since the report was created by an agency that answers to the president of the United States. But the people creating the Iran weapons section have a reputation for pro-Iran opinions. Moreover, the "halt" angle has very little to back it up.

This new analysis seems to be more for political than intelligence effect, as it throws cold water on U.S. politicians who are calling for an attack on Iran (which would mainly help the unpopular religious dictatorship there, as it would rally the people behind them).

However, the United Arab Emirates has demanded the return of three islands in the Persian Gulf, which Iran seized by force in 1971, and refuses to give back. The UAE will require help from the USA to back up their demands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

"Bush says that if Iran had a nuke that would be the beginning of WW III... Right???" Wrong Bobert - He most certainly did not.

If you wish to actually read the question that was asked and the complete answer that was given here it is:

Question put during a press conference dated 17th October 2007: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- 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 have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 10:42 AM

My original posting was intended to point out that logic is not a governing force in this Administration. What's being said is essentially: We must force Iran to stop doing something that we say they stopped doing four years ago, because they might start doing it again. (And, implicitly, we're willing to go to war with them to accomplish this.)
    What the Intelligence analysis suggests that since hostilities are not imminent, it may be possible to utilize more pacific means of diplomacy to make sure that what got stopped stays stopped.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:05 AM

It is not against any international law to refine Uranium for reactors.

Diane Reams had several NIE experts on her show today regarding this thread subject. I was happy to hear 2 points that I brought be discussed on the show.

At any rate none of us will have any influence on foreign policy or war plans except in a slow motion election manner.

Like 1914 a single bullet could become the excuse for the WWIII that Bush chuckled about when he chided "if anyone wants to avoid WWIII they ought to..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:17 AM

"So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation."

That last paragraph gave me the best belly laugh I've had for ages. Are you posting this shite in defence of Bush?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." –President Bush, in an interview with Polish television, May 29, 2003

"Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." –President Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address

"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

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

The last one is nearly as funny as the quote Teribus posted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM

Sorry, T, but as per usual, you are on the fictional side of the "facts"...

October 17th: " If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace. We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be inter4ested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weaspon. And... take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously"... George Bush

Seems to me that I fairly well paraphrased what Bush said...

And keep in mind here, T-Bird, that this statement was also made after Bush had been informed that Iran had curtailed its nuclear program back in 2003...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 12:30 PM

Sorry, the book I referred to is entitled "The Curve of Binding Energy."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:31 PM

Back to ignoring anything resembling facts, Bobert???

Sorry if pointing out that a statement is fact seems to upset you.



D.,

"It is not against any international law to refine Uranium for reactors."

No, but it is a violation of the NPT that Iran signed, according to the IAEA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:53 PM

"We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. "

And what part of this do you disagree with?

Please look at what you have put out, and try to see what Bush was saying:

"So I 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 knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weaspon."

Plain and simple. How do you get *** your *** ( Emphasis, not yelling) interpretation out of what he said????


So, You, Bobert, are *** not *** ( please note emphasis, not yelling) interested in avoiding World War III??????????

How does this entitle you to call anyone a liar?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 02:59 PM

If you have uranium and the proper equipment, you can seperate out U235 from U238. It's a relatively simple process, but I won't detail it here.

If you have U235 you can use that for a fission weapon, or you can further work on it to make Plutonium 239. Pu239 can also be used in fission weapons.

U235 and Pu239 can also be used in electricity-producing reactors.

Just as with sinning, it's often a matter of intent.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:00 PM

This is my post from the other thread:

********************************************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:47 PM

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert...

"So when Bush made a statement about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon a couple months ago and how that would be the beginning of World War III he made the statement ***after*** being told by the intellegence folks that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear weapon's program in 2003..."

The report states that Iran curtailed it's nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The IAEA has stated that it CANNOT provide ANY evidence as to whether that program was dismantled, frozen, or even restarted.

I "curtailed" my employment in 2002. As of 2003, I WAS unemployed (PLEASE NOTE THE PAST TENSE). I have since been employed from 2004 to the present: BUT you would call me a liar if I said I was employed now, I have to presume.

I would prefer to have the IAEA decide that Iran HAS decided to comply with the NPT requirements that it violated, before stating that Iran does NOT have a nuclear program.

Right now, WE DO NOT KNOW.

Conditional statement:
IF Iran gets a nuclear device THEN it would be a BAD thing.

Since THAT is what Bush said, your point is... That it would NOT be a bad thing????????? "


Still waiting, Bobert. And making fun of anyone who points out that the limiting factor in making a nuclear device is ONLY the access to the fissionable material, and Iran has CONTUINUED (Note yelling)to make that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:08 PM

Are they (Iran) being accused of refining uranium for reactors or for to produce WMD? Really!!! It seems that the WMD issue is now been put to sleep, matter of "fact", "fact" is now that it's been put to bed yrs ago. Is Bush trying to wake a sleeping (rabid??) dog?? or just wag the fucking dog's tail??????? Please!!!!

It's past time that he move on & out! Like we don't have other issues to deal with. Like todays report that US kids are only rate around 30 on a list of 60 nations for math & for science we are so much worst. Like our national health care system sucks compared
to most of Europe, !/2 of North America, most of Downunder & Cuba & that's just a start. We also rate pretty low compared to many others on infant mortality. Educational system, I'm not going there! We're in debt so far that the Statue of Liberty's eye color just turned a shit brown & that's partly due to the loss of just-iced rights & freedoms. We're still trying to get it strait about how we can tear up the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all the Amendments, the Geneva Conventions, International Law. I'd rather give Bill Clinton a blow job myself cause Mr. Bush keeps sticking everything else up my ass & it's begining to get tiresome! And the shit that he's shoving in my ears is almost as bad as the taste in my mouth for what he's been asking me top swallow since he's been in orf/face!


Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:24 PM

"Are they (Iran) being accused of refining uranium for reactors or for to produce WMD? Really!!! It seems that the WMD issue is now been put to sleep, matter of "fact", "fact" is now that it's been put to bed yrs ago."

Barry. it does seem a pity that the IAEA keeps saying that Iran is NOT complying with the NPT, and is contiuing, accroding to the Iranian government, to make fuel, both in violation of the NPT and to a higher degree of refinement than required by peaceful purposes ( unless, like Bobert, you think that a peaceful use is making a bomb)

FACTY is, the IAEA keeps telling us that Iran is NOT complying: I guess Bush should just ignore that, and let 40 million- 1.7 billion die in a needless nuclear war in the near future?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM

R.,

"If you have U235 you can use that for a fission weapon, or you can further work on it to make Plutonium 239. Pu239 can also be used in fission weapons."

Actually, one can use U238 in a breeder reactor to make the Pu239- That being what N. Korea did, and that requires less industrial capability. THAT is the reason why the NPT *** requires *** inspections and oversight of the peaceful reactors: The "waste" fuel can be ( easily) processed to weapons-grade materials.




"A human-triggered fission weapon wouldn't have the yield of a well-engineered one or an implosion weapon, probably only about .8 KT and a LOT of fallout -- mind you, that's the equivalent of about 800 tons of TNT and a "dead zone" of radioactivity. "

I would estimate a yield of between 10 and 20 KT. But then, it is no problem getting shaped charges these days- just pretend you are an Iraqi insurgent and ask for them from Iran...

I always prefered remote triggers- but I guess it would save the cost of a cell phone to have a person trigger it directly. Got to watch those incidental costs...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM

could'nt have put it better myself Barry..

oh by the way - in the 70's the US helped Iran with Nuclear power..

Thirty years ago... when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: "They were an allied country."

and guess who held key positions in the administration at the time..
Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.

Im no apologist for the Iranian ruling elite.. they are repressive
but in many ways Iran probably has more democratic elements and a real internal opposition than anywhere else in the middle east.

and why do they hate the US? well for a start the US overthrew a freely elected president in 1953 and propped up a tyrant in his place for 25 years..all in exchange for favorable oil deals -- the Iranians were after all getting uppity in seeking a fair royalty for their Oil.

lets hope Dick Cheney doesnt decide to bomb Iran after all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:05 PM

bb,

I don't begin to understand your arguements here... They just don't make sense...

I never said that Bush knew back as far as 2003 that Iran had curtainled it's nuclear program... What I have said, which is also backed by yesterdays Washington Post story, is that Bush knew of this new intellegence report before he shot off his mouth about WW III and before he shot off his mouth saying that Iran is "pursuing"...

These are the facts of the case...

The man lied in saying that Iran "is pursuing" after being told they were not...

How complicated is this, bb???

A lie is a lie is a lie...

Explain again your reasoning why Bush's Oct. 23, 2007 "is pursuing" speech was not a lie...

And in terms that make sense, por favor...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:36 PM

Thanks to Q Khan, anyone can have and probably do have a low yield nuke. While Pu can reach a critical mass with much less weight U 238 will do so with less than X lbs. bearded bruce will know the exact number.

Who really believes that the nuclear genie can be put back in the bottle. Hell, even Alabama has the bomb.

The argument of containing any country that is seeking nukes is moot.
Pakistan has it. We DO seem to want to keep the oil bearing countries from having it hmmmm

After the nuke war in the middle east we will be driving with lead lined gas tanks and be told FOX news that the low radioactivity of our gasoline is of no conern or risk ;< )


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:41 PM

On the contrary Dick, logic, commonsense and a sense of realism are the governing forces in the current US Administration.

And what is being said is essentially: We must induce Iran (Nobody will ever force them) to renounce something that we strongly suspected them of working towards (All indications were there) and have just now evaluated that they may have halted this work four years ago, because due to their lack of transparency great confusion exists with regard to their nuclear programme on the whole. This is coupled with a great anxiety that Iran may yet resume this work.

The United States of America has not stated implicitly, or otherwise, that they would be willing to go to war to stop this programme. Iran, on the otherhand must be fully aware of the United States of America's bi-lateral defence treaty and sworn obligations to the State of Israel. Should Iran move to "wipe Israel from the map", or should they put weapons in the hands of others who would move to achieve the same end, I think that I would predict with some degree of certainty that a similar fate would befall Iran at the hands of the United States of America.
   
That is why the President has stated that the opportunity to rally the international community to pressure the Iranian regime to renounce its program must not be squandered and make sure that what got stopped stays stopped.

Oh Bobert before you keep clucking on about it, the President only was made aware of the NIE evaluation last week. As far as he knew in October the Iranian weapons programme was still underway and making way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:47 PM

"oh by the way - in the 70's the US helped Iran with Nuclear power.."

Oh, by the way, IRAN was a signatory to the NPT, and had the RIGHT to assistance from nuclear powers UNDER THAT TREATY. It was not until recently that the IAEA declared that Iran was in violation of the monitoring aspects of that treaty.


Bobert, you are still saying that because I was unemployed in 2003 I MUST be unemployed now???


I will state that YOU havbe made statements that you cannot vereify as being true- ARE YOU A LIAR?

And yes, I mean to yell, when you do not seem capable of understanding plain english statements.

BUSH SAID "IF" you morom! Conditional, see?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM

morom- one letter short of moron


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM

Washington Post:

Intelligence on Iran
The new U.S. assessment has some good news -- but the reaction to it could be bad.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A28


THE NEW National Intelligence Estimate on Iran contains some unambiguously good news: that Tehran halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that it is responsive to the sort of international pressure applied by the United States and other Western governments. Iran's "decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," says the public summary released Monday. That sounds like an endorsement of the diplomatic strategy pursued by the Bush administration since 2005, which has been aimed at forcing Iran to choose between the nuclear program and normal economic and security relations with the outside world. It strengthens the view, which we have previously endorsed, that this administration should not have to resort to military action to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

But there is bad news, too, which seems likely to be overlooked by those who have been resisting sanctions and other pressure on the mullahs all along, such as Russia, China and some members of the European Union. 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. The U.S. estimate of when Iran might produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb -- sometime between late 2009 and the middle of the next decade -- hasn't changed.

"Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," says the summary's second sentence. Yet within hours of the report's release, European diplomats and some U.S officials were saying that it could kill an arduous American effort to win support for a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment. It could also hinder separate U.S.-French efforts to create a new sanctions coalition outside the United Nations. In other words, the new report may have the effect of neutering the very strategy of pressure that it says might be effective if "intensified."

President Bush yesterday vowed to continue pushing for international sanctions. But Democrats and some Republicans are arguing that now is the time for the Bush administration to begin a broad dialogue with Iran -- and drop a precondition that the regime first suspend uranium enrichment. It's an odd time to recommend such a concession: The latest European Union talks with Iran last week were a disaster, in which a new hard-line envoy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad withdrew the previous, inadequate Iranian compromise proposals. Were the Bush administration to abandon its insistence on a suspension of enrichment, Mr. Ahmadinejad would declare victory over the relative moderates in Iran who have recently criticized his uncompromising stance.

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.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Please note, Bobert: I posted the whole article.

"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."

The information that Iraq had a WMD program was higher than "moderate confidence": Are you so sure you want to state that Bush is lying?????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:04 PM

Another Post article I have no problem with...

Time to Talk to Iran

By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is gone.

Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible.

With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran.

Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system.

But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history.

This is as good a time as any. The United States is not in a position of weakness. The embarrassment of the NIE will be fleeting. Strategic realities are more durable. America remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region -- a far cry from a year ago, when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against Iran, which was already isolated.

There are other reasons to move now. Even if the NIE forecasts that Iran cannot build a nuclear bomb before 2010, the time is still finite. The next administration, especially if it is Democratic, will probably want to try to talk to Tehran. But it couldn't begin talks before the summer of 2009, at which point, if the NIE is right, Iran could be moving into the final stages of developing a bomb. Better to get negotiations started so that by the time the next administration settles in, it will be able to assess the progress, or lack thereof, after a year of talks. If it decides it must take strong action, it will have an easier time showing that all other options were exhausted.

Better, too, if talks are launched by this administration. Although trust between the parties has broken down, American policy toward Iran needs broad support in both parties. Bush could even name a hard-nosed Democrat to lead the talks.


Initiating the talks now would give the United States a better chance to frame the discussion, at home and abroad. Any negotiations should aim at getting the Iranians to finally answer all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's outstanding questions about the country's programs, agree to intrusive inspections and monitoring of its facilities, and address the U.N. Security Council's requirement that it suspend its enrichment of uranium.

The talks should go beyond the nuclear issue and include Iran's support for terrorism, its harboring of al-Qaeda leaders, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its supplying of weapons to violent extremists in Iraq.

They should also address the Iranian government's violation of human rights and its tightening political repression. Some argue that you can't talk to a country while seeking political change within it. This is nonsense. The United States simultaneously contained the Soviet Union, negotiated with the Soviet Union and pressed for political change in the Soviet Union -- supporting dissidents, communicating directly to the Russian people through radio and other media, and holding the Soviet government to account under such international human rights agreements as the Helsinki Accords. There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and pressing for change within Iran.

As for what's in it for Iran: If Tehran complies with its nuclear obligations; ceases its support for terrorist violence; and treats its people with justice, humanity and liberalism, it will be welcomed into the international community, with all the enormous economic, political and security benefits this brings. That offer has always been on the table, and the United States gives away nothing by making it explicit.

Beginning talks today does not limit American options in the future. If the Iranians stonewall or refuse to talk -- a distinct possibility -- they will establish a record of intransigence that can be used against them now and in the critical years to come. It's possible the American offer itself could open fissures in Iran. In any case, it is hard to see what other policy options are available. This is the hand that has been dealt. The Bush administration needs to be smart and creative enough to play it well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:06 PM

The Right Nuclear Red Line

By Gareth Evans
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

By deflating so much of the hyperbole around the issue, the National Intelligence Estimate offers an opportunity to end the international stalemate with Tehran. Having just returned from a series of meetings with high-level Iranian officials, including their top nuclear negotiator, I think the outlines of a deal are clear.

Led by the United States and the European Union, with Russia and China cautiously supportive, the international community has until now been fixated on preventing Iran from acquiring any capacity to enrich uranium and thus to make nuclear fuel for civilian or military purposes. Iran argues that such a red line has no basis in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is unjustifiably discriminatory. Tehran continues to stare down the U.N. Security Council, shrugs off sanctions and refuses to negotiate any intrusive inspection regime that would enable it to be trusted when it denies having intentions to create nuclear weapons.

The international community is entitled to stay nervous, given Iran's long history of undeclared activity and the many disturbing and provocative statements of its president. But all the signs are -- and I heard nothing to the contrary in Tehran -- that Iran will simply not budge on its "right to enrich." That means an indefinite continuation of the standoff, with minimal Iranian cooperation on regional issues of immense concern -- including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the role of Hamas and Hezbollah -- and minimal confidence internationally in Iran's ultimate nuclear intentions.

The new intelligence assessment gives us the chance to break out of this impasse. What the international community really wants is for Iran to never produce nuclear weapons. The red line that matters is the one at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, between civilian and military capability. If Iran's neighbors, including Israel, and the wider world could be confident that that line would hold, it would not matter whether Iran was capable of producing its own nuclear fuel.

That line will hold if we can get Iran to accept a highly intrusive monitoring, verification and inspection regime that goes well beyond basic Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards, which already apply, and includes both the optional additional inspection measures available under that treaty as well as tough further measures. Iran would also need to build confidence by agreeing to stretch out over time the development of its enrichment capability and to have any industrial-scale activity conducted not by Iran alone but by an international consortium.


Although Iran will hold out for as much as it can get and for as long as it can, it is capable of being persuaded. This will require a mixture of incentives (including the lifting of sanctions and the normalization of relations with the United States) and disincentives (the threat of further sanctions and worse, if it crosses the military-program red line). But negotiations won't go anywhere if the United States and European Union continue to insist on zero enrichment.

In Iran two weeks ago, I heard nothing from anyone, in or out of government, to suggest that any member of the current power elite thought the benefits of a nuclear weapons program -- including for deterrence or asserting regional authority -- could possibly outweigh the costs. There was an acute awareness of the military, economic and further reputational risks that the country would run if it moved even a toe in that direction.

Iran's economic arguments for domestically producing, rather than buying, fuel for a civilian nuclear program have never been very persuasive, and they sounded no better on this occasion. But the psychological arguments I heard were a different story: This is a country seething with both national pride and resentment against past humiliations, and it wants to cut a regional and global figure by proving its sophisticated technological capability. One only wishes that something less sensitive than the nuclear fuel cycle had been chosen to make that point.

Unconditional negotiations aimed at achieving "delayed limited enrichment with maximum safeguards" rather than the failed policy of "zero enrichment" can produce a win-win outcome. Such negotiations won't be easy to start or conclude, given the parties' long-held public positions. But if the objective is to ensure that Iran won't backslide and be newly tempted to go down the nuclear weapons road, this is the only way to go.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:08 PM

The Myth of the Mad Mullahs

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, December 5, 2007; Page A29

In the entryway of "Persia House," as the CIA's new Iran operations division is known internally, hangs a haunting life-size poster of Hussein, the martyr revered by Iran's Shiite Muslims. The division was created last year to push more aggressively for information about Iran's nuclear program and other secrets.

Creating Persia House and spinning off Iran from its old home in the agency's Near East division were part of a broader effort to "plus up" collection of secret information, in the words of one senior official. The CIA made it easy for disgruntled Iranians to send information directly to the agency in cases known as "virtual walk-ins." The National Security Agency and other intelligence organizations made similar drives to steal more of Iran's secrets.

Meanwhile, the intelligence analysts responsible for Iran were given new encouragement to think outside the box. To break the lock-step culture that allowed the disastrous mistake on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Thomas Fingar ordered that analysts be given more information about sources and, rather than trying to fit information into preexisting boxes to prove a case, they should simply explain what it meant.

All these strands converged in the bombshell National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that was released Monday. That document was as close to a U-turn as one sees in the intelligence world. The community dropped its 2005 judgment that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons" and instead said, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" because of international pressure.

The secret intelligence that produced this reversal came from multiple channels -- human sources as well as intercepted communications -- that arrived in June and July. At that time, a quite different draft of the Iran NIE was nearly finished. But the "volume and character" of the new information was so striking, says a senior official, that "we decided we've got to go back." It was this combination of data from different sources that gave the analysts "high confidence" the covert weapons program had been stopped in 2003. This led them to reject an alternative scenario (one of six) pitched by a "red team" of counterintelligence specialists that the new information was a deliberate Iranian deception.


A senior official describes the summer's windfall as "a variety of reporting that unlocked stuff we had, which we didn't understand fully before." That earlier information included technical drawings from an Iranian laptop computer purloined in 2004 that showed Iranian scientists had been designing an efficient nuclear bomb that could be delivered by a missile. Though some U.S. analysts had doubted the validity of the laptop evidence, they now believe it was part of the covert "weaponization" program that was shelved in the fall of 2003.

The most important finding of the NIE isn't the details about the scope of nuclear research; there remains some disagreement about that. Rather, it's the insight into the greatest mystery of all about the Islamic republic, which is the degree of rationality and predictability of its decisions.

For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by "mad mullahs" -- clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be "deterred."

"Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs," states the NIE. Asked if this meant the Iranian regime would be "deterrable" if it did obtain a weapon, a senior official responded, "That is the implication." He added: "Diplomacy works. That's the message."

While the intelligence community regards Iran as a rational actor, the workings of the regime remain opaque -- a "black box," in the words of one senior official. "You see the outcome [in the fall 2003 decision to halt the covert program] but not the decision-making process." This official said it was "logical, but we don't have the evidence" that Iran felt less need for nuclear weapons after the United States toppled its mortal enemy, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, in April 2003.

The debate about what the NIE should mean for U.S. policy toward Iran is just beginning. But for the intelligence community, this rebuttal of conventional wisdom will restore some integrity after the Iraq WMD debacle. In challenging the previous certitudes about Iran and the Bomb, the NIE recalls the admonition many decades ago by the godfather of CIA analysts, Sherman Kent: "When the evidence seems to force a single and immediate conclusion, then that is the time to worry about one's bigotry, and to do a little conscientious introspection."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 07:18 PM

"We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Isreal. "

And what part of this do you disagree with?


All of it. "We" haven't "got a leader" - "they" have. A bit of a buffoon, but it's the one they chose. (Now who does that remind me of?) And more significantly he has never said he "wants to destroy Isreal."   What he has said is that he looks forward to a time when the existing state of Israel will no longer exist. Which in the jargon of the day is called "regime change". Comparable to looking forward to a day when the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:24 PM

BB and his bud, t,

You all would be better served by actually reading the newspapers...

Acoording to the Washington Post article, "A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy", December 4, 2007 Bush had been alerted to the what was going to be in this NIE before he shot off his mouth:

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two *******after****** he had been told about frssh indidctaions that Iran had actaully halted it's nuclear weapons program."


If you all want to argue facts then take it up with the Washington Post news department or the authors of this story, Peter Baker and Robin Wright... 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...

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)...

I mean, you two are something... If Bush stated that the world was flat you two would come up with reems and reems of falt eart arguments without ever giving thought to the fact that you were wrong...

You are both Eric Hoffer "True Believers"...

Lastly, the mind is like a parachute... It won't work if it isn't open...

Get lives, both of you...

B~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 08:49 PM

Now that's callin' a spade a spade.....Well said Mr McGrath

BTW Joe, When you gonna stop the intellectually challenged from posting reams of cut and paste that nobody can be arsed to read?
Isn't there one original thought left to think?

Gillian Welch, One Little Song



There's gotta be a song let to sing
Cause everybody can't of thought of everything
One little song that ain't been sung
One little rag that ain't been wrung out completely yet
Gotta a little left

One little drop of fallin rain
One little chance to try again
One little bird that makes it every now and then
One little piece of endless sky
One little taste of cherry pie
One little week in paradise and I start thinkin'

There's gotta be a song left to sing
Cause everybody can't of thought of everything
One little note that ain't been used
One little word ain't been abused a thousand times
In a thousand rhythms

One little drop of fallin rain
One little chance to try again
One little bird that makes it every now and then
One little piece of endless sky
One little taste of cherry pie
One little week in paradise and I start thinkin'

Gotta be a song left to sign
Cause everybody can't of thought of everything
One little song that ain't been sung
One little rag that ain't been wrung out completely yet
Till there's nothing left


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 12 April 9:55 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.