So Iran doesn't have a nuclear program either...

[Galahad]

Well, it is the administration that released this. Since I am not burdened with excess cynicism, I think that's a significant fact.

 

[LuvDuke]

So guess what - 2010 is only two years away. Should we stop all efforts and just let them do it and not react until after they've fired a nuke warhead on a missile into Israel?

I'm not going to buy one report as 100% fact, especially when it comes to Iran. The report itself says they are still covering up some things. Where there is smoke there is fire and Amanidja-buymeavowel spews nothing but hate from his very bigoted mouth.

You trust Iran if you want to. Forgive the rest of us if we remain alert and skeptical.

So invade Iran. You lead the pack.

 

[LuvDuke]

George I thought Bush only shared part of the information that was given him. Didnt it come out he did not share all the intelligence reports with Congress?

Doesn't matter. Planet Bush never lets truth get in the way of a good talking point.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

George I thought Bush only shared part of the information that was given him. Didnt it come out he did not share all the intelligence reports with Congress?

Most of the senators didn't read all the info available when they voted for the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html

 

[LuvDuke]

There are a lot of countries and leaders that I don't trust. It doesn't mean that we should bomb them.
And lets face it - there are many countries that don't trust us, and we don't lay all our cards on the table for them to look at either, does that mean they're justified in bombing us???

And Putin really does have nuclear weapons ........... a whole potful of them.

George Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. Putin looked into Bush's eyes and saw swiss cheese.

 

[Charade]

And Putin really does have nuclear weapons ........... a whole potful of them.

George Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. Putin looked into Bush's eyes and saw swiss cheese.

I didn't know Putin had a soul.

 

[NewJersey]

Most of the senators didn't read all the info available when they voted for the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html

I always found that as troubling as the faulty intelligence.

 

[Mkrop]

I am confused didnt the leader of Iran himself get up in front of everyone and say "hey I have nukes, and I dont care, I am not letting you in to see them, nah nah nah" I am paraphrasing of course.

So why wouldnt the world and the adminisrtation believe him?

 

[LakeAriel]

Updated: Monday, 3 December 2007, 23:44 GMT

Iran report frustrates US hawks

By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington

In an abrupt change of position, the US intelligence agencies now say they do not know if Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon.

Natanz uranium enrichment facility, Iran
The report says Iran may still face problems enriching uranium

The unclassified version of a new National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, released on Monday, said that Iran was "less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005".

In May 2005, the intelligence community had said "with high confidence" that Iran was "determined" to build nuclear weapons.

The new NIE confirms that Iran did, indeed, have an illicit nuclear weapons programme.

But it says that programme ceased operating in 2003 and, as of mid-2007, had probably not started up again. The NIE asserts that the weapons programme was dropped because of international pressure.

It says that US intelligence estimates - with "moderate-to-high confidence" - that Iran currently does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

The NIE affirms, however, that Iran continues its efforts to enrich uranium.

The document estimates that the very earliest Iran could produce enough highly-enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon would be late 2009, but some time between 2010 and 2015 is more likely.

In an interesting note of dissent, the state department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research does not think enough HEU for a weapon could be produced until 2013.

Intelligence gaps

In all, the new NIE argues that Iran's intentions may be less threatening than US intelligence previously thought.

And it strongly suggests large gaps in the Americans' knowledge of exactly what the Iranian programme is capable of.

But the document emphasises that Iran continues to build a capacity which could be turned to nuclear weapons production in the future.

"Iranian entities are continuing to build a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so," it reads.

Iran continues to insist that its programme is for civilian purposes.

The Bush administration welcomed the NIE, even though it might be seen to contradict the administration's warnings about the gravity of the Iranian threat.

The National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the report showed that the risk of Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon remained a "very serious problem".

Mr Hadley said that the NIE showed that the US had the "right strategy" in pressuring Iran to suspend its entire nuclear programme, while offering to negotiate.

His statements suggest that the new NIE will not engender any profound shift in policy on the part of the Bush administration, and that Washington will continue to push for a new round of UN sanctions against Iran.

Complicating factor

But Washington analysts were predicting that the intelligence community's new position would complicate the effort to bring about a new UN Security Council Resolution imposing sanctions.

Such a resolution was still within reach, they said, simply because Iran has not complied with demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

But, they said, the US will be hard put to maintain a sense of urgency following the release of the new NIE.

However, the new NIE will make it harder for proponents of military action against Iran to argue their case.

One source, who has close links to US intelligence, said that members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff continued to call for military strikes against Iran "on a daily basis".

Senior military officers and intelligence officials are understood to have grave reservations about an attack on Iran - not least because it would be unclear how a military confrontation with Iran could be brought to a conclusion.



What are these?

IRAN NUCLEAR CRISIS

KEY STORIES

Bush says Iran remains a threat
Iran welcomes US nuclear report
US report plays down Iran threat
Iran eyes nuclear options abroad

 

[dcentity2000]

Sounds like good news to me

Speaking of Putin, I rather like the man, although he does spook me a bit. Bottom line is, though, that he's not going anywhere. Expect to see him back as President after a brief spell as Prime Minister (I believe the constitution allows that).



Rich::

 

[Mr Man]

I read the entire article.....and this entire thread before posting.....have a couple of thoughts.

Besides the obligatory Bush-bashing from the faithful opposition (right on time for the daily "3 minute hate"- oh that Emmanuel Goldstein..... ), I do not have much confidence in the US "Intelligence " agencies track record up to now. I see nothing in this article that persuades me they now have a "slam dunk" (big time sarcasm). Perhaps this IS another George Tenet style "slam dunk".

If anything, it appears from the article that our understanding of Iran's nuclear program has degraded over the last few years. I would like to know the confidence level of these bureaucrats from 16 different govt. intelligence agencies (that's right 16) on this info. Are they reading tea leaves or is this legit?

I completey agree with those who say to keep diplomatic/economic pressure on Iran (which does appear to be working), with the understanding that ALL options remain on the table w/Iran (which includes bombing & Spec-Ops type stuff if absolutely necessary).

Demographic and economic data available on Iran suggests that the only way for Iran to prosper under current conditions is by expansion.

This aint over. JMO

 

[salmoneous]

It's interesting how they all agreed Iraq had or was working towards the weapons, but Bush is the only one who gets called a liar! I've got news for you... if Bush lied, they all lied!

But they didn't all say the same thing, did they? In particular, Bush told us the intelligence left "do doubt" - when, in fact, it was full of doubt.

It's one thing to be wrong in trying to understand what Iraq did and didn't have. It's another to read intelligence reports and then lie about what you've read.

Well, Bush lied. So what? As you say, politician's lie. I'm sure both candidates next year will have lied.

The point is next time our leaders - be they Democrats or Republicans, try to get us to support a war based on secret information, we should all remember that politicians - even ones that seem like great guys - will lie through their teeth to get what they want. Don't trust them.

Some politicians have been encouraging us to take military action against Iran. These same folks didn't want the American people to see even a declassified version of the NIE saying that Iran has stopped their program. Don't trust them. Any of them.

Note - I don't have to say we shouldn't trust Iran either, do I?

 

[dcentity2000]

But they didn't all say the same thing, did they? In particular, Bush told us the intelligence left "do doubt" - when, in fact, it was full of doubt.

To be fair, Tony Blair did it too - see the "Dodgy Dossier".



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

I do not have much confidence in the US "Intelligence " agencies track record up to now.

Good point...



Rich::

 

[salmoneous]

I am confused didnt the leader of Iran himself get up in front of everyone and say "hey I have nukes, and I dont care, I am not letting you in to see them, nah nah nah" I am paraphrasing of course.

Nope - he didn't.

 

[GeorgeG]

But they didn't all say the same thing, did they? In particular, Bush told us the intelligence left "do doubt" - when, in fact, it was full of doubt.

It's one thing to be wrong in trying to understand what Iraq did and didn't have. It's another to read intelligence reports and then lie about what you've read.

Well, Bush lied. So what? As you say, politician's lie. I'm sure both candidates next year will have lied.

The point is next time our leaders - be they Democrats or Republicans, try to get us to support a war based on secret information, we should all remember that politicians - even ones that seem like great guys - will lie through their teeth to get what they want. Don't trust them.

Some politicians have been encouraging us to take military action against Iran. These same folks didn't want the American people to see even a declassified version of the NIE saying that Iran has stopped their program. Don't trust them. Any of them.

Note - I don't have to say we shouldn't trust Iran either, do I?

Point(s) taken.

The bottom line is that just about every politician will lie about something. It's their nature. Of greater concern is the consequences in the long run and the jury is still out on that one. Personally, I'm not convinced we, as a country, were entirely wrong in invading Iraq. As far as weapons of mass destruction go, millions (yes, millions) of radical Muslims have openly declared they intend to kill us. Nobody has to lie about that. It's a sickening fact. And, they will continue trying to kill us whether by weapons of mass destruction or little by little with car bombs. With or without Bush, war has been declared on us and each day we get closer to that war being fought on our own turf.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I read the entire article.....and this entire thread before posting.....have a couple of thoughts.

Besides the obligatory Bush-bashing from the faithful opposition (right on time for the daily "3 minute hate"- oh that Emmanuel Goldstein..... ), I do not have much confidence in the US "Intelligence " agencies track record up to now. I see nothing in this article that persuades me they now have a "slam dunk" (big time sarcasm). Perhaps this IS another George Tenet style "slam dunk".

If anything, it appears from the article that our understanding of Iran's nuclear program has degraded over the last few years. I would like to know the confidence level of these bureaucrats from 16 different govt. intelligence agencies (that's right 16) on this info. Are they reading tea leaves or is this legit?

I completey agree with those who say to keep diplomatic/economic pressure on Iran (which does appear to be working), with the understanding that ALL options remain on the table w/Iran (which includes bombing & Spec-Ops type stuff if absolutely necessary).

Demographic and economic data available on Iran suggests that the only way for Iran to prosper under current conditions is by expansion.

This aint over. JMO

I don't think you'll get much opposition on your take from the left...I only wish we would have followed the game plan you've laid out for Iran in Iraq all those years ago. Oh, what even a few more months of Iraqi UN inspections would have shown, and all the American lives and tax dollars we could have saved!

 

[salmoneous]

As far as weapons of mass destruction go, millions (yes, millions) of radical Muslims have openly declared they intend to kill us. Nobody has to lie about that. It's a sickening fact.

That that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what's your basis for this fact?

With or without Bush, war has been declared on us and each day we get closer to that war being fought on our own turf.

War has been declared on us? By Iraq?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Point(s) taken.

The bottom line is that just about every politician will lie about something. It's their nature. Of greater concern is the consequences in the long run and the jury is still out on that one. Personally, I'm not convinced we, as a country, were entirely wrong in invading Iraq. As far as weapons of mass destruction go, millions (yes, millions) of radical Muslims have openly declared they intend to kill us. Nobody has to lie about that. It's a sickening fact. And, they will continue trying to kill us whether by weapons of mass destruction or little by little with car bombs. With or without Bush, war has been declared on us and each day we get closer to that war being fought on our own turf.

Your position on the Iraqi invasion's probably why we should have stayed in Afghanistan finishing off the Taliban and bringing home Bin Laden's head on a platter instead of going into Iraq, which at the time of the beginning of the war, even under a brutal dictator like Saddam, was one of the more moderate, secular middle eastern countries around.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't think you'll get much opposition on your take from the left...I only wish we would have followed the game plan you've laid out for Iran in Iraq all those years ago. Oh, what even a few more months of Iraqi UN inspections would have shown, and all the American lives and tax dollars we could have saved!

And I think that's really the point-I would like to think that most of the American people would like a little more care taken before we go invading another country. This report is encouraging to me because having it out there means that it will be harder for the Administration to invade Iran than it was for them to invade Iraq.

Lots of people dropped the ball on Iraq and there is plenty of blame to go around for the shoddy intelligence, for the lack of due diligence performed by those who had the responsibility to question the intelligence and for the near criminal mismanagement of the period after the fall of Saddam-but if you want to be President, you have to know that the blame for every bad thing is going to land on you. Especially when you pronounce yourself as the single decider and final voice. No matter who else contributed to the mess in Iraq, the bulk of the blame still rests on the man in the WH.