ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Despite Knowledge That Iran Halted Nuke Program, White House Continued To Warn Of False Threat

By Amanda Terkel on Dec 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm

chenn.jpg 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.”

Digg It!

Yglesias

2003

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 2:53 pm

I think it’s important to put the revelations that Iran halted its nuclear “program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure” in the context of the broader trends in US-Iranian relations that Gareth Porter (among others) have reported on. Specifically, in 2003 we know that the Iranians attempted a diplomatic opening to the United States. Porter reported that in exchange for actually getting something, Iran was prepared to abandon its nuclear program in a hard-to-reverse way:

To meet the U.S. concern about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the document offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for “full access to peaceful nuclear technology.” It proposed “full transparency for security [assurance] that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD” and “full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols).”

There have been some efforts to discredit what Porter, Flynt Leverret, and others have said about this attempted opening, but the NIE’s conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program seem to strongly support it. With their secret enrichment activities exposed, the Iranian regime was reconsidering the utility of continuing such efforts in the face of international awareness and disapproval of them. The Bush administration then decided to squander this opportunity and focus on saber-rattling and dreams of regime change. But the thing about pressure is that you’ve got to be willing to take yes for an answer instead of just blundering around.

Meanwhile, how outrageous is it that the best twelve months of alarmism from Bush & Cheney have come in the context of an environment where they’ve long had access to the intelligence community’s assessment? Answer: Very outrageous.

Politics

Rudy: Best Candidate to Have an Affair With

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Good ad:

I can also see the Giuliani camp making the argument that his facility with creative accounting, as demonstrated by his ability to gin up a slush fund with which to pay for his mistress’ chauffeur, makes him uniquely qualified to handle the financial shenanigans associated with the proverbial Big Shitpile.

Politics

Beck: Bush has Abraham Lincoln-like honesty.

By Faiz Shakir on Dec 3, 2007 at 2:30 pm

In an interview with the Deseret Morning News, right-wing pundit Glenn Beck described a recent meeting with President Bush which left him “stunned and awestruck by Bush’s command of the situation”:beck

“The thing is,” Beck says, “he’s not the guy you see on TV. I talked to (CNN’s) Wolf Blitzer, and he said the exact same thing. It’s amazing.”

“He is clear and focused, and there are no hems and haws. I would not want to sit across the table from him as an enemy. He said a few things that were breathtaking, and my immediate response was, ‘Why are you not saying this?’ and he explained. I can’t quote him. All I can say is that he has Abraham Lincoln-honorable reasons … he has chosen not to say certain things. But (the Iraq war) is going much better than people think.”

In contrast to Beck’s belief that Bush is in total control behind the scenes, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said that a recent meeting with the President left him “very underwhelmed.”

Digg It!

Yglesias

The Decline of the Coffeeshop

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 2:17 pm

One thing I noticed by eyeball during the trip to Amsterdam was that there seemed to be many fewer coffee shops in town than I’d remembered from ten years ago. According to Dutch political sources, this is actually the case. The change stems from two things, one being that they made it much more difficult for institutions licensed to sell marijuana to also sell beer (thus wrecking the business model, though I should note that I did see a whole bunch of people smoking weed they’d presumably bought elsewhere in one bar) and the other being a simple change toward a giving out fewer licenses.

The political reason for the change is the rise of the smallish Christian Union Party, which combines some egalitarian ideas on economics with cultural conservatism. Cultural conservatism by Dutch standards is pretty mild by American standards — they pushed for it to be the case that civil servants with objections to gay marriage can be allowed to refuse to perform them personally; actually getting rid of gay marriage is unthinkable — but apparently includes some skepticism about tolerance of soft drugs. The policy reason is that the soft drugs for sale in the Netherlands had been getting stronger-and-stronger leading to a lot of problems with “drug tourists” unaccustomed to the Dutch product finding themselves in various kinds of trouble.

This seems like a sensible enough concern to me. The legitimate concern about marijuana legalization, in my view, is that the creation of a big marijuana industry could have some real deleterious effects, which I guess is what you were seeing in embryonic form with competition leading to an increasingly intense product. The Dutch policy has been aimed at the sensible goal of preventing the emergence of such an industry — no advertising, no large scale cultivation, etc. — while still letting consumers do what they want in private, and some cutback in the number of coffee shops in central Amsterdam (it’s still no hard to find one) seems consistent with that.

Politics

Kindergarden Cops

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Um, seriously, the Clinton administration is attacking Barack Obama based on an essay he wrote in kindergarden. They follow up with an account of something he did in third grade! I suppose you have to respect the commitment to counterpunching and oppo research (Obama says he wants a new kind of politics, but wouldn’t share his toy truck with little Jimmy when they were five — how can we trust him now?) but surely someone must have said “won’t this look dumb?” when it was suggested.

I’ll be very happy when primary season is over.

UPDATE: That’d be the “Clinton campaign” — it’s not an administration yet!

Media

National Review Standards Update

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Kevin Drum catches David Freddoso blaming Democrats for something Democrats tried to prevent until they were blocked by the GOP. This kind of things goes on all the time at National Review and The Weekly Standard which is why I think Thomas Smith is getting a bad rap as a “fabulist.”

It’s true that he wrote things for National Review Online that weren’t true, but this happens all the time. It’s not a publication that cares, in general, about the accuracy of the claims its writers make so why shouldn’t Smith make up a fake Hezbollah invasion of East Beirut?

Climate Progress

Bali Flooded by UN Climate Convention

By Climate Guest Blogger on Dec 3, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Indonesia is plagued by flooding, but today marks the official start of a different sort of flood – one of politicians, non-profit reps, and activists gathering by the thousands (15,000-20,000) as part of the thirteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting.

Discussions will take place for the next two weeks, but the most important meetings tend to happen the second week. In this case, that will be day and night the week of December 10-15. And it’s not quite safe to say that negotiations will occur, as this meeting is so preliminary to negotiations that its top formal objective is merely to set a timeline.

However, the purpose of the meeting for non-governmental attendees is much more substantive. This is the first in a series to discuss the post-Kyoto arrangement, to go into force 2013. Expectations are high, although few doubt any meaningful agreements will result.

Indeed, the pressure has been growing for weeks. First, with the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Then with the fourth synthesis report from the IPCC, capping a year of IPCC releases on the science, vulnerability and solutions to global warming. And finally, with Australia’s immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by its new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

That leaves the United States as a solitary, initial obstacle. I say initial because were the U.S. to ratify Kyoto, there remains the question of India and China’s reduction commitments, which, as is, the treaty does not promise.

A few of the central concerns for participants will be: US participation in the treaty in the next stage of policy (2013/post-Kyoto), the role of China, India and other developing countries, reflection on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the global carbon market, and essentially how to address the delicacies of each situation while making the emission cuts the science demands.

In terms of the carbon market and how to form the role of developing countries in the future model, the issue of deforestation is likely to rise amidst the scant policy talks. Several countries with lots of forests – such as the host, Indonesia – intend on raising deforestation as a candidate for entry into the carbon markets, allowing developed countries to buy offsets by paying forested countries not to deforest. As a reporter on NPR this morning explained, as controversial as it is to pay for someone to not do something, there are so many other major points to debate that their deforestation proposal may meet few objections.

As for US participation, we’re certainly not getting any sign of change in Washington. The one bright spot for this round of UNFCCC meetings is that in addition to its usual representative, the U.S. is also sending James Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. He is the highest ranking official that Bush’s Administration has sent to international climate negotiations.

Additionally, Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer plan on making an appearance. And if she has things her way, Sen. Boxer will board her plane to Bali immediately after passing America’s Climate Security Act (a.k.a the Lieberman-Warner bill) through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, granting her bragging rights.

A world away, keep your eyes on who attends and what they say. Even though no conclusions are expected, the dynamic should be foretelling.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up