National Intelligence Estimate on Iran; NOT Building Nukes

Related to this topic... (0.00 / 0)

...maybe more than we can say is this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73273

Is this as upsetting to you as it is to me?

---

by: Gage @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 14:33:49 PM CST

This is good news... (0.00 / 0)

...now the administration doesn't have an excuse to bring in "democracy" to another country.  The problem of Iran can now certainly be solved by diplomatic means since the Gulf nations won't be crapping in their robes anymore.  They'll be able to stand by the US and exert some real diplomatic pressure. I hope we can get Iran to stop it's malign influence in Iraq and Lebanon in the near future.  

I saw this on CNN with Barb Starr as I was leaving the office.  Bummer for CNN and FOX, they wanted another war to boost their coverage!  Now they'll have to stick with SEN Craig's lovers who are coming forward.  That's what seems to pass for news these days anyhow.  

---

by: LT Nixon @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 14:45:39 PM CST

Does this imply recent dishonesty? (0.00 / 0)

  I think we can assume that this information has probably been kicking around the Executive Branch for at least a few months.  In that case, why all the recent talk from the President (ex: the WWIII comment) and Vice President about the necessity of stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons program?  It sounds like they have known for quite some time that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program!

---

by: dm @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 15:26:07 PM CST

Ahhh, such fond memories ... (0.00 / 0)

You mean like when they had plenty of intel stating that Iraq had no WMD?  And yet we still invaded, primarily for that reason.  I remember vividly having to carry that damn MOPP gear around all the time.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 15:32:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No surprise there (0.00 / 0)

That's their MO.  This administration has no use for outmoded ideas such as "logic" or "evidence."  I see no reason to believe that this estimate will even come close to changing the rhetoric coming from the whitehouse.

Now, happily, a nameless civilian (who's name is Robby).

---

by: nameless soldier @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 16:29:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Damn good question. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Aaron Krager @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 23:21:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It looks as if... (0.00 / 0)

.... the gov't will take any excuse to keep saying that Iran is dangerous.

Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium, which means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment released Monday.

So they may be able to develop a nuke in 2-7 years?

And they are able to spin Iraq into it.

The intelligence officials said they do not know all the reasons why Iran halted its weapons program, or what might trigger its resumption. They said they are confident that diplomatic and political pressure played a key role, but said the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Libya's termination of its nuclear program and the implosion of the illegal nuclear smuggling network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan might also have influenced Tehran.

Because everyone knows that because we invaded Iraq, Iran must feel safer.

Full story is here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

Craziness.

---

by: Brian McGough @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 17:28:55 PM CST

White House Press Briefing (4.00 / 1)

People have to check out todays White House Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Its amazing how reckless they are with human lives (both American and Iranian). Bush was caught yet again lying to the American public and yet the regime still denies they have a desire to attack Iran. Freakin' unbelievable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...

Q Steve, let me follow on this point. If we now estimate with high confidence that it was shut down as of 2003, that it was halted, in October of this year, in 2007, the President is speaking about the Iranian threat, in terms of World War III. Why wouldn't you conclude that this President is hyping the threat?

MR. HADLEY: Because he was describing the threat as the intelligence community itself had been describing the threat both publicly and in their briefings to him. The President, as I think if you look at the testimony that was given by Don Kerr and Mike Hayden today, they basically said that the intelligence community finally came to the judgments that they came to on this issue Tuesday of last week. The President was briefed on Wednesday. So this is challenging information. The intelligence community had to decide what they thought about it. They were sufficiently uncertain about it that they delayed the publication of the NIE until they could come to the bottom of it, reach their conclusions, present it to the President, as they did on Wednesday, and then at that point, obviously, we wanted to get it out quickly.  

---

by: Ernie1812 @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 18:00:01 PM CST

Is it a coincidence? (0.00 / 0)

The reason I posted the link to the Newsweek article above has to do with the questions that arise from the original post and the updates. Here we've got the same sort of situation we had in 2003. We have the president and vice-president making claims and giving warnings that aren't fully collaborated by the intel. Now, one of the architects of Iraq, Wolfowitz, is back on board doing what? Sitting on an advisory committee on foreign security in which he's privvy to all the classified intelligence. Something's up. Something's just not right.  

---

by: Gage @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 23:53:48 PM CST

I shouldn't say... (0.00 / 0)

...something's up. I don't know that. But it's hard to believe this is just coincidental. God, I just wish these people would get out of our lives. I could've lived the rest of my life without ever hearing the name, Wolfowitz, again. Mildew always comes back.

Sorry, folks. Just blowing off steam.

---

by: Gage @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 00:00:00 AM CST

Other names: (0.00 / 0)

Donald Rumsfeld (or Ronald Dumsfeld) comes immediately to mind, as does Perle, Rove, Cheney and of course Mr. GWB.  

---

by: IrritatedVet @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 22:39:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]