Iran

[TexasTiger 12,965]

You know, Joe, he can be incompetent and a liar.

Biden: Bush either not truthful or incompetent on Iran

By Klaus Marre | Posted: 12/04/07 2:05 PM [ET]

December 04, 2007

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) Tuesday asserted that President Bush is not leveling with the country when he says that he did not know in mid-October that U.S. intelligence services believed at that time that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

“Are you telling me a president who is briefed every single morning, who is fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the United States government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden said in a conference call with reporters.

“That’s not believable,” Biden added. “I refuse to believe that. If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.”

Bush told reporters earlier Tuesday that he was made aware only last week of a National Intelligence Estimate that described the stop to the Iranian nuclear program.

“I love presidents who parse words,” Biden said in response. “The NIE didn’t get written until a week ago.”

The Delaware Democrat, who argued that the administration is again misleading the country, charged that Bush must have known about the suspicion of the intelligence services when he made his famous remarks that tied the possibility of World War III to Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/biden-...2007-12-04.html

[autiger4life 3]

I guess the part that bothers me is that instead of saying, "Oops, missed that one" or even "got bad intelligence" he stuck with saying that he has not changed his mind and his policy won't change. The policy that had many thinking we'd go to war because of the nuclear situation, and we find out there really isn't one, and he doesn't think we need a new direction.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

I guess the part that bothers me is that instead of saying, "Oops, missed that one" or even "got bad intelligence" he stuck with saying that he has not changed his mind and his policy won't change. The policy that had many thinking we'd go to war because of the nuclear situation, and we find out there really isn't one, and he doesn't think we need a new direction.

Facts have never factored into his decision making process.

[otterinbham 0]

What bothers me is that we were beating the drum for war even though this intelligence estimate has been kicking around among the decision makers. There seems to be zero judgment in this administration.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

What bothers me is that we were beating the drum for war even though this intelligence estimate has been kicking around among the decision makers. There seems to be zero judgment in this administration.

Neocon foreign policy is ideology-based, not reality-based.

[Tiger Al 0]

I guess the part that bothers me is that instead of saying, "Oops, missed that one" or even "got bad intelligence" he stuck with saying that he has not changed his mind and his policy won't change. The policy that had many thinking we'd go to war because of the nuclear situation, and we find out there really isn't one, and he doesn't think we need a new direction.

That's the great thing about Dubya...he believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday.

LINK

[otterinbham 0]

It is my guess that, behind the scenes, Republicans and Democrats, cabinet members, the intelligence community, and the military are doing their level best to thwart this administration before it does any more harm.

[CCTAU 3,336]

I just built a rocket that can reach your house. I was gonna put a bomb on it but I stopped making bombs a couple of years ago. When are you gonna be at home?

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

If I acted this way for real, you would inform the cops and I would be closely monitored.

This is essentially what's happening. Iran has already stated it wants to destroy another country.

Some of you would not raise a hand to protect yourself until it killed your family. Then it would still be Bush's fault.

If the threat of war causes the devil in Iran to think twice about pursuing atomic weapons, I don;t care when they supposedly stopped enriching uranium. Just so long as they do not pursue it any further.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I like the world knowing that we will not sit and take it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, no bombs have exploded in the US since Bush declared war. No terrorist attacks at all. Sounds like a damn good policy to me.

[Tiger Al 0]

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

Are you any more credible than that president that told us that Iraq was in possession of WMD?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

I just built a rocket that can reach your house. I was gonna put a bomb on it but I stopped making bombs a couple of years ago. When are you gonna be at home?

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

If I acted this way for real, you would inform the cops and I would be closely monitored.

This is essentially what's happening. Iran has already stated it wants to destroy another country.

Some of you would not raise a hand to protect yourself until it killed your family. Then it would still be Bush's fault.

If the threat of war causes the devil in Iran to think twice about pursuing atomic weapons, I don;t care when they supposedly stopped enriching uranium. Just so long as they do not pursue it any further.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I like the world knowing that we will not sit and take it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, no bombs have exploded in the US since Bush declared war. No terrorist attacks at all. Sounds like a damn good policy to me.

"No terrorist attacks at all." Another myth this administration has perpetrated.

[AURaptor 1,125]

First of all, Biden is among the most pompous, self absorbed asses of all D.C. Second, what is being reported by the main stream media isn't the full truth in regards to this report. It says Iran put their nuke weapons program on hold back in '03. What was going on at that time ? Oh yeah, we were taking down Saddam. Lybia announced it was shutting down its WMD / nuclear weapons program. I WONDER WHY! GEEE!! Bush is showing due dilligance, and isn't " beating the drums of war " , as some clueless drones have suggested. Exactly why is a country which has so much oil , which has been chanting 'Death to America ' for the past 28 yrs, which has vowed to wipe Israel off the map...why is this country feverishly trying to manufacture weapons grade enriched uranium ??

If anything, this validates Bush all the more. To look the other way, as some useful idiots here on this board suggest, would be itself an impeachable crime for the Commander in Chief.

[otterinbham 0]

First of all, Biden is among the most pompous, self absorbed asses of all D.C. Second, what is being reported by the main stream media isn't the full truth in regards to this report. It says Iran put their nuke weapons program on hold back in '03. What was going on at that time ? Oh yeah, we were taking down Saddam. Lybia announced it was shutting down its WMD / nuclear weapons program. I WONDER WHY! GEEE!! Bush is showing due dilligance, and isn't " beating the drums of war " , as some clueless drones have suggested. Exactly why is a country which has so much oil , which has been chanting 'Death to America ' for the past 28 yrs, which has vowed to wipe Israel off the map...why is this country feverishly trying to manufacture weapons grade enriched uranium ??

If anything, this validates Bush all the more. To look the other way, as some useful idiots here on this board suggest, would be itself an impeachable crime for the Commander in Chief.

Well, according to the Constitution, the President doesn't have carte blanche to bomb anybody he wants on a whim, anytime he detects any kind of threat. You do remember the Constitution don't you?

Using your strange logic we should have already bombed North Korea into the Stone Age. After all, they actually constructed and tested a nuclear device and already have the delivery systems in place. Heck these guys didn't think twice about actually testing missiles by launching them across Japanese air space. What's more, their political leadership is far more bellicose and unpredictable than the Iranians.

Meanwhile, Iran has a GDP about the size of Alabama's with a population 12 times larger. It has a considerable dissent movement. It has very large unsettled minorities that, collectively, number more than half of the country's population. Its economy is showing serious strains with unemployment above 25%, even with its immense oil reserves. Containment and wearing down of the Iranians will prove a far more effective measure than bombing. After all, since we turned up zero WMDs in Iraq, this administration has zero credibility in the world at the moment. It's very unlikely that we could whip up the lease amount of support for a similar half-baked adventure in Iran.

[Tigermike 3,041]

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

Are you any more credible than that president that told us that Iraq was in possession of WMD?

Are you anymore credible than all those senators who voted for it before they were against it?

"Intelligence" of the sort we are talking about has less to do with actual knowledge than it has to do with "connecting the dots" in the dark, and blindfolded...which is exactly what they claimed we didn't do prior to 9/11 -- but, hey, consistency isn't one of the strong points of the left.

A war with Iran is doomed. Doomed!

Hellsbells I guess the sane thing to do is to surrender to the mullahs before we engage them at all; which sounds like something Jimmy Carter would say.

Hands Off Iran

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/hedges

The surge has been working so the dems lost their talking points there. So what now? Preemptive strikes to protect Iran.

[otterinbham 0]

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

Are you any more credible than that president that told us that Iraq was in possession of WMD?

Are you anymore credible than all those senators who voted for it before they were against it?

"Intelligence" of the sort we are talking about has less to do with actual knowledge than it has to do with "connecting the dots" in the dark, and blindfolded...which is exactly what they claimed we didn't do prior to 9/11 -- but, hey, consistency isn't one of the strong points of the left.

A war with Iran is doomed. Doomed!

Hellsbells I guess the sane thing to do is to surrender to the mullahs before we engage them at all; which sounds like something Jimmy Carter would say.

Hands Off Iran

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/hedges

The surge has been working so the dems lost their talking points there. So what now? Preemptive strikes to protect Iran.

Do you actually think before you write these posts? Has it occurred to you that there are plenty of other alternatives than capitulation or invading Iran?

[Tigermike 3,041]

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

Are you any more credible than that president that told us that Iraq was in possession of WMD?

Are you anymore credible than all those senators who voted for it before they were against it?

"Intelligence" of the sort we are talking about has less to do with actual knowledge than it has to do with "connecting the dots" in the dark, and blindfolded...which is exactly what they claimed we didn't do prior to 9/11 -- but, hey, consistency isn't one of the strong points of the left.

A war with Iran is doomed. Doomed!

Hellsbells I guess the sane thing to do is to surrender to the mullahs before we engage them at all; which sounds like something Jimmy Carter would say.

Hands Off Iran

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/hedges

The surge has been working so the dems lost their talking points there. So what now? Preemptive strikes to protect Iran.

Do you actually think before you write these posts? Has it occurred to you that there are plenty of other alternatives than capitulation or invading Iran?

Yes I do. Do you ever consider the motives of the left before you go off on a rant about Bush? And no I am not defending Bush. I find it a little odd that Biden and dem writers come out with similar statements and pieces with the same intent.

The left is and has been adhering to the Bill Clinton way of dealing with the past, present and future.

“Of course Bill Clinton was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. It’s proven unpopular. It would be different if the war had gone better, as it has in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton’s still for that one. There’s a phrase for someone who’ll stick with you through thick and then and in-between: A man to tie to. Bill Clinton’s the opposite. Not only does he disappear when the going gets tough, he was never with you from the first—at least to hear him tell it. With him, history is one of the plastic arts. There is no surer guide to William Jefferson Clinton’s view of the past than what is popular in the present. All of his statements supporting the war in Iraq now have become, in a Nixonian word, inoperative. Down the memory hole they go, as if they’d never been uttered... Bill Clinton tends to bet for and against any political proposition that involves taking a risk, then recall only the position that proved popular. That way, he can’t lose. Principle has nothing to do with it... But never fear, should the long light of history reveal that in the end this long, long struggle in Iraq has bolstered freedom and stability in that always-volatile part of the world, rest assured, Bill Clinton will have been for it all along.” —Paul Greenberg

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I just built a rocket that can reach your house. I was gonna put a bomb on it but I stopped making bombs a couple of years ago. When are you gonna be at home?

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

If I acted this way for real, you would inform the cops and I would be closely monitored.

This is essentially what's happening. Iran has already stated it wants to destroy another country.

Some of you would not raise a hand to protect yourself until it killed your family. Then it would still be Bush's fault.

If the threat of war causes the devil in Iran to think twice about pursuing atomic weapons, I don;t care when they supposedly stopped enriching uranium. Just so long as they do not pursue it any further.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I like the world knowing that we will not sit and take it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, no bombs have exploded in the US since Bush declared war. No terrorist attacks at all. Sounds like a damn good policy to me.

Are you paying attention? This isn't "Iran says it doesn't make bombs." This is OUR intelligence community doing research and using the various means at their disposal (espionage, satellite photos, etc) to determine that Iran is not building a nuclear weapons program.

[Tigermike 3,041]

I just built a rocket that can reach your house. I was gonna put a bomb on it but I stopped making bombs a couple of years ago. When are you gonna be at home?

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

If I acted this way for real, you would inform the cops and I would be closely monitored.

This is essentially what's happening. Iran has already stated it wants to destroy another country.

Some of you would not raise a hand to protect yourself until it killed your family. Then it would still be Bush's fault.

If the threat of war causes the devil in Iran to think twice about pursuing atomic weapons, I don;t care when they supposedly stopped enriching uranium. Just so long as they do not pursue it any further.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I like the world knowing that we will not sit and take it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, no bombs have exploded in the US since Bush declared war. No terrorist attacks at all. Sounds like a damn good policy to me.

Are you paying attention? This isn't "Iran says it doesn't make bombs." This is OUR intelligence community doing research and using the various means at their disposal (espionage, satellite photos, etc) to determine that Iran is not building a nuclear weapons program.

Would that be the same intelligence people that told us Iraq did have WMD?

[Tigermike 3,041]

Understanding the new National Intelligence Estimate

By Joshua Goodman

December 4, 2007

Released yesterday, the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” offers a stark contrast to a May 2005 assessment and raises some critical questions about our perceptions of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While the 2005 report concluded with “high confidence” that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons, the 2007 estimate judged with similarly “high confidence” that the Islamic Republic halted its nuclear program in the fall of 2003. This seeming about face raises a number of questions regarding Iran’s nuclear program; questions that need to be answered for us to effectively move forward. It is not, however, an end to the debate on Iran and its nuclear ambitions.

What is the objective of Iran’s nuclear program?

The NIE report’s agnostic stance on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons leaves a great deal of ambiguity surrounding Iran and its nuclear ambitions. With regards to its pursuit of a nuclear bomb, the NIE states that under government direction, Iranian military entities were working to develop a nuclear weapon. This program, which started in the late 1980s, came to a halt in the fall of 2003 following intense international pressure. Another factor that the report does not mention, but is certainly worth noting, is the quick defeat of Saddam’s forces in Iraq in the spring of 2003, which left a large U.S. presence on Iran’s border.

But while the NIE report does state that Iran suspended its pursuit of nuclear weapons, it does not say that it stopped developing the various components that go into such a bomb. Rather, it allows for the opposite. The NIE assesses “Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons.” Thus, while Iran may have halted the overall strategic goal of building a nuclear weapon, it continues to develop the pieces that would be necessary if it renewed this objective.

For example, the NIE report notes that “centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon.” In this regard, it is important to note that Iran continues to develop duel purpose materials through its nuclear program – whether civil or military. It is installing P-2 centrifuges at it Natanz facility, which are more efficient in the enrichment of weapons grade uranium than the P-1 variety, based on the blueprints they received from the AQ Kahn network in 1996. And while Iran has been more open about its P-2 program over the past month, many elements of the program remain unverified and undeclared. Moreover, Iran has boasted on numerous occasions that it has installed 3,000 centrifuges in the Natanz facility; the very threshold most analysts argue Iran needs to break to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb in less then a year. The NIE notes Iran’s progress at the Natanz facility while also recognizing, as most analysts do, that Iran is having significant difficulties maximizing the effectiveness of the technology.

If Iran is pursuing nuclear technology, is there a timeline?

The NIE incorporates a discussion on the timeline for the Iranian bomb despite the fact that Iran has purportedly halted its pursuits. With regards to the potential timeline, the NIE is somewhat consistent with past reports. The report notes that Iran has made significant gains in installing uranium enriching apparatuses, but it has not achieved the technological facility needed to produce the necessary materials for a weapon. In laymen’s terms, the centrifuges are running too slowly and for too short a period of time. As such, it concludes that “the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.”

Other publicly released intelligence seems to corroborate such an assessment. In early November, Brig. Gen. Yossi Baidatz, chief analyst for Israel's military intelligence, reported to the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran could potentially have a nuclear weapon by late 2009 or early 2010. And in the November issue of Arms Control Weekly, David Albright and Jacqueline Shire, both of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), argue that while Iran may have much of the infrastructure in place, there are a many technological obstacles to overcome before they are able to properly enrich uranium for a bomb.

What is Iran’s next step?

The NIE clearly states that the primary consideration for Iran is its “security, prestige, and goals for regional influence.” Iran likely felt in the fall of 2003 that the development of a nuclear weapon did not serve these objectives. Whether this strategic assessment remains true today is unclear, a fact reflected in the NIE. Indeed, the estimate is inconclusive about whether Iran “is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.”

There certainly seem to be a number of factors that would indicate Iran might not want to re-constitute the objective of attaining a nuclear weapon in the near future. For one, the United States’ position in Iraq is improving, thus allowing the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Iran, if warranted. Furthermore, the dynamics of the international community were drastically altered by the election of French President Nicolas Sarkozy – which provided the U.S. with another ally in Europe.

On a regional level, the perception that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon has already shown signs that it would lead to a Middle East arms race. Over the past year, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all publicly declared their right to nuclear technology (which they claim will be used for domestic purposes).

That being said, Iran has not abandoned the idea of one day developing a weapon. In fact, the NIE states that the Islamic Republic is “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.” To that end, Iran continues to pursue elements of the technology critical to the development of a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the NIE “cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.”

What are the consequences of the report?

The importance and the influence of the NIE report cannot be overstated. It has single handedly deflated any momentum for those promoting a military strike. As Republican Senator Chuck Hagel noted following the report’s release, the intelligence has eliminated “if nothing else, the urgency that we have to attack Iran, or knock out facilities.” Thus, it is highly unlikely President Bush will bomb Iran before the end of his term. Moreover, the United States is likely going to have to adapt its policies on Iran to recognize this new reality.

The report is also likely to have an effect on the current negotiations over a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iran. Over the weekend, China dropped its objections to a new resolution, and work has begun on a new draft – though it is universally acknowledged that the proposed sanctions package will be far weaker than the Western nations desire. But in response to the release of the NIE report, China has once again changed its tone, calling for direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Following a phone conversation yesterday with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi issued a statement expressing his hope that “the relevant parties continue to pursue a resolution by implementing negotiations and creating the conditions for a resumption of talks.” Such calls for negotiations were echoed by many in the U.S., including Senate majority leader Harry Reid.

With regards to Iran, the NIE has empowered the Islamic Republic in its claim that its nuclear program is for only peaceful purposes. In response to the report’s release, Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki stated that, “It's natural that we welcome it when those countries who in the past have questions and ambiguities about this case... now amend their views realistically. The condition of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities is becoming clear to the world.” Through this absolution, Iran likely sees little need to cooperate with the IAEA and the demands of the international community

But Iran may not get off so easily. As a final consequence, the NIE report may actually increase pressure on Iran to at last open its nuclear program to transparent IAEA inspections. Theoretically, by absolving Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb, the Islamic Republic should have nothing to hide. Nevertheless, Western nations are likely to be concerned about the report’s comments on clandestine operations and the lack of an outright dismissal of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Indeed, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already declared that the report “shows the intent is there and the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious issue.” As such, he has vowed to continue to pursue sanctions against Iran until these concerns are addressed, particularly with regards to its dual-use enrichment.

Conclusion

Despite Iranian wishes, the NIE report will not bring an end to the Iranian nuclear issue. Too many questions remain unanswered. And despite the obvious conclusions one might draw from the estimate, it does not state that Iran has ceased to consider the possibility and has no intention of pursuing a weapon. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. The estimate clearly notes that Iran continues to pursue technologies critical to the development of a weapon, while refusing to rule out that Iran may be trying to purchase a weapon. Though the report has to a certain degree removed much of the urgency surrounding the Iranian debate, it has not erased many of the concerns. In fact, the NIE concludes “with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.” Thus, if Iran really wants to bring an end to the nuclear issue, it needs to be far more transparent about its declared and undeclared nuclear operations.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publication...m?doc_id=605675

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I just built a rocket that can reach your house. I was gonna put a bomb on it but I stopped making bombs a couple of years ago. When are you gonna be at home?

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

If I acted this way for real, you would inform the cops and I would be closely monitored.

This is essentially what's happening. Iran has already stated it wants to destroy another country.

Some of you would not raise a hand to protect yourself until it killed your family. Then it would still be Bush's fault.

If the threat of war causes the devil in Iran to think twice about pursuing atomic weapons, I don;t care when they supposedly stopped enriching uranium. Just so long as they do not pursue it any further.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I like the world knowing that we will not sit and take it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, no bombs have exploded in the US since Bush declared war. No terrorist attacks at all. Sounds like a damn good policy to me.

Are you paying attention? This isn't "Iran says it doesn't make bombs." This is OUR intelligence community doing research and using the various means at their disposal (espionage, satellite photos, etc) to determine that Iran is not building a nuclear weapons program.

Would that be the same intelligence people that told us Iraq did have WMD?

And aren't the same people who believed them then continuing to believe they had them but they were somehow hidden or extracted from the country before we got there?

Why disbelieve them now?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm beginning to feel much like this blogger, who is far, far, far from being a liberal of any stripe:

(in response to the report that Iran doesn't have nor is building nukes)

But President Bush says nothing has changed in regards to Iran. Iran is as dangerous today as it was yesterday; we still may need to take preemptive military action at any time. Iran may not have a nuke, but they know how to make one, and we're certain they still hate us. Terror may rear its ugly head at any moment, and Iran might be standing there behind the curtain, helping the terrorists. We need to keep our options open, if we don't want another 9/11.

Which means one of four things.

A. We think Iran has a nuke, but we can't find it.

B. We know Iran doesn't have a nuke, but we have good reason to think they're an imminent danger.

C. Iran doesn't have a nuke and isn't imminently dangerous, but with Ahmadinejad in charge we can't afford to ease up on the rhetoric.

D. Iran doesn't have a nuke, isn't imminently dangerous, and we can take Ahmadinejad with one hand tied behind our back, but if the American people quit believing in the War on Terror our next president will be a Democrat.

Why do I have a sinking feeling that option "D" is the correct one?

[otterinbham 0]

"Yes I do. Do you ever consider the motives of the left before you go off on a rant about Bush? And no I am not defending Bush. I find it a little odd that Biden and dem writers come out with similar statements and pieces with the same intent.

The left is and has been adhering to the Bill Clinton way of dealing with the past, present and future."

Again, you view everything in simplistic, black-and-white terms. Just because I fundamentally disagree with the way Bush is managing (or, to be more precise, bungling) things, that certainly doesn't make me an apologist for the Democrats.

More to the point, Bush plunged us into an ill-considered, poorly-planned invasion of Iraq based on the flimsiest of intelligence, intelligence that was later found to be almost totally reliant on one intelligence asset, Curveball, whom the Germans would not even allow us to interview and would later discount as unreliable before we even crossed the Iraqi frontier. Aerial photos of missile installations later turned out to be chicken farms.

And while you can trumpet the Surge all you like, the sad truth of the matter is it took four long years of hard-headed, doctrinaire stupidity before the military was allowed to shift tactics. That's longer than it took the US to defeat the Axis in the Second World War. Failure to acknowledge the reality on the ground and the outright stalling of wholesale changes in strategy is incredibly negligent, if not criminal.

Yet, despite this enormous mistake on the part of the Bush administration, you seem to blindly believe everything that's handed to you. And you ignore the current intelligence assessment that the threat isn't nearly what we're being told by the Oval Office. So who's ignoring reality here?

[AFTiger 282]

To be honest, I don't know who to believe. I fear that America's intelligence agencies have become politicized. I hope this will not be another intelligence failure.

From the Wall Street Jounal

'High Confidence' Games

The CIA's flip-flop on Iran is hardly reassuring.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

In his press conference yesterday, President Bush went out of his way to praise the "good work" of the intelligence community, whose latest National Intelligence Estimate claims the mullahs of Iran abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 2003. "This is heartening news," Mr. Bush said. "To me, it's a way for us to rally our partners."

We wish we could be as sanguine, both about the quality of U.S. intelligence and its implications for U.S. diplomacy. For years, senior Administration officials, including Condoleezza Rice, have stressed to us how little the government knows about what goes on inside Iran. In 2005, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report underscored that "Across the board, the Intelligence Community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors." And as our liberal friends used to remind us, you can never trust the CIA. (Only later did they figure out the agency was usually on their side.)

As recently as 2005, the consensus estimate of our spooks was that "Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons" and do so "despite its international obligations and international pressure." This was a "high confidence" judgment. The new NIE says Iran abandoned its nuclear program in 2003 "in response to increasing international scrutiny." This too is a "high confidence" conclusion. One of the two conclusions is wrong, and casts considerable doubt on the entire process by which these "estimates"--the consensus of 16 intelligence bureaucracies--are conducted and accorded gospel status.

Our own "confidence" is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull--.'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

No less odd is the NIE's conclusion that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to "international pressure." The only serious pressure we can recall from that year was the U.S. invasion of Iraq. At the time, an Iranian opposition group revealed the existence of a covert Iranian nuclear program to mill and enrich uranium and produce heavy water at sites previously unknown to U.S. intelligence. The Bush Administration's response was to punt the issue to the Europeans, who in 2003 were just beginning years of fruitless diplomacy before the matter was turned over to the U.N. Security Council.

Mr. Bush implied yesterday that the new estimate was based on "some new information," which remains classified. We can only hope so. But the indications that the Bush Administration was surprised by this NIE, and the way it scrambled yesterday to contain its diplomatic consequences, hardly inspire even "medium confidence" that our spooks have achieved some epic breakthrough. The truth could as easily be that the Administration in its waning days has simply lost any control of its bureaucracy--not that it ever had much.

In any case, the real issue is not Iran's nuclear weapons program, but its nuclear program, period. As the NIE acknowledges, Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale--that is, build the capability to make the fuel for a potential bomb. And it is doing so in open defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. No less a source than the IAEA recently confirmed that Iran already has blueprints to cast uranium in the shape of an atomic bomb core.

The U.S. also knows that Iran has extensive technical information on how to fit a warhead atop a ballistic missile. And there is considerable evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has been developing the detonation devices needed to set off a nuclear explosion at the weapons testing facility in Parchin. Even assuming that Iran is not seeking a bomb right now, it is hardly reassuring that they are developing technologies that could bring them within a screw's twist of one.

Mr. Bush's efforts to further sanction Iran at the U.N. were stalled even before the NIE's release. Those efforts will now be on life support. The NIE's judgments also complicate Treasury's efforts to persuade foreign companies to divest from Iran. Why should they lose out on lucrative business opportunities when even U.S. intelligence absolves the Iranians of evil intent? Calls by Democrats and their media friends to negotiate with Tehran "without preconditions" will surely grow louder.

The larger worry here is how little we seem to have learned from our previous intelligence failures. Over the course of a decade, our intelligence services badly underestimated Saddam's nuclear ambitions, then overestimated them. Now they have done a 180-degree turn on Iran, and in such a way that will contribute to a complacency that will make it easier for Iran to build a weapon. Our intelligence services are supposed to inform the policies of elected officials, but increasingly their judgments seem to be setting policy. This is dangerous.

[autiger4life 3]

I just built a rocket that can reach your house. I was gonna put a bomb on it but I stopped making bombs a couple of years ago. When are you gonna be at home?

You'll just have to take my word for it that I stopped making bombs.

If I acted this way for real, you would inform the cops and I would be closely monitored.

This is essentially what's happening. Iran has already stated it wants to destroy another country.

Some of you would not raise a hand to protect yourself until it killed your family. Then it would still be Bush's fault.

If the threat of war causes the devil in Iran to think twice about pursuing atomic weapons, I don;t care when they supposedly stopped enriching uranium. Just so long as they do not pursue it any further.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I like the world knowing that we will not sit and take it anymore. If I'm not mistaken, no bombs have exploded in the US since Bush declared war. No terrorist attacks at all. Sounds like a damn good policy to me.

You see the difference is that everyone in the neighboorhood has rockets with the ability to reach everyone's house, only everyone has the bomb to strap to it. Furthermore it isn't you telling me you stopped making the bomb, it is the police in this instance. Add on top of that that Iran is being closely monitored and your poor thought out analogy is moot.

To say that Bush has done a good job with foreign policy because no terroist bombs have gone off is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. How many terrorist attacks have occured and during whose presidencies? Very few, so you would argue that all but a handful of President's have done wonders with their policy?

9/11 happened during Bush's presidency, so doesn't that mean he has done a poor job? I know I know, it was Clinton's fault. And perhaps it was, and that is exactly my point, just because it happened or didn't happen during Bush's presidency shows very little about how he did.

[AURaptor 1,125]

This post has been edited by otterinbham: Today, 09:05 AM

Well, according to the Constitution, the President doesn't have carte blanche to bomb anybody he wants on a whim, anytime he detects any kind of threat. You do remember the Constitution don't you?

- Nothing Bush has said or done in the least way suggests that he'll be bombing anyone he wants. It's a absurd comment on your part, to say the least. Furthermore, all 3 top Democratic Presidential candidates have stated that they would NOT take military action off the table w/ regards to Iran. Insert that into pipe, and smoke.

Using your strange logic we should have already bombed North Korea into the Stone Age. After all, they actually constructed and tested a nuclear device and already have the delivery systems in place. Heck these guys didn't think twice about actually testing missiles by launching them across Japanese air space. What's more, their political leadership is far more bellicose and unpredictable than the Iranians.

All the things you say about N.Korea are true, except for one thing you didn't mention. China . N.Korea doesn't blink unless China tells it to. Iran has no such master holding it on a short leash, and is far more involved in Middle East terrorism than is N.Korea.

Meanwhile, Iran has a GDP about the size of Alabama's with a population 12 times larger. It has a considerable dissent movement. It has very large unsettled minorities that, collectively, number more than half of the country's population. Its economy is showing serious strains with unemployment above 25%, even with its immense oil reserves. Containment and wearing down of the Iranians will prove a far more effective measure than bombing. After all, since we turned up zero WMDs in Iraq, this administration has zero credibility in the world at the moment. It's very unlikely that we could whip up the lease amount of support for a similar half-baked adventure in Iran.

And Bush knows all this, which makes comments by you ( and the looney Left ) all the more ridiculous. We're far more likely to win a war by winning over the people of Iran than by unifying them all if we were to attack militarily. Hell, no one doens't know that. Well, almost no one.

[Tigermike 3,041]

"Yes I do. Do you ever consider the motives of the left before you go off on a rant about Bush? And no I am not defending Bush. I find it a little odd that Biden and dem writers come out with similar statements and pieces with the same intent.

The left is and has been adhering to the Bill Clinton way of dealing with the past, present and future."

Again, you view everything in simplistic, black-and-white terms. Just because I fundamentally disagree with the way Bush is managing (or, to be more precise, bungling) things, that certainly doesn't make me an apologist for the Democrats.

More to the point, Bush plunged us into an ill-considered, poorly-planned invasion of Iraq based on the flimsiest of intelligence, intelligence that was later found to be almost totally reliant on one intelligence asset, Curveball, whom the Germans would not even allow us to interview and would later discount as unreliable before we even crossed the Iraqi frontier. Aerial photos of missile installations later turned out to be chicken farms.

And while you can trumpet the Surge all you like, the sad truth of the matter is it took four long years of hard-headed, doctrinaire stupidity before the military was allowed to shift tactics. That's longer than it took the US to defeat the Axis in the Second World War. Failure to acknowledge the reality on the ground and the outright stalling of wholesale changes in strategy is incredibly negligent, if not criminal.

Yet, despite this enormous mistake on the part of the Bush administration, you seem to blindly believe everything that's handed to you. And you ignore the current intelligence assessment that the threat isn't nearly what we're being told by the Oval Office. So who's ignoring reality here?

So what you are saying is this intelligence is much, much better than the other intelligence. OK

I think the US should apologize to Iran for even thinking they were up to no good.

Actually I have not come to any decision on Iran because of politics from this administration or from the dims. Ahmadinejad has helped me believe what they want and what they intend to do. Do you think the mullahs would keep Ahmadinejad in check if they thought the world would stand by and do nothing?