Despite Knowledge That Iran Halted Nuke Program, White House Continued To Warn Of False Threat
Despite Knowledge That Iran Halted Nuke Program, White House Continued To Warn Of False Threat
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released today concludes that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” It adds that “Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007,” and the country is “less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”
The assessment, which relies on data collected through Oct. 31, was reportedly completed in 2006, but was blocked by administration officials who wanted it to be more in line with Vice President Cheney’s hardline views.
As The Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum notes, the NIE’s “basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House” at least by last year, when the document was finished. Yet even in the past two months, the administration has continued to push its faulty, inflammatory rhetoric and claim that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Some examples:
“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.” [Bush, 10/17/07]
“Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. … The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.” [Cheney, 10/21/07]
“The problem is Iran, and Iran has not stepped back from trying to pursue a nuclear weapon, and — or reprocessing and enriching uranium, which would lead to a nuclear weapon.” [White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, 10/26/07]
“We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace.” [Bush, 11/7/07]
“We’re in a position now, clearly, especially when we look at Iran, where it’s very, very important we succeed in our efforts, our national security efforts, to discourage the Iranians from enriching uranium and producing nuclear weapons.” [Cheney, 11/9/07]
“We are convinced that they are developing nuclear weapons.” [Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, 11/13/07]
The White House isn’t yet ready to give up its spin. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley will be speaking to the press at 3:15 PM EST today, and has already claimed that the NIE “confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons.”
UPDATE: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said, “It would be a strategic calamity to attack Iran at this time.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
HACKS..LIARS….LIARS….and HACKS…
Why hasn’t the plane for the Hague taken off yet???
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmMy prediction: The 24%ers will be unmoved.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pmBush/Cheney: Oh, look, an Iranian litterbug. We have to nuke Tehran.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pmsarc off.
Awww, are we having trouble “fixing” the intelligence to meet PNAC’s agenda?
Let’s send this one to the geniuses over on Madison Ave.
They could sell a popsicle to an Eskimo.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pmIf this administration showed as much concern for global warming as it does for Iraq’s nuclear weapons despite the overwhelming evidence for the former and the underwhelming evidence for the latter . . .
oh well, its nice to dream
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 pmHe must have Abraham Lincoln-like honorable reasons to keep lying like this.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 pmHow long till Cheney quits saying that Iran is developing Nukes ?
Answer: How was it thill Cheney quit saying that Iraq had WMDs. Oh wait, he’s still saying that.
And for the public, how many still say that Clinton stole the “W” keys from the computers and trashed the WH ?
As everyone should have heard from their grandmother – once a lie starts, it is almost impossible to stop it.
(Actually, that’s a pretty good vision statement for the Neocons)
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm“…the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. …”
Dick Cheney
That’s right, Dick. C’mon international community, don’t let Cheney fulfill his grandest ambitions of attacking yet another sovereign nation that has been cleared by the nuclear watchdogs. Someone stop this traitorous loose cannon before he causes more trouble.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 pmFrom 2004 through 2006, Iran did agree to suspend all uranium enrichment activities; thus halting what everyone agrees they’re legally entitled to. That was an agreement with the European Union.
“In return to their agreement to suspension of their uranium enrichment program, the European Union was to provide what were called full guarantees on security issues, which means getting the United States to call off its threats to attack and destroy Iran.”
The EU failed to live up to its obligations so Iran pulled out of the agreement and returned to uranium enrichment. But Iranians were accused of breaking the agreement.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:22 pmHere’s what I’ll NEVER understand. That these guys are so incompetent that they didn’t think to have a few actual WMDs handy to sprinkle about. Something, anything that they had kept around since Gulf War I so that they could definitively say that there were live, deployable WMDs found in Iraq. Our soldiers know that a dead non-combatant can quickly become a terrorist if you throw some wire or a rifle on their corpse but their leaders didn’t have a clue. But they were THAT stupid. And that speaks volumes.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmBy the way, I did mean Iran in my previous post… for some reason I’m getting confused between Iran and Iraq….
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmAnd Nancy and Harry are still continuing to enable these crooks and liars? They are worthless, too!
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm14…dig deeper. You’ll see they’re not.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmWe have sen this movie before but don’t worry the Repukes will turn around & then claim that it’ the Dems who were pushing action on Iran just like Rove now been trying to re-write history on Iraq.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmHow is this “spin” — the document states that Iran is not while the President and various members of his administration claim it is. Both cannot be correct. So, one is lying. And if it is the POTUS, why isn’t that actionable? Especially in a matter such as this. If high crimes and misdemeanors has a meaning, lying to the US public to get them to spend treasure and lives on yet another lie should certainly qualify. Seriously, folks, this nonsense must stop else everyone after him will think “spinning” this way is acceptable. It is not.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmThe assessment, which relies on data collected through Oct. 31, was reportedly completed in 2006, but was blocked by administration officials who wanted it to be more in line with Vice President Cheney’s hardline views.
And to influence the ‘06 elections in any way possible.
Hell, they admit to lying to ‘be more in line with VP Cheney’s hardline’.
Impeach. Investigate. Incarcerate. Impale.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmHeres the real reason
The New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away from producing their own enriched uranium. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become the world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans. The problems of tomorrow’s world economy are being shaped today.
we now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3. They smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world’s nuclear fuel market. To succeed, they would just need some legal sauce on the prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon states, with Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would be enough, if it legalizes IAEA’s stand that it can forbid countries to enrich uranium.
Of course, they would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they will have to take care, that Iran does not leave the organization before a resolution is successfully voted. For if so, there would not be any ground for a resolution anymore.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmhttp://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=551761
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmOn the surface, it sounds like Bush and Co are making this a safer world. I’m interested in your take.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
for whom? and how does Iran not having a nuclear program make for a safer world? cheney will only attack countries that he is sure he can defeat easily, even though he was wrong about Iraq, but any country with nukes is safe from the US. that’s a safer world, for those people.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmSo Iran stopped all their Nuke activity or not?
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmAlright, I’ll bite, No. 14
First, isn’t the administrations intelligence so inadequate (according to many progressives after finding no WMD) that it can’t really be relied on?
You are correct, the administration’s intelligence cannot be trusted. But this missive appears to be from sources other than the administrations. The adminiistration’s purported intelligence claims that Iran is building nukes and will be showing a mushroom cloud to the world (presumably over our oil in their land, Israel or NYC take your pick) as soon as it is able to do so.
And also, doesn’t the idea that Iran has halted its nuke program (if you believe it) suggest that it had a nuke program before Bush came into office (under Clinton). If they halted it in 2003, doesn’t it make it seem that the program has been successfully halted during and because of the Bush administration tenure?
Iran likely had a peaceful nuclear program. Like Saddam, Iran probably would like its nuclear armed neighbors (and the West) to believe it has or is working on nuclear weapons. It appears to be the only way to get US to sit down and chat before just invading. Strange, I know, but when someone is dictating that you do this or that or else people, especially heads of sovereign nations, tend to get a little pissed and try and figure out a way to protect their nation from aggression.
Hope this helped.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pm23 / Wind up merchant – So Iran stopped all their Nuke activity or not?
No they are entitled to enrich their uranium with 3000 cetrifuges and America cannot stop them
Tough shit read 20
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 pmThe International agency has determined that Iran has no weapons program. This administration is once again proving themselves to be liars, charlatans and misanthropes.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pmAnd nobody’s surprised.
What a revoltin development.
Just as well because if America started vapourizing Iranian kids with Nuclear weapons, the world would be against them BIG TIME
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmIf they halted it in 2003, doesn’t it make it seem that the program has been successfully halted during and because of the Bush administration tenure?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
I don’t believe anything the nutjob in Iran says any more than I believe the nutjob currently squatting in our WH. Both are petulant little men who wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and bit them.
It is a case of dumb and dumber.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmI’m disappointed. RogerX2 didn’t mention “socialism”, his favorite word with no meaning.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmWhy the change of heart , Maybe because Russia and China dont want to be a part of another untruthfull UN resolution
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmhere is why they halted and WHY
From 2004 through 2006, Iran did agree to suspend all uranium enrichment activities; thus halting what everyone agrees they’re legally entitled to. That was an agreement with the European Union.
“In return to their agreement to suspension of their uranium enrichment program, the European Union was to provide what were called full guarantees on security issues, which means getting the United States to call off its threats to attack and destroy Iran.â€
The EU failed to live up to its obligations so Iran pulled out of the agreement and returned to uranium enrichment. But Iranians were accused of breaking the agreement.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pmBush insane. Bush insane for war. Bush insane for torture. Bush insane for election theft. Bush insane for fascism. Bush insane for treason. Bush insane.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pmHow many CIA agents will be exposed in retaliation for the revelation of this embarrassing news?
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pmHow many lies and propagandist statements from the mouths of our top officials are we going to permit? This is becoming more than pathologica – it’s becoming overtly criminal. Time to either impeach Bush and Cheney or send them off to a mental ward.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pmI’m thrilled that one of their own agencies is calling bullshit on them! Hah!
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmWell, they have nothing else to run on but the fear card.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmRICO prosecution is the only remedy for the GOP and their ongoing criminal enterprise.
disband the GOP and prohibit their leaders from participation in government, including 527 membership, lobbying, and fundraising.
that would finally buy enough slack that Dem’s like Harman, Feinstein, and Lieberman could be gotten rid of without handing the game back to the criminals-in-suits in the process.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmTime for Congress to take these frauds out of office or become “complicit” themselves in the dragging of feet. They’ve had plenty of impeachable offenses and war crimes to use as ammunition but have failed the people miserably on instead “aiding and abetting” this criminal regime.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmtom Baker: I believe you’re onto something big here. It is time for the GOP to be put out of business. All they’ve done is continue to perpetuate and protect liars, perverts, and criminals. Time to disband them and remove them as a valid political party.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pmGlenn Reynolds makes an excellent point:
“But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?”
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:53 pmGlenn Reynolds makes an excellent point:
“But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?â€
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
##
2003 was also before European sanctions went into effect, meaning Iran largely buckled under diplomatic pressure, not isolation, or, yes, war.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:56 pmSecretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said, “It would be a strategic calamity to attack Iran at this time.â€
I agree with the SecDef on this one. Why are Exley and his trollites calamitously stupid?
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmComment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Maybe they realized they didn’t need nukes to attack the U.S. Just a few dudes with boxcutters could totally disrupt the infrastructure of the country and cost it trillions of dollars for years to come. No real need to spend their own money on a nuclear program.
If you’re suggesting that they disbanded a nuclear program because of the attack on Iraq, that doesn’t make any sense. Iraq didn’t have a nuclear program and they were attacked. Iraq didn’t attack the U.S. and they were attacked. Iraq didn’t even have WMD and they were attacked. Why would Iran disband their defence system to avoid an attack when preemptive attacks can be based on fake intelligence? They must know that if the U.S. chooses to attack them it will have little to do with their actions and everything to do with oil.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmComment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
##
I would expect them to resume their program, however, since the US does not attack countries that have nukes – just ask Pakistan
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pmI like how the couple of wingers who’ve posted seem to miss the point that Dubbie and his crew are unrepentant LIARS.
I’d like to be a liar for those wingers, too, and make a handsome profit in the process.
Hey Wingers!! I’ve got viagra for .25 a pill – how many do you want????
Why do you wingers cut so much slack for liars????
How many used cars have you been ripped off on???
Either you like being lied to, or you’re just so deeply cynical that you know in your heart that lying is all that anyone ever does, so it’s always ok – I pity your business associates and your families.
Talk about deficient moral character – whew!! – you wingers have redefined what immoral is – taken it to a whole new level of sleaze, depravity, denial, and betrayal – you’ve outdone the pimps and the whores, the embezzlers and the cons who work old people for their medicine money – televangelists are looking credible compared to Righties these days. Here’s my 2 cents – use the snake oil to lube up your assault rifles and Cheney yourselves into comas.
Bring Righty Down For Good!!!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm“Just a couple of points from a 24%er.
First, isn’t the administrations intelligence so inadequate (according to many progressives after finding no WMD) that it can’t really be relied on?”
Their intelligence wasn’t “inadequate”, it was “misrepresented” to congress and the american people.
“Misrepresented” of course is a charitable way of saying it was a lie.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm“But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?â€
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Why not read the very brief report itself?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
…And the House of Bush comes tumbling down!…..
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pmThe media today acknowledged only one part in this two-part train wreck called the Bush Administration – they only announced the report and the fact that Iran gave up their nuke capabilities back in 2003 – what they failed to report was even more damaging and incriminating to Bush and his Cadre of Frauds – that they knowingly were misleading the public – ONCE AGAIN! Now their hands are caught in the cookie jar and even those 24%ers have to be scratching their heads and realizing that either they’re just as mentally compromised as those lying or that they’ve been duped by “Team Bush” once again. What losers.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pmGummitch,
And who do think was at the forefront of that “increasing international scrutiny and pressure????”
That’s right….The United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush.
The key now is to maintain that pressure and scrutiny initiated by President Bush to keep the Iranians from regenerating the nuclear weapons program that we got them to suspend in 2003.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmGummitch: It’s an impossibility to get frauds like Exley and the mentally-challenged trolls to read anything – even My Pet Goat would be challenging for them – like it, no doubt, was for The Shrub.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pmExley arrives, unicorn-mounted, to conjecture up a chimera of credibility for his ungrateful Leader.
You are (conditionally, of course) awesome, Ex! – what a hero!!
I’ll bet Ari will buy you that lunch at Red Lobster now, for sure.
Too bad we can’t count those imaginary accomplishments, because they are – FICTION!
With Love,
Jack Bauer
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmExley: Pull my finger….hurry up now…..because I’ve got a nice juicy loud one to blast you with! ahahahah! I hope you’re being funny showering accolades on this group of war mongers?? The disgusting truth is emerging and this is just another example of the level of fraud these guys will stoop to. No doubt Bush’s quotes to trump up the fear level will be front and center this week! More comic relief for the people.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmIraq did the same thing… didn’t stop us from invading them…
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmI’m wondering just how many lies we can now catch them on by revisiting their televised statements. Maybe even their little airhead Perino will be caught falsifying Iran’s capabilities. Maybe she’ll get to do a little time before long, too? Let the research begin – let’s find every Bush clip we can that trumps up the lie about Iran, shall we? This task should be like child’s play.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmAnd who do think was at the forefront of that “increasing international scrutiny and pressure????â€
That’s right….The United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush.
The key now is to maintain that pressure and scrutiny initiated by President Bush to keep the Iranians from regenerating the nuclear weapons program that we got them to suspend in 2003.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Again you demonstrate an inexhaustible dishonesty. Your comment implied that something “happened in 2003″ to account for the suspension. Now, suddenly, it’s about scrutiny rather than your clear implication that it was about the invasion of Iraq.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmI still don’t understand what the whole problem is with Iran having nukes? It is not like they could use them. The US has nukes, and so does Israel, Pakistan, India, and everyone else. Let them waste their money on it if that is what they want to do. Hell, sell them some of ours, so we can get the money.
Now, does anybody want to take a bet on trolls still pushing for war with Iran?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm“You wouldn’t recommend an abused woman, living under the threat of a violent husband, to just do her best to get along.”
Is that the best you can do? No, you’d tell the abused woman to move on, just like every sane, rational thinking American should be telling the Bush administration — move on and go pick on someone else.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmOn the surface, it sounds like Bush and Co are making this a safer world. I’m interested in your take.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Safe for who, POS? One million Iraqis?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmAnd who do think was at the forefront of that “increasing international scrutiny and pressure????â€
That’s right….The United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
And I forgot to note: no. It was the Europeans. In 2003, Bush was too deeply involved in starting an unnecessary invasion. More of your dishonesty, Exley.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pmPoor Veritas…He is devastated to see the NIE that ThinkProgress has so long called for has been released and actually shows that President Bush’s strategy of diplomacy, tough talk and military action against Iraq has now conclusively been shown to be one of the most successful efforts against the proliferation of WMDs in history….
Iraq, Libya and Iran — all nations that would have moved forward with WMD production had it not been for the deposing of Saddam Hussein — are now shown to have abandoned their WMD ambitions thanks to George W. Bush….
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmSo this report was completed in 2006, eh? That means that for at least a year, Team Bush suppressed this intelligence information. That means that for one year (at the veryleast and perhaps more depending when it was completed in 2006) Bush Cabal was lying to the people. I submit that intentionally supressing intelligence data is an act of treason against this country. It should be punishable with not only removal from office but prison time as well.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pmBut what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?â€
Comment by Exley
The US broke international law and invaded a country? Hmmm…not the first time.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmall nations that would have moved forward with WMD production had it not been for the deposing of Saddam Hussein
what a crock of unmitigated conjecture.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm#63… don’t bother. The trolls here suffer a certain disconnect brought about by money. They’ll defend Bush until their last paycheck. And that’s all. Then they’ll try to get another job at Best Buy or Red Lobster.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmGummitch,
If you think that the deposing of Saddam Hussein was not part of the international pressure that seemingly caused the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons program in 2003, you are even more naive than I initially believed.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmDarn, I was going to write a fictional story where the intellegence community leaked secret information to stop a mad leader. I guess now I’ll have to start to write a fictional account of a Secret Service agent that shoots a rogue president.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pmNow can we impeach this idiot? What in the world is it going to take to get this moron out of the White House?
I swear, the Republicans have got to be tired of this shit, too, huh?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmNice try, Exley! Nice try! The pertinent issue here is not if anything Chimpy had done has had some effect which is definitely not anything which can be proven in a court of law. The fact is that Bush and Cheney suppressed this intelligence and evidence for over a year while lying to the people about Iran and their intentions for war with a sovereign nation. That’s the critical piece of evidence here.
Proving that something occurred as a side effect of something else is like putting on your tin foil hat, poor demented one, once again. Don’t you have a fedora lying around somewhere? We’re tired of the pointed tin foil millinery you continue to wear on these threads.
Get a life, Ex before it’s too late for you. Trying to spin something positive out of PURE TREASON is simply an impossibility. But, thanks for trying. Your efforts are well recognized (and we know who you are, too).
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmIf this is such a great piece of news, why did the admin sit on it for a year/?? Hmm???
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmi’m not sure i’d accuse others of being naive after typing the words “President Bush’s strategy of diplomacy”
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmIraq, Libya and Iran — all nations that would have moved forward with WMD production had it not been for the deposing of Saddam Hussein — are now shown to have abandoned their WMD ambitions thanks to George W. Bush….
Comment by Exley
Don’t worry. You will find another reason to fear those countries and promote a peaceful bombing.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:19 pmThe prima facie evidence in a court of law would be the tons of video clips of both Bush and Cheney stating their case based on lies against Iran. The prima facie evidence would be how they repeatedly tried to make the case for Iran not complying with their wishes while, in fact, they both knew that Iran was in compliance since 2006! Amazing how they’ve now trapped themselves…..a noose they will not easily slip out of. The evidence is there and can’t be rewritten or erased. I think it’s over for the Bush Cabal – and not a moment too soon.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pmI was hoping we could all just sit for a second and be grateful that Iran isn’t developing a nuke. This is good news, remember :-).
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmwhat a crock of unmitigated conjecture.
Comment by RUCerious
I like to call it, Bubble Propagandagum.
Chew after chew after chew of misinformation and jingoistic paranoia!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmThis is not proof of anything working at all beyond Iran deciding on their own to comply. This is about Bush and Cheney lying knowingly to the people in making a case for war with Iran just as we now know they did in the run up to war with Iraq. This time The People have all of the evidence they need to see how demonic these leaders are and how they will lie and cheat to get their way. Ain’t going to happen now.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pmfrom the actual report, idiot trolls..
“We judge with high confidence
that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium
enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously
undeclared nuclear work.”
nothing about herr Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq….
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pmSean C,
I agree. It is very good news.
But credit should be given where credit is due. If true, it is a victory for Bush’s diplomatic and military strategy to halt the proliferation of WMDs.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmTrolls are fictional; they don’t really exist. You can’t convince them; they are designed to be unconvincable and thus dissuade us from engaging with the Republican base.
Talk about trolls if you must. Point out how their authors are trying to sow doubt, deflect blame, or distract. Point out that they never provide a relevent link.
If you engage with them, they get to make public discussion increasing nasty and unlikely to take place in the real world.
No one is as close-minded and immune to reason as “Exley”, “CaptainMantastic”, or “DreamCrusher” in real life; it is just not possible.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmOh shit, just got a call from a neighbor.
The LyingBastardometer is going off in the garage again, must’ve gotten ahold of this article somehow.
Gotta go and turn it off before the cops come about the racket…
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmPoor Veritas…He is devastated to see the NIE that ThinkProgress has so long called for has been released and actually shows that President Bush’s strategy of diplomacy, tough talk and military action against Iraq has now conclusively been shown to be one of the most successful efforts against the proliferation of WMDs in history….
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
###
You must not have read the full article. It directly correlates this drawdown from nuclear production with diplomatic pressure from Europe. The last time I looked at a globe, the US was not in Europe.
“Iraq, Libya and Iran — all nations that would have moved forward with WMD production had it not been for the deposing of Saddam Hussein — are now shown to have abandoned their WMD ambitions thanks to George W. Bush….”
Right. Saddam was helping Iran develop nukes. Sure.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmIf you think that the deposing of Saddam Hussein was not part of the international pressure that seemingly caused the Iranians to abandon their nuclear weapons program in 2003, you are even more naive than I initially believed.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Continued dishonesty on your part is no longer a surprise. “Part of” is not “at the forefront”, which was your initial claim. Why not stop moving the goalposts, Exley?
Why does the NIE document not specifically mention the invasion of Iraq, Exley? Could it be that the people responsible for writing that document, who actually know what they’re talking about, didn’t think it was significant?
You need to get into the spin business. Your bone-deep dishonesty is a critical requirement.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmIt’s all good news, Juan C. and the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s ALWAYS GOOD NEW to learn truth, regardless of how sleazy and unsavory it is which is precisely why these new truths are both good. Great that Iran has decided on their own to not build nukes; good that our intelligence agency found that to be true. Bad that Bush and Cheney were once again found to be fraudulent liars but good that the truth is now obvious for every american to see.
When truth prevails, it’s always a great thing, despite finding without a reasonable doubt that our lying leaders are nothing more than the “enemy within”.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pmI’m just not seeing how this story hurts Bush or the administration.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Of course you aren’t. That’s why treason is your friend. that’s why you cling to the party of treason, perverts, liars and mass-murderers. Because you have no moral compass.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmActually, I find a bit of humor in all of this: Today Bush puts his slimbag world bank fraud in charge of WMD’s – follow those dots…..from war monger/architect to deposed World Bank President (caught stealing) and now an expert on WMD’s…wow! That’s a stretch, isn’t it?
But of all days for this damaging evidence to come for War Team Bush – amazing coincidence! You’ve got to love the universe – it always has a crafty way of bringing forth the truth when we least expect it and when it can do the most damage.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmExley – IF I were to give Bush credit for this, it would be one positive comment at the end of pages of failures and abominations.
Either way… we can agree that this is good news :-).
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmCap.Manastic: No diagnosed sociopath has the required insight to recognize his psychiatric condition. So it goes with you….
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmsorry Juan C. – my comment above was directed at “Sean” instead. My bad! :)
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmGummitch,
Your reading comprehension skills are as weak as ever. Please read again posting #56 and then read your mischaracterization of said posting at your posting #93.
I’ll wait for your apology.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmTrolls are fictional; they don’t really exist. You can’t convince them; they are designed to be unconvincable and thus dissuade us from engaging with the Republican base.
Talk about trolls if you must. Point out how their authors are trying to sow doubt, deflect blame, or distract. Point out that they never provide a relevent link.
If you engage with them, they get to make public discussion increasing nasty and unlikely to take place in the real world.
No one is as close-minded and immune to reason as “Exleyâ€, “CaptainMantasticâ€, or “DreamCrusher†in real life; it is just not possible.
Comment by Peter C — December 3, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
###
Honestly, I have wondered about this myself. I am on TP off and on for a somewhat regular basis. I guess you could call me a regular here. But most of my time on the net is spent on vetvoice. It is a site made up of primarily veterans, and commenters who are still in Iraq. I never see trolls there. I never see guys like “Age of Rifles” or Exley. It just makes me wonder sometimes.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmI suspect that Sean is a concern troll as his continued softball approach to what definitely stacks up to treason by Bush and Cheney – yet he persists in attempting to paint this as an accomplishment.
Prove accomplishment, Exley and Sean using intelligence and data, please or STFU here. Just because something occurs coincidental to something else, there can be no legitimate or logical association imputed. GOP talking point today?? Is that where you got your disinformation?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pmVeritas – indeed. :-)
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pmBut credit should be given where credit is due. If true, it is a victory for Bush’s diplomatic and military strategy to halt the proliferation of WMDs.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Heckuva job they’ve done with Pakistan and Korea. You know, the ones who actually possess WMDs?
All Bush has succeeded in doing is convincing potential belligerents that his administration is so batshit that they need to seriously consider arming up in case he decides to invade.
And your claim about Libya is just more of your koolaid drinking, Exley.
Start reading with this.
More dishonesty, and naturally you’re right on board.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pmExley – STFU and GFY while you do it. You’re one sad, twisted morass of eels and excrement of humanity.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmBut credit should be given where credit is due. If true, it is a victory for Bush’s diplomatic and military strategy to halt the proliferation of WMDs.
Comment by Exley
Good news for sure, however putting this at the feet of Bush is wrong. The international community is a large bunch of countries, some of which are doing business with Iran. They applied most of the pressure. The report does not mention bush at all, so to direct this at his *cough, cough* diplomacy is misguided. Suggesting that bush had anything to do with it is also belied by the fact that they have known for a long time that iran wasn’t pursueing these, but the administration was talking about WWIII all the while.
The WH is filed with keystone cops. I am reminded of a parable: even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. That is the case here.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmI’m a “concern troll” now? I’ve been posting on this site quite a while, and have a long history of hating BushCo.
I just wanted to point out that it is GOOD that Iran isn’t developing nukes. Put credit wherever you want – I don’t care. I’m serving in the military, and I really didn’t want to get deployed to Iran. This is just great news for me. So… whatever. Normally I do care about the political side of things, but in this case… I just feel relieved that Iran isn’t developing nukes. It’s just that simple.
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmVeritas, I agree.
However, the truth is not important for US admin and its 24% ers. The thing they care about is SAFETY. And they will go miles and miles trying to justify the million or so death civilians, the destruction of two countries, the terrible damage to US credibility and the forcing of money towards the superior part of economic ladder.
Iran has to be bombed. Period.
First they were smuggling weapons into Iraq (source: a PPT presentation) and then they were building a nuke with no proof at all, just the opinions of the same people who told that Iraq had WMDs…
So, intelligence, reason and truth is not important. A democracy full of ignorant people is worthless.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pmI’m serving in the military, and I really didn’t want to get deployed to Iran. This is just great news for me.
Comment by SeanC
And if Bush deployed you to Iran, he would be impeached and you would be brought up on potential war crimes for invading a country without Congressional authorization. Soldiers must not follow illegal orders.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmBush and Vice President Dick Cheney were briefed on the NIE last Wednesday, senior intelligence officials said.
Today
The White House claims it has reached an agreement with China over imposing additional UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Now
its all a lie, China looked fooled
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 pmsorry Juan C. – my comment above was directed at “Sean†instead. My bad! :)
Comment by Veritas
I just answered you thinking it was satire, which it is, but directed towards me. It perfectly fits, however to my posts.
We’re cool, Veritas. :)
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmComment by SeanC — December 3, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
###
What branch are you? Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? Have you taken a look at vetvoice.com? If not, take a look. It is primarily veterans, like myself, and active duty troops – some of which are in between tours and some of which are still in Iraq. Swing by sometime :)
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:39 pmThis also means that 2 weeks before the elections Bush cannot start another war to gain the war time Vote to keep the repulsives in because they need to finish the war
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pmStratRat – Hate to break it to you… if the President orders a strike on Iran, then the military will do it. Don’t get mad at me over it. Yes, he might be impeached and thrown out of office at a later date – but that doesn’t stop the boots from hitting the ground. And I may have been one of those boots.
Ya know… do you guys have any perspective? Or do you just sit around, waiting for things to hate Bush over? I hate Bush just as much as everyone else, but sometimes you just gotta take a step back and say: “This is good news”. Maybe that’s hard to do, because we’re used to decades of bad news…
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pmYour reading comprehension skills are as weak as ever. Please read again posting #56 and then read your mischaracterization of said posting at your posting #93.
I’ll wait for your apology.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
I’ve been attempting to be polite to you, Exley, but the truth is that you’re a lying sack of knobs. I mischaracterized nothing but rather pointed out your constant dishonesty.
You’ll get an apology from me after you apologize for the lies you spread about Zooey some weeks back. I’ll apologize at that point for this statement: you lie constantly, repeatedly and apparently without shame. Once you’ve admitted you lied about Zooey, I’ll retract the “constantly”.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:42 pmChris L – I’m part of http://appealforredress.org/ . Serving in the Air Force, state side at the moment.
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:42 pmIt seems as if very posters here have actually read the nine-page NIE summary. Here are some interesting findings:
“We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” And Iran made a “considerable effort” to acquire nuclear weapons from 1980 to 2003.
So, everybody here who said that Iran was never pursuing a nuclear weapon and never had any interest in doing so were 100% wrong, while President Bush was correct.
“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
That explains why the Bush administration has correctly continued to talk tough about the Iranians and the possibility that they might one day resume their effort to develop nuclear weapons. You don’t abandon a diplomatic strategy that has been working especially when your intelligence agencies tell you they do not know Iran’s intentions re: nuclear weapons development.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmMaybe that’s hard to do, because we’re used to decades of bad news…
~Sean
Comment by SeanC
Sean, I love the way you see life. I also understand that you are not consequent with your ideas and do nothing about you and your friends being used as pawns in a corporate war. But, hey, sit back and relax.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmIt is against the law for politicians to propagandize to the citizenry.
I expect indictments for this blatant lying.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:46 pmNice attempt to (dishonestly) change the subject, Gummitch. But don’t waste our time…Why don’t you educate yourself and go and actually read the NIE Key Judgments as I have done…That way you will be able to comment somewhat intelligently on this topic.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:47 pmChris L – I’m part of http://appealforredress.org/ . Serving in the Air Force, state side at the moment.
~Sean
Comment by SeanC — December 3, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
###
Nice. I’m quite familiar with that link ;)
Where are you based? My father retired as a COL. and still lives at Barksdale, AFB
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmBecause you know me after reading a paragraph?
Heh.
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmChris L – Ft. Meade, MD, right now.
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmGummitch, that would require courage and humility. Exley, needs to look to the face of an Iraq grieving mother to know what is the meaning of dignity.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pmCaptain Mantastic: “On the surface, it sounds like Bush and Co are making this a safer world. I’m interested in your take.”
Forget what it sounds like. Do you think that Bush and Co have made this a safer world? Because if you do, you’re at odds with our State Dept., the CIA and the Pentagon, all of which have published reports which state that there are more terrorists and terrorist threats in the world today than there were on Sept. 12, 2001.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm…just a fuzzy, linty mess of split hairs in here….
wow
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pmBecause you know me after reading a paragraph?
~Sean
Comment by SeanC
Just what is needed to know.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:51 pmif the President orders a strike on Iran, then the military will do it. Don’t get mad at me over it.
Comment by SeanC
I am proud of you for watching our backs. I am proud of you for serving this country. However if bush orders you to invade Iran (without Congressional authorization), you will need to decide if you support the Constitution or Bush. It is that simple. I support the troops, I don’t support bush’s dictatorship.
Illegal orders are still just that – illegal. No amount of loyalty to the CIC will undo the illegality of a soldiers actions.
I think the news today is great. Very good news. I simply don’t trust the WH to do the right thing in any instance.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:52 pmThe feeling is mutual :-).
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pmNice attempt to (dishonestly) change the subject, Gummitch. But don’t waste our time…Why don’t you educate yourself and go and actually read the NIE Key Judgments as I have done…That way you will be able to comment somewhat intelligently on this topic.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Nice try, Exley, but you’ll note that I already did so and quoted them in order to refute your dishonesty.
I have to say, I doubt too many people here thinking I am wasting “our” time, your childish condescension aside.
I guess I can assume that you’re passing up the opportunity to apologize for your lies about Zooey, but I can’t say I’m surprised.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:56 pmMore from the NIE:
“We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons 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.”
So, again, we see clearly why the tough talk of the administration (and the international community) has not let up despite evidence Iran has at least temporarily halted its nuclear weapons program….The fact is that as good as the news that Iran looks to have halted its program, the NIE shows Iram was pursuing nucler weapons up untill 2003 and that we have no idea what their intentions are in this area in the future.
Thus, it clear that continued pressure (whether it be diplomatic or economic or both) is necessary to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligation under the NNP Treaty and does not develop nuclear weapons.
I would encourage everyone to follow my example and read the actual NIE Key Judgments.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm118 :Exley – who is supposed to care about your pedantic hairsplitting? What is to be gained by it? (and I know already what your stock replies are, so spare me)
Pakistan will be responsible for a nuclear event (using weapons they actually already have) long before Iran will or would or could, and then what will you recommend we do???????
That old Cold War mentality is as droll and empty, and counterproductive as it ever was.
Evolve.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:57 pmStratRat – And the Iraq war is also illegal… so… again – if Bush orders a strike, the military will strike. If I personally decide not to participate, then I will be court martialed. Is that fair? Is that right? No, not really. But that’s how it works. There were people who didn’t participate in the Iraq war because they said it was an illegal order. And those people are in jail or dishonorably discharged (unless you know of a case where this didn’t happen?).
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pmGummitch, This sad attempt on your part to ingratiate yourself with another poster is most unseemly and more than a little embarrassing. Why don’t you stick with the subject matter at hand, which is the NIE? Run along and read it and then get back to us…Okay? Run along now. Scoot!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pmI never see trolls there. I never see guys like “Age of Rifles†or Exley. It just makes me wonder sometimes.
Comment by Chris L — December 3, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
I will have to check out vetvoice, thanks for the info =)
Yeah, I never see these trolls on veteran sites, as they tend to try to misdirect and disrupt “liberal” blogs with their tripe.
Try asking Exley why he supports Bushco, even though veterans, war wounded and soldiers in general are getting screwed over by this administration, deliberately.
Just look at the case of the National Guard troops that served 729 days deployed in Iraq, sent home 1 fcking day before they would qualify for benefits. Tell me that wasn’t deliberate.
Ask Exly about it, he will disappear, only to come back later with his Bush lovefest again. Totally disgusting.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pmNahhh, I want Iran to have nukes just as Israel has them.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pmTomBaker,
I find it amusing (but not altogether surprising) that you consider actually reading the NIE to be “hairsplitting.” While you may be too lazy to read (or understand) the key Judgments, there are those here who have read it and can comment on it intelligently. Stop clogging up the thread until such time as you have read the Key Judgments.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pmRun along and read it and then get back to us…Okay? Run along now. Scoot!
Comment by Exley
A friend’s advice, this is destroying any ability of discussion you had before.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pmExley, do you think that the Bush foreign policy has made the world a safer place? Are there less loose nukes in the world today? Are there fewer terrorists? Do we have more friends; more enemies? Is our position in the world more secure than it was on January 20, 2001?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pmIMPEACH THE BASTARDS.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pmI’m glad that Iran has apparently stopped working on a nuclear bomb. To be honest, I’m not convinced that they ever were working on a nuclear bomb although I sure wouldn’t have blamed them if they were.
I’m glad for Sean that he’s relieved that now he may not get “deployed to Iran”, although I don’t think he ever would have been as the plan seems/seemed to involve air strikes – possibly with nuclear weapons.
I am NOT glad that this information was supressed for a year (trying to keep people fearful for last year’s election?).
I am also NOT glad about the way our so-called leaders kept beating the war drums during that year…and are still beating them.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pmExley, how about our military. Do you think that Bush policies have strengthened our military? Is it in better shape now than the military Clinton left Bush?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pmOT: that NIE (like every NIE since ‘00) was written by bush-controlled Righty spooks to (take your pick) absolve/smear some other bush-controlled Righty spooks (and to create new profit centers). Therefore, to hell with NIE’s – they didn’t work before, and they won’t now, and they’re nothing but job security and c.y.a. tools for Righty spooks.
dubbie’s pissed that all the righties in D.C. didn’t agree with the righties assigned to his “team” by Poppy. Personally, I like watching all the Righty backbiting and cannibalism. Backbiting and lying are all they’ve ever had going for them. Can’t wait to see the last two of them gnawing each other’s knees in the Devil’s own political 69.
It’s all a disgusting piece of warporn. Sad proof of our primate ancestry that so many of us still get off on warporn.
No document or report generated under this Administration should be given any credence. No law it enacts should be observed and no appointee approved, until the crime-in-progress is halted.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pmGummitch, This sad attempt on your part to ingratiate yourself with another poster is most unseemly and more than a little embarrassing. Why don’t you stick with the subject matter at hand, which is the NIE? Run along and read it and then get back to us…Okay? Run along now. Scoot!
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Asked and answered, Exley. Again with the childish attempt at condescension? I don’t need to ingratiate myself with Zooey, I am simply responding to your ludicrous request for an apology from me. I don’t apologize to liars for pointing out their lies.
The subject matter is not only the NIE, but is your blatant attempts to twist the document into something that supports your hero, GWB. Therefore, by intruding yourself into the discussion you have brought your own dishonesty on to the table, like it or not.
You have revealed yourself to be nothing but an apologist for the Bushies, with all the complete lack of honesty that has come to characterize this administration.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pmMantastic, I take it by your non-answer that you’d rather not address the question of whether or not Bush foreign policy has made the world safer. But, we all have come to expect sleazy, non-answers from you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:10 pmEx – why would I take the contents of the NIE at face value??
why would anyone?
what makes it credible?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:11 pmIt’s days like this when I miss the Daily Show the most.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 pmComment by SeanC — December 3, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Thanks for your service.
I served 1982 – 1991, Army, 82nd Airborne, discharged for medical after getting wounded in Desert Storm.
My dad was Air Force, last station Scott AFB, retired last year.
My younger sister served 6 years, Army, was wounded in Iraq, medically discharged and is now fighting the review board that kicked her off medical. She lost most of her liver and pancreas from an IED and developed diabetes because of the pancreas being injured.
Needless to say, none of my family is happy with this administration right now.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pmIf this story is not above the fold on the front page of every American newspaper with a big headline, then we will know for sure the press has been bought off by the Bush Administration.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 pmCol. Jack Ripper,
“how about our military. Do you think that Bush policies have strengthened our military? Is it in better shape now than the military Clinton left Bush?”
That is not really a appropriate question. The situations are inapposite. Obviously an army that is fighting a war on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) will not be in as good a shape as a military that was not fighting any war. Clinton did not face the responsibity of responding to the 9/11 attacks. Bush did. The situations and that of the military are not comparable.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm*nod*
Thanks to you and your family.
~Sean
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm#140,
“do you think that the Bush foreign policy has made the world a safer place? Are there less loose nukes in the world today? Are there fewer terrorists? Do we have more friends; more enemies? Is our position in the world more secure than it was on January 20, 2001?”
We are getting kind of off-topic here. These are broad questions when the topic of the thread is a relatively narrow one — the NIE KJ on Iran’s nuclear weapons programs. However, I will say I do indeed believe we are safer today than in Jan. 20, 2001 — Safer, but still not safe.
As for loose nukes, I have no idea. I certainly hope there are less loose nukes but I don’t know
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:20 pmWhat happened in 2003, exactly? I don’t think it was diplomacy – Iran tried diplomacy and we told them to go shove it:
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:20 pmThat is not really a appropriate question. The situations are inapposite. Obviously an army that is fighting a war on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) will not be in as good a shape as a military that was not fighting any war. Clinton did not face the responsibity of responding to the 9/11 attacks. Bush did. The situations and that of the military are not comparable.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
What does Iraq have to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pmOK, Exley, you choose not to make comparisons between the state of our military now and when Bush took over. You choose to ignore the larger question about whether Bush foreign policy has resulted in a safer world. You chide people for not reading the NIE. OK, how about this little part of the NIE: “We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.â€
Doesn’t that pretty much confirm that Cheney has been lying or at the very least distorting when he has said recently that Iran has a “robust nuclear weapons program?”
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:23 pmThere were people who didn’t participate in the Iraq war because they said it was an illegal order. And those people are in jail or dishonorably discharged (unless you know of a case where this didn’t happen?).
~Sean
Comment by SeanC
Again, let me thank you for taking good care of us. I am here spouting my drivel only because folks like you are on the front lines. You are a bigger man than I am for serving this country.
I was not suggesting that going against orders would be easy – I am certain it is not. I am suggesting that each and every human has the power to either follow orders which they believe are wrong or illegal, or to decline to follow those orders. Marching into Iran – on only the presidents word – would be a gross mistake for all who follow those orders.
I hope it doesn’t come to that.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pmForget Exley and his diversionary comments and tactics. We have heard enough from him.
The NIE Report says that Iran has no nuclear arms program. Period. We need to find out when Bush knew about this report. When was it presented to him and to his advisers?
Did he know about this report when he made his statement on 10/17/07 about WWIII and the need to stop Iran?
Simply put, that is an impeachable offense. Ignore Exley and all Bush supporters. We need to stand up for our country.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:28 pmHey, Ex – that thread on Afghans’ dissatisfaction needs a boost – maybe you could dash over there and “prove” what a success that really is, citing some nifty report you read? Maybe invoke some subjective, arbitrarily-computed number that trumps the empirical and demonstrates the inviolability of Milton Friedman’s economic commandments? Those are always good.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:28 pm“The NIE Report says that Iran has no nuclear arms program. Period.”
Actually, it says no such thing. Read it again (if you have read it at all)
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm#159,
Ret. Col.,
You are incorrect. I responded to your questions:
See postings 154 and 156.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmOK, Exley, it is your opinion that the Bush foreign policy has made the world safer. Everyone should take that into account when judging the quality of your perceptions.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm“The NIE Report says that Iran has no nuclear arms program. Period.â€
Actually, it says no such thing. Read it again (if you have read it at all)
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Yes it does. Maybe not in those exact words. But the report DOES say:
And:
Therefore, Iran has no currently active nuclear weapons program, and have not had one since 2003. You can split hairs all you want, but that’s the inconvenient truth.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pmAgain, Exley, and taking into account your strange perception that the world is safer now as a result of Bush’s foreign policy (the State Dept, the Pentagon and the CIA don’t agree with you, by the way), the NIE report says this:
“We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.â€
But Cheney has said lately that Iran possesses a “robust nuclear weapons program.” In light of the NIE report, doesn’t that sound like a lie to you?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm“Exley, it is your opinion that the Bush foreign policy has made the world safer.”
While I realize that opinion is in the minority around here, I have never made secret of it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pmWhat does Iraq have to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks?
Comment by toasterhead
He stumbles over and over in his own lies.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm“Exley, it is your opinion that the Bush foreign policy has made the world safer.â€
While I realize that opinion is in the minority around here, I have never made secret of it.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Nor have you provided any evidence in support of your opinion.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 pmAnd given today’s NIE, Ret. Col., I don’t see how you can dispute it — certainly when it comes to Iran. Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons until autumn, 2003, when in response to international pressure led by the United States, it halted (at least for now) its program. That has made the world safer.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 pmI happened to see Hadley’s briefing to the press on this matter -
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pmdouble-speak and more double-speak. He couldn’t even keep track of his lies as he spoke. Bush was told to “stand down” on his rhetoric, “no”, he didn’t just say that.
Was the administration wrong? Of course not, he said. They were right all along. It was one twist of the facts after another – some reporters actually asked pointed questions, but Hadley, having graduated from the Cheney school of Tap Dancing, did his best. When he left the podium, the reporters began laughing; I am not sure, but perhaps they were laughing at Hadley.
Exley, the NIE also states this:
“This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.â€
Exley, why would Dick Cheney be telling the public that Iran has a robust nuclear weapons program?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pmwords on a page
nothing more
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pmWhile I realize that opinion is in the minority around here, I have never made secret of it.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Ooooo – interesting spin. So it’s not that your opinion is misguided, moronic, or completely irrelevant to reality. It’s merely eccentric and nonconformist.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:43 pmOkay, well how do you explain that the democratic front runner (of the presummed enlightened people) has a stance on Iran that is remarkably similar to Bush’s. I was only asking those here to explain the lack of supporting evidence for the dichotomy they wish to promote.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Take this one to a blog that supports the “democratic front runner” and ask the question there. Few people here think of her as “progressive” or offer support for her.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmComment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
How can the world be safer when Pakistan is on the verge of collapse? They have nukes. This NIE was delayed for a year. Was the Bush administration hoping to make something out of nothing? If it was known in 2003 that Iran stopped persuing a nuke then why did it take the Bush administration this long to admit it? The world was “safer” 4 years ago but that hadn’t stopped Bush from banging the war drums.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmThat has made the world safer.
Comment by Exley
Why is the word “world” is used? The world is better without Saddam? I still have the same old enchiladas verdes and people are still struggling to get a decent meal here in Mexico, the same is applied to people in Guatemala and Uruguay. I think nobody was really worried in Bangladesh, let alone, Australia or China or Canada. Nonesense.
Now, Iran is threat to the world? Well, there is some European pressure on Iran, but they really don’t care about supposedly, non-proven Iran’s enrichment, unless US puts some pressure on Europe (meaning some trade conflict).
Please, the world is far bigger than Manhattan.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:47 pmAnd given today’s NIE, Ret. Col., I don’t see how you can dispute it — certainly when it comes to Iran. Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons until autumn, 2003, when in response to international pressure led by the United States, it halted (at least for now) its program. That has made the world safer.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
More dishonesty. Where does the NIE (which you read and no one else did, ha!) support this? Please keep in mind that in 2003 the Bush Administration had virtually nothing to say about Iran and were entirely focused on Iraq. But feel free to quote from the NIE in support of your contention.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:48 pmRet. Col.
“This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.â€
When the report says this, it is not a conclusion. This is written in the beginning of the report to explain the methodology of the anaylsis — “The Scope Note” on page 3; that is, it is statement that the analysts did not come into the report with an assumption but rather was an objective look at the intelligence “from the ground up,” as it were. Like I said, it is a statement about the methodology of the report, not a conclusion about Iran’s intent.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:49 pmComment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
The world was also supposedly safer decades ago when nuclear weapons were seen as a deterrent to war. Now its become a reason for it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmPlease, the world is far bigger than Manhattan.
Comment by Juan C. — December 3, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
It can’t be repeated often enough, Juan.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmI bet people in Luxemburgo is saying: Gee, that Ahmadinejad gives me the creeps. Let’s invade Iran.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pmGummitch, Bush had been talking about Iran since at least the State of the Union in 2002. This bizarre claim of your that the United States has not been engaged withthe international community regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons issue is simply not supported by the facts:
For example:
June, 2003:
Q Are you hoping the protesters in Iran will topple the Iranian government? And now that the IAEA report is out, how are you going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon. Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon. I brought this subject up in the G8; we had a good discussion on the subject, with near universal agreement that we all must work together to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
And secondly, I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran. They need to know America stands squarely by their side. And I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 pmJuan, I have no idea what your peculiar Manhattan comment means, but as to your larger point, you have repeatedly said here that you do not think more and more states acquiring nuclear weapons poses some type of threat to the world.
I will remind you that the world community disagrees with you. That is why we have the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has been signed by over 180 nations.
You are in a distinct minority when you argue that nuclear proliferation does not make the world less safe.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
So you & your fellow Republicans do support gun control?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 pmgummitch. Let’s see. Republicans (51% of the U.S. population) and Democrats that support Hillary (another 25% of the U.S. population). That’s 76%. Does that make you one of the 24%ers?
It must be wonderful to belong to such an exclusive and enlightened minority.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
WTF are you on about? First of all, Republicans do not make up 51% of the population, ya lunatic. And where do you get this 25% of the population for HRC? And then you stick those two numbers together as if they meant anything at all in reference to Iran?
You can’t just throw random numbers at the wall and hope they stick like cooked pasta. They have to make some sense. Yours don’t. Not even close.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:06 pmFor those of you who have never left your country, this is what the world is thinking:
Over two-thirds (68%) believe the US military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents and only 17 percent believes US troops there are a stabilizing force.
The poll shows that world citizens disapprove of the way the US government has handled all six of the foreign policy areas explored. After the Iraq war (73% disapproval), majorities across the 25 countries also disapprove of US handling of Guantanamo detainees (67%), the Israeli-Hezbollah war (65%), Iran’s nuclear program (60%), global warming (56%), and North Korea’s nuclear program (54%).
BTW, this is a great site.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmI dont think widening a war with Iran will make us safer. We were attacked with our own civilian jet aircraft, not WMD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon. -Posted by Exley
I recall he said the same about Kim Jong Il…
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pmEx, the only way to not being attacked by the US is getting some nukes. Ask Kim-Il Jong.
I don’t care about “stopping” proliferation. I want ALL NUKES GONE.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:10 pmCorporal GirlieTastic
Right Track/Wrong Track
Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Nov. 5-7, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
“Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?”
Right Direction 25
Wrong Track 70
Unsure 5
Where are the 51% Republicans here?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 pmgummitch
If 72% of the trolls here added up their collective IQs, it would still be single digits.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:12 pmJuan wrote: “I don’t care about “stopping†proliferation. I want ALL NUKES GONE.”
I think that is the hope of everybody. Maybe someday it will happen. But the best way to to work toward that hoped-for goal is to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those which already exist.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 pmJuan C. If you don’t think that more nations with nuclear weapons makes the world more dangerous, I guess you probably don’t support gun control. Same logic, right?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
###
Personally, I would agree with that statement. I don’t support gun control. So, would you say the flip side is also true? If you support gun control, then you believe that more nations should have nuclear weapons?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 pmI think that is the hope of everybody. Maybe someday it will happen. But the best way to to work toward that hoped-for goal is to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those which already exist.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
####
And yet there are only 4 countries who refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and 3 of them are our allies.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pmAnother point about what the NIE has shown us today….A lot of posters here over the past few months have tried to argue that Iran began working on nuclear weapons only after President Bush labelled Iran as part of the axis of evil in the 2002 State of the Union.
These posters tried to argue that it was Bush’s fault that Iran started developing nukes and that Iran was justified in doing so due to Bush’s remarks…
We know see that silly view was 100% wrong. As the NIE states, Iran was working hard on building nuclear weapons in 1980, some 22 years before the 2002 State of the Union speech.
To those who erroneusly claimed that Bush’s speech was responsible for Iran working to develop nuclear weapons, on behalf of President Bush, I accept your retraction.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:18 pmGummitch, Bush had been talking about Iran since at least the State of the Union in 2002. This bizarre claim of your that the United States has not been engaged withthe international community regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons issue is simply not supported by the facts:
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Nor is it the claim I made. Once again, you’ve distorted what someone else has actually written in order to twist it into something you can argue with.
You are the one claiming that the leadership, diplomacy and military strategy of the Bush Administration is responsible for Iran dropping its nuclear weapons program, and you continue to do this while ignoring the fact that the Bush Administration has been claiming for the last year that Iran is actively invested in a nuclear weapons program. You don’t seem to care even a tiny bit that they’ve been lying through their teeth.
I wonder why that is.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 pmMaybe someday it will happen. But the best way to to work toward that hoped-for goal is to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those which already exist.
Comment by Exley
The NPT is designed by the superpowers in order to remain superpowers. If you are in a state of permanent war-like atmosphere people will support NUKES, just like Iranians are doing now, because they feel threatened. There are hundreds of hostile ships right at their door.
When you were in the Cold War, there was a huge, huge increase in military budget in Russia and in the US, because people were scared. That’s how it goes. As long as people lose that fear, a non-nuke world would be possible, however, govts are really clever when it comes to frighten their people.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:20 pmCaptain Mantastic: ““The world is better without Saddam?â€
Let me answer that for you. Yes.”
So you think that more influence and power for Iran and a “Shiite Arc” across the middle of the Middle east makes the world safer or a better place. Maybe you could attempt to explain that to us.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:22 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 3, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
###
The differences are huge. For one, Bush is no Truman. But aside from that, there have been huge changes in information reporting since that time (internet for instance). Realize the same logic could be applied to anyone. For instance:
President Chris L is a very controversial figure. Since he was elected president, he ordered that all of the children in Utah have their hands amputated. Since then he has ordered that all blind people be required to carry loaded guns. His approval rating is dismal. Only 24% of the population supports him. However, In March 1952, Harry Truman’s approval had been dragged to 25% by the Korean War.†USA today.
“Since leaving office, Truman has fared well in polls ranking the presidents. He has never been listed lower than ninth, and most recently was seventh in a Wall Street Journal poll in 2005.
So looking at this we are sure Pres. Chris L will be a hero in the history books.”
See how well that same logic just doesn’t hold water?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm#97 veritas says,
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:23 pm…from war monger/architect to deposed World Bank President (caught stealing) and now an expert on WMD’s…wow!..
My jaw dropped when I saw that on the web today — I didn’t see it on the network news however.
No surprise there is it?
Bush, in his fashion, is doing is bit for the unemployed – hire the criminal Wolfowitz and give him a high security job.
BTW, isn’t this the NIE report that the admin. quashed for a year while trying to persuade them to line up with his own propaganda on Iran?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:26 pmHmmm. Let’s see…
What was going on in Iran around 1980?
Hmmm… Attacked by Saddam Hussein, who was armed by the Western (US) Powers??
Why on earth would they try to develop a nuclear weaponry capability during that period?
Gosh, Hmmm..
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm#204 Gummitch, I have explained in two postings why I believe the administration (along with other nations, including France) have maintained the tough talk and strong diplomatic and economic pressure against Iran over the past year…See postings # 118 and 132.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm#210,
RUCerious, You are incorrect. Iraq’s largest arms supplier by far before and during the Iran-Iraq War was the Soviet Union:
“From 1972 to 1979, the percentage of Iraq’s military equipment supplied by the Soviet Union declined from 95 to 63 percent. Even so, in 1987 the Soviet Union, having provided more than $8 billion worth of weapons since 1980, was Iraq’s most important arms supplier. ”
Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Iraq: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm#204 Gummitch, I have explained in two postings why I believe the administration (along with other nations, including France) have maintained the tough talk and strong diplomatic and economic pressure against Iran over the past year…See postings # 118 and 132.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
And yet you ignore the central issue: the Bush administration has maintained (especially Cheney) that an active weapons program is being pursued, even a year after this report was actually written. Why do you keep avoiding that?
Why not admit that they have been lying to the American public (and the rest of the planet)?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pmRUCerious,
In fact, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the US provided absolutely no arms to Iraq from 1973 to 1983. And even after the US did begin to import conventional arms to Iraq in 1983 (Not 1980 as you incorrectly stated), the USSR still remained by far, Iraq’s largest arms supplier, followed by France and China.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pmIt’s simply wishful thinking on the part of Bush cultists to compare him to Truman. Truman is famous for saying “The Buck Stops Here.” Bush is famous for his weasily inability to accept responsiblity for anything. Truman was famous for insisting on war profiteering investigations even as his own party controlled congress. Bush is famous for war profiteering. Truman is famous for pushing the idea that we should expand medicare to all American citizens. Bush is famous for insisting on a system which DOESN’T cover almost 50 million Americans. Truman agreed with Eisenhower that those who wanted to privatize Social Security were crooks. Bush wants to privatize it. Truman came from a humble background in the midwest. Bush comes from a 150-year old aristocratic family from the Northeast. Truman was part of an administration which fought and beat two of the most powerful war machines the world had ever seen. Bush has taken much longer to beat a bunch of criminals and a third-rate power which posed no threat to our country and he’s made the world less safe in the process. The rest of the world appreciated and liked Truman. The rest of the world hates Bush….
Dream on, Bush cultists.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:38 pmExley: “And even after the US did begin to import conventional arms to Iraq in 1983 (Not 1980 as you incorrectly stated), the USSR still remained by far, Iraq’s largest arms supplier, followed by France and China.”
Who sold him the poison gas he used on the Kurds and the Iranians, Exley? I can’t believe you would even get close to opening this can of worms.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm#213 Gummitch, Looking at the Bush and Cheney quotes provided by TP above, if you look carefully at their statements, I think they can be reconciled with what the NIE report said.
I will acknowledge that Dana Perino’s statement is more problematic (although from the transcript it appears she may be trying to correct her initial misstatement) “The problem is Iran, and Iran has not stepped back from trying to pursue a nuclear weapon, and — or reprocessing and enriching uranium, which would lead to a nuclear weapon.†[White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, 10/26/07]
Secretary of Energy Bodman’s statement appears to be falt-out wrong:
“We are convinced that they are developing nuclear weapons.†[Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, 11/13/07]
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:41 pmRet. Col.,
With the sheer numbers of arms supplied to Iraq by the USSR and China, most likely one of them.
I know what you are trying to imply and that canard has been repeatedly discredited.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:43 pmTo those who erroneusly claimed that Bush’s speech was responsible for Iran working to develop nuclear weapons, on behalf of President Bush, I accept your retraction. Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
I dont think you speak for Bush, Exley.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pmHow the heck are we gonna destroy the world without nuclear devices?
Man, are the armageddonists, eschatonians, the end-timers, gonna be dissapointed.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm“I dont think you speak for Bush, Exley.”
Mr. Rove told me I did.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 pmNow, the US chemical weapons didn´t kill thousands of Kurds and Iranians?
*yawn*
Must be revisionist history happy hour. I remember that Iraq was taken out of the terrorist list by Reagan, when Saddam was commiting all his crimes with US weaponry.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pm#213 Gummitch, Looking at the Bush and Cheney quotes provided by TP above, if you look carefully at their statements, I think they can be reconciled with what the NIE report said.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
I’m sure you can “look carefully” and reconcile just about anything you want.
Spin this.
The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.
art.cheney.jpg
That’s from October 21, 2007, and there is more of the same in that link.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 pmOops. sorry about the formating above. That loose line was a photo caption.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:54 pmMr. Rove told me I did.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Mr. Rove is no longer employed in the White House. Even if he did tell you that he was likely fibbing.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:57 pmGummitch,
If you look at what the NIE says, it is not incompatible with the Cheney quote your provide:
Cheney: ‘He said Iran’s efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious’
NIE: “Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of tecnhical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if the decision is made to do so,”
NIE: “We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, tecnhical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.”
Perfectly compatible.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pmMust be revisionist history happy hour. I remember that Iraq was taken out of the terrorist list by Reagan, when Saddam was commiting all his crimes with US weaponry.
Comment by Juan C. — December 3, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Well, that was different. That was when he was a GoodGuy because he was fighting the BadGuys and before he became a BadGuy. Doesn’t count, Juan.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pm“Mr. Rove is no longer employed in the White House. Even if he did tell you that he was likely fibbing.”
Comment by Xisithrus — December 3, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
That BASTARD!
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pmGummitch, I remembered good ol’ Exley called that movement: the lesser of two evils.
Such a sweet guy…
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 pmPerfectly compatible.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
You really are pathetic. This administration, and particularly Cheney, have been engaged in a propaganda exercise over the last year, attempting to demonize Iran as a country actively involved in developing nuclear weapons. The NIE, which they’ve had for that year, clearly states just the opposite. It appears that it is perfectly OK with you that the administration is actively lying to the American public and you’ll do pretty much anything to the English language in order to pretend they aren’t lying.
Why anyone would be proud of this dishonesty, as you seem to be, is a complete mystery to me.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm“Well, that was different. That was when he was a GoodGuy because he was fighting the BadGuys and before he became a BadGuy.”
*sigh* This old distraction:
1) You mean like the U.S., U.K., France allying with Stalin in World War II against Germany. Yeah, there is no historical precedent for allying oneself with an unsavory leader to defeat the more immediate threat.
2) As I have repeatedly and unassailably demonstrated in past discussions, Saddam unconventional weapons most likely came from French and Soviet sources during the Iran-Iraq War. That is not really in dispute.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 pmExley: “I know what you are trying to imply and that canard has been repeatedly discredited.”
From the Washington Post, 2002: “The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.”
I’m not sure how you think this has been discredited, but we sold Saddam Hussein the poison gasses he used on the Kurds and Iranians. The famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam was after he gassed the Kurds.
Here’s a link to the original WaPo article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
The article is titled, “U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pmTrade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds”
#230
Read Cheney’s quote and the findings of the NIE again, Gummitch. You may not like it but there is nothing inconsistent there. I hate to burst your bubble.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pmLOL Exley.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:08 pmTell me what happened in Iraq during the 1900’s, by Churchill, Exley.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/iaea0207.pdf
Related reading.
1) You mean like the U.S., U.K., France allying with Stalin in World War II against Germany.
Comment by Exley
Yeah, the Britains and French were so worried about Germany invading Russia and defeating the Red menace over the continent.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pmYou see?
It is ok for Exley to kill thousands of people in Kurdistan and Iran, because those kurds and Iranians were a menace to the US just like Nazi were…errr…something like that.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pmRet. Col.
Note that the article which you cite has a correction right on top. Not very convincing as to the article’s credibility or accuracy.
Rather than reading flawed reporting, I would direct you to read the primary documents on the matter that can be found at the George Washington Univeristy’s on-line National Securitu Archive. There you will see that Iraq was using unconventional weapons (i.e. posionous gas) longe before the U.S. began supplying anything to the Iraqis. Moreoverm you will see in those documents numerous examples of the U.S. condemning such attacks and the stopping of shipments of products to Iraq because it was determined they could be used in the production of unconventional weapons.
I realize this a favorite myth of the left (and undoubtedly we did seel things to Iraq in the 1980s that in retrospect we should not have), but the idea that it was US supplied weaponry or materials that created the poisonous gas used against the Iranians and Kurds is simply not true.
Again, go to GWU’s online National Security Archive and see for yourself.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pmJuan,
You are being silly. I think you yourself know this. That is like arguing that because FDR or Churchill were allies with the USSR in WWII, they had condoned Stalin’s Marxist government’s genocide of tens of millions of people….Come on, Juan. You are better than that.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:19 pmI realize this a favorite myth of the left (and undoubtedly we did seel things to Iraq in the 1980s that in retrospect we should not have) -Exley
Huh? Its a myth but it isn’t?
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 pmFor example, Ret. Col:
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Interests Section in Iraq. “U.S. Chemical Shipment to Iraq,” March 4, 1984.
Indicates that a shipment of 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride to Iraq was held back at JFK airport because of “concern over Iraq’s possible intention to use the chemical in the manufacture of chemical weapons.” Washington asks the U.S. interests section in Baghdad to remind Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.’s grave concern about chemical weapons, and to inform it that the U.S. will publicly condemn their use in the near future. The interests section is to reiterate the request that Iraq not use chemical warfare, and to say that the U.S. opposes Iraq’s attempts to acquire chemical weapons related material from the U.S.: “When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq.”
GWU National Security Archive
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:24 pmI realize this a favorite myth of the left (and undoubtedly we did seel things to Iraq in the 1980s that in retrospect we should not have) -Exley
And that stuff was destroyed in Gulf I. Yet was used, wrongly, as a reason to invade Iraq costing billions in US dollars and thousands of lives. Cheney said it would become unmanageable, as Iraq has, and was not worth it. And now you expect the people to trust the current admin again?
I think not.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:24 pmHere is another document from the GWU National Security Archive. As you see, rather than encouraging or looking the way when Iraq deployed poison gas, the US condemned it (which infuriated th Iraqis):
Document 45: United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State. “Iraq Reacts Angrily to U.S. Condemnation of CW [Chemical Weapons] Use,” March 7, 1984.
Reports that Iraq’s defense minister denounced the State Department’s condemnation of Iraq’s chemical weapons use. The U.S. interests section comments that “The Iraqis apparently have been stunned by our public condemnation.”
Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act
Document 48: Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Embassy in Sudan. “Briefing Notes for Rumsfeld Visit to Baghdad [Page Missing],” March 24, 1984.
A State Department background cable for Donald Rumsfeld’s March 1984 visit to Baghdad notes the distress caused to Iraqi officials by the U.S.’s public condemnation of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons “despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later.”
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 pmFrom what I gather, Exley, the [Iran] environmental sample results thus far indicate a maximum enrichment of 4.2% U-235 in the first 164-machine cascade
Are they enriching uranium, yes, but 5% is no where near weapons grade. I am not pro-Iranian, but by God we cannot be the worlds lone policemen and we shoudl take the next decade stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan before undertaking another military operation that would exacerbate the terrorist problem. Even Rumsfeld has come to grips that the war on terror will have to be won much like the cold-war was. The ’cause celebre’ in Iraq is creating more extremists.
Putting fire out with fire isnt a plan. Its like putting more wasps into the nest your trying to knock off the eve.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm#241 Xisithrus,
Yes, we allowed some US firms to sell some stuff to Iraq in the 1980s that in retropsect we should not permitted to be sold, especially the materials that could be used in the research and production of biological weapons.
What is a myth (as I have shown above by reference to primary documents) is the canard that the US supplied weaponized poisonous gas to Saddam and sanctioned its use against the Kurds and the Iranians. It is also a myth that the Iraqis did not have the capapbility to produce poisonous gas until we allowed some US firms to sell certain insecticides to Iraq.
As we see, Iraq was using poisonous gas against the Iranians before we did any trading or business with Iraq. In short, there is zero evidence that anything the US provided Saddam was used in poison gas attacks against the Iranians or the Kurds.
Quite the opposite, there is much exculpatory evidence showing just the opposite.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmMr. Rove told me I did.
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
And you believed him which is the start of your problems, and the reason that your lies have been so easily exposed tonight. too bad you don’t care about your country more than your party.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:38 pmA State Department background cable for Donald Rumsfeld’s March 1984 visit to Baghdad notes the distress caused to Iraqi officials by the U.S.’s public condemnation of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons “despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later.â€
Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
and why were they stunned? Because they had bought them from the USA, that’s why. You’re a stupid one, Exley, really gullible. Party of personal responsibility, my ass. You lie and expect anybody here to give you credence? Fool.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pmWhat is a myth (as I have shown above by reference to primary documents) is the canard that the US supplied weaponized poisonous gas to Saddam and sanctioned its use against the Kurds and the Iranians.
What else would the purpose be of selling it? So they could put in in jars and remark on how purty it looked? Cmon Exley, thats illogical.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm#248, Xisithrus,
Oh, I have long said here that I do not believe that military action against Iran is either justified or feasible at this point. And I don’t think I have said anything here to indicate that I support military action to address the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions (whatever they may be).
I think continued economic and diplomatic pressure may be enough. What I have argued here is that today’s NIE seems to indicate that that type of pressure, which the Bush administration has employed, has been successful.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pmExley, come on. The “correction” you site which you think discredits the article says this: “A Dec. 30 article incorrectly reported the number and date of the National Security Decision Directive that outlined measures to be taken to prevent an Iraqi collapse in the Iran-Iraq war. The document was NSDD 139 of April 5, 1984, parts of which remain classified.”
How does an incorrect number and date discredit the basic message of the article. I’m sorry, but you are so damn intent on protecting republicans that it’s pathetic. And, worse, you resort to this tired old tactic so popular among conservatives these days – obfuscate by citing arcane documents. I’m more interested in how or why you would continue to deny something like this when it’s almost common knowledge now that we did this. This wasn’t the only article. Former members of the intelligence community are on record on this – we sold Iraq poisonous gas and other “non-conventional weapons” as you call them to help them beat the Iranians. Yes, we were concerned that Hussein would also use them on his own people, but that didn’t stop the sale. What is it about someone who refuses to admit what most of us already know? Why do you insist on obfuscating and denying this? It almost seems like you’re crazy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm#253
Xisithrus,
That’s my point…We did NOT sell weaponized poisonous gas to Iraq. There is zero evidence of that. We did sell them some insecticides that could be converted, but as I showed they already had and used poisonous gas long before we sold them anything…
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pmI think continued economic and diplomatic pressure may be enough. What I have argued here is that today’s NIE seems to indicate that that type of pressure, which the Bush administration has employed, has been successful. Comment by Exley — December 3, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
They have been under pressure for some time before Bush’s saber rattling but I am glad that at least you disagree with the Bomb Bomb Bomb crowd.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:47 pmRet. Col.,
I simply pointed out the correction to point out that the reporter made at least one mistake, so it does sort of taint the entire article….It is like a judge’s instruction to a jury ” “If you find that a witness has lied about one thing in his or her testimony, you are free to disregard the entire testimony as false.”
Plus, when you write this: “we sold Iraq poisonous gas and other “non-conventional weapons†as you call them to help them beat the Iranians,” it just ain’t so….We did not. Please see my above responses to Xisithrus…I address this. It is just not the case.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm#253 Xisithrus -Exley
Thats wasn’t me at 253.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 pmRet. Col Jack, Xisithrus…
A pleasure discussing these issues with you. We don’t agree, but the discussion is civil and mature and respectful. Gotta run now. Have a pleasant evening…I am sure our paths will cross again…
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:52 pmExley, on one side, there are numerous articles, lots of testimony from former members of the intelligence community and even some members of the Reagan administration who have repeatedly said that we sold poison gas and other WMD’s to Iraq to help them in their war against Iran. We’ve even got documents on the matter which the government refuses to declassify. On the other hand, we’ve got you saying “it is just not the case,” and citing an obfuscatory memo by a Reagan administration diplomat.
You’re obviously a “true believer,” very similar to a cultist who refuses to recognize any failings in your leaders. John Dean has written a book about people like you called “Conservatives Without a Conscience.” But I can see that it’s about as useless arguing with you about it as it would be arguing with a Bishop about glaring discrepencies in scripture. So, you just go on believing that your task-masters are good men and men of good faith who can do no wrong and good luck with that.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:57 pmthey had condoned Stalin’s Marxist government’s genocide of tens of millions of people….Come on, Juan. You are better than that.
Comment by Exley
Oh, I have to laugh at this one:
Stalin, a Marxist??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pmSo the chemicals necessary to MAKE WMDs, isn’t the same thing as a finished WMD to a Republican? -RHF
It is rather illogical. Yellowcake would fall into that category but was used as part of the reason to go into Iraq.
Exley, lets face it, this is all about empire building and I think its high time the world stops pursuing such ideologies. The world is discovered and empires and empire building are a thing of the past. Roman history is just that and our leaders need to stop thinking in those type terms. I love my country, even moreso the world as a whole. It seems to me the people on this planet are for the most part insane. We exist on a small planet circling a small star alone in a great, mayhaps infinite sea, trying to own and control things we never can or ever will.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pmOK, Exley, I posted that last thing before reading your last post and I regret the dig about you being an “authoritarian personality.” Some of my oldest friends are stuck in that mode so, again, good luck with that and no offense.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:01 pmDoncha just love that Rummy, I say bring him back, no wait, he still has a desk at the Pentagon with some staffers, right?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:01 pmToo bad Exley left. I wanted to bash him with some truth.
From the Washington Post:
“The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.”
Now, are there dual uses for anthrax and bubonic plague I’ve never heard of? Or is Exley talking out his well-worn butt again?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 pmwhew – now i can’t even see, for all the fog of Nietschze-ian Uber honking from Ex and Glanstastic…
Horn-rimmed cold-warrior Narcissists, desperately seeking relevancy…
…sad.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 pmThis is hardly surprising and the neocons certainly knew about this.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 pmThey’re simply trying to sell another war. I wonder though, why on earth are the Europeans playing along with this?
Is the thinking that an occupation of Iran would suit western needs over countries like China (who has billions of investments in the oil business) and to a lesser degree Russia.
Mystery solved — “Exley” is really Karl Rove. I smelled a rat on the many incoherent diatribes written by “Exley Rove” in defense of Bush and his corrupt administration.
“Exley” outed himself. Now what will he do?
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 pm“Obviously an army that is fighting a war on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) will not be in as good a shape as a military that was not fighting any war.” -Exley
So, the 1945 version of the US Army was no where near in as good a shape as was the 1941 version?
You only get a depleted military when you have incompetent leadership in the White House.
Also, why are we to give credit to the Bush administration for ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program in 2003, when that very same administration is recently claiming that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?
Wouldn’t the White House look at this NIE last year, determine that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, and not try to make everyone believe that the Iranians do have a program?
Isn’t trying to pass off information that you know isn’t true either a case of being a liar, or just being dumber than a bag of hammers?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:23 amThe mere fact that the NIE says that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon, and may still be working on it, puts the entire propaganda round at Think Progress to shame.
Comment by DreamCrusher — December 4, 2007 @ 4:19 am
and so what? since when does the US have the right or the moral authority to run the world? it doesn’t, and Bush have proven clearly that he hasn’t the skil or brains to do it, either. you are such a coward that you are still buying the fear and smear techniques of someone who clearly is unfit for the job, as proven on 9/11. The Bush family’s longtime friendship and support of anti-democratic heroes of yours like Hitler and the Bin ladens shows them for the traitors they are; your support of the Bush’s shows you for the amoral idiot you are. For Bush, the warmonger-in-chief, to claim that Iran will spark WW3 is nothing but a cruel joke, since he is doing everything in his power to do exactly that. Iran has seen what the world has seen: with their own nuclear weapon, crazed lunatic s like Bush will leave them alone, like he did North Korea, even after they took one of our aircraft! Talk about a wussy coward, Bush is the biggest pantywaist to ever occupy the White House.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:20 amComment by DreamCrusher — December 4, 2007 @ 4:19 am
If Iran, or any other nation, used a nuke in a “first strike”, or supplied nukes to terrorists; said nation would cease to exist. The fact that nukes have not been used, by the nations which have them, strongly supports the notion that no one, in their right mind, would use one for offensive purposes.
The real fear is that a nuclear Iran could not be intimidated into supplying oil to “The West”.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:59 amWhen is Cheney going to have his “last heart attack?”
Waiting….
December 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amOh! Teenfluffer – you are SO butch.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:44 pmAnd to add the cherry on top of all this: that Israeli have a few hundreds nuke, that they did not sign the NPT, and that they stole the technology and classified materials from the US in the 1960s and you can see that its a never ending mess.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:23 am