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

[LuvDuke]

From the Washington Post-May 12, 2007



From the New Yorker, October 8, 2007




Bolding is mine. There is saber rattling going on and has been for quite some time. To ignore it is to go down the same path we followed that landed us in Iraq with 4000 dead and no way out.

And if Bush/Cheney had been impeached last Spring we wouldn't be facing this. That's why impeachment was needed.

 

[LuvDuke]

And spewing hatred towards Israel. And threatening its destruction, And supporting terrorists groups, and sending IEDs across the border to Iran.

Take special notice we don't see anymore photo ops showing off Iranian arms in Iraq since that idea didn't catch fire with the American people.

Btw, if Bush was so sure it was Iran attacking American troops, why didn't he retaliate? I'll answer the question: Because Bush was full of crap and it was another talking point to gin up war fever with Iran. The American people didn't buy.

Only the faithful did bought it ............ cherish them.

 

[Fitswimmer]

And if Bush/Cheney had been impeached last Spring we wouldn't be facing this. That's why impeachment was needed.

When the election was over, a lot of people, myself included, thought that there were Republicans in the House and the Senate who would see what the will of the people was and act accordingly. They clearly have not and have continued to back the President. When I look at that, it's hard to believe that impeachment would have been anything other than a complete waste of time and money-just like the last one was.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The NIE are saying that Iran appears to have stopped their nuclear weapon production in 2003.
Is this the same NIE who said the opposite in 2005?
What will they say in 2009?
Duck?

ford family

Isn't it interesting when the intel community comes out with something (even though it's still a WAG) they agree with, it's great. But when Tenent said "it's a slam dunk", they didn't believe him. Where did they get their intel?

20/20 hindsight?

ford family

You might want to reread my post #124, you know, the part you so graciously cut out when you quoted me, for my take on the 2005 report. It's no wonder you hold the President in such high regard. It seems that cherry-picking evidence/opinions is something that you all enjoy doing.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The Intelligence Community was dead right about the WMD's. They had their doubts and the WH knew it.

It was Tenet, with his nose up Bush's butt, who said the intelligence was a "slam dunk". The WH chose to go with Tenet because he told them what they wanted to hear.

Aren't you finding it a little tough to rewrite history that's only 5 years old?

It's easier to pull out the "facts" that make their toes tingle, shrilly scream as loud as they can that anyone to the left of Tom Selleck are a bunch of "haters" simply out to get their dear President, and hope that the 75% of America who doesn't trust/believe/buy anything that comes out of this Administration anymore forgets what happened a few short years ago. It's sad, bordering on pathetic, really...

 

[ford family]

You might want to reread my post #124, you know, the part you so graciously cut out when you quoted me, for my take on the 2005 report. It's no wonder you hold the President in such high regard. It seems that cherry-picking evidence/opinions is something that you all enjoy doing.

You mean this bit?

So now, after the ginned up report on Iraq, and the apparently ginned up 2005 report on Iran, it looks like, quite possibly, the CIA are tired of ginning up Intelligence reports for a lame duck President with the largest credibility gap in the history of America.

Well, apparently, possibly it was because it was waffle and, therefore, apparently, possibly, lacking in credibility.

Let's face it, nobody really knows what is happening inside Iran so this is neither the time to order "stand easy" nor the time to brag "I told you so".

ford family

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

You mean this bit?



Well, apparently, possibly it was because it was waffle and, therefore, apparently, possibly, lacking in credibility.

Let's face it, nobody really knows what is happening inside Iran so this is neither the time to order "stand easy" nor the time to brag "I told you so".

ford family

Where did I say "I told you so", or "stand easy"? I'm saying lets not let this Adminstration rush to war...that's what I'm saying! Apparently, the 2005 report was wrong. Apparently, the Veep doesn't have the same sway with the CIA to cherry pick the facts like he used to. Apparently, the US public doesn't trust their Present anymore. I know you Republicans like to treat the world as black and white, good and evil, with us or against us, but the reality of life is that there are millions of shades of gray. That doesn't make my opinion any less credible. I would think you neocon types would have learned that by now...apparently not!

 

[salmoneous]

Let's face it, nobody really knows what is happening inside Iran so this is neither the time to order "stand easy" nor the time to brag "I told you so".

Exactly. Nor it is the time to say, "Let's invade."

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Exactly. Nor it is the time to say, "Let's invade."

You keep saying it, all of the moderates and progressives keep agreeing with you, but for some reason, it just not sinking in with the crowd on the Right. I guess it easier to debate the opinions as you imagine them or wish they were then it is to debate what people are actually saying. Maybe it's something they learn in Neocon debate 101?

 

[Mr Man]

Oh the irony. The reason why the Iranian influence has grown is because of the Bush policies, the invasion of Iraq, and the installation of a pro-Iranian Shiite goverment in Iran. Did no one at the WH forsee a democratically elected pro-Iranian Shiite government in a country that's 60% Shiite?

And people trust the moron in the WH to deal with Iran? I wouldn't trust him to take my garbage out.

Btw, I say let Cheney earn his taxpayers funded fancy-schmancy heart pacemaker, paid for by government run healthcare, by leading the charge on foot into Tehran. Maybe he'll get taken into custody and introduced to water boarding. War and torture might look different if he has any real experience with it.

Stop......stop........you are spitting all over the screen!

OTOH, if we take a closer look at the Middle East, I think we are actually seeing the opposite of what you describe above.

While there are factions in Iraqi society (aka "the ones we are killing") that receive support from Iran, The Iraqi govt. (while dominant Shiite) are most definitely not allies of Iran. I think many people in the West underestimate the after effects of the Iran/Iraq War on the people of Iraq. Just for giggles, let's take a break from agonizing over inflated civilian casualty totals during OIF and google how many people are "thought" to have died during the Iran Iraq War. It starts at 1 million........

"Send your hate below" for a moment and look closely at the recently concluded Annapolis summit in which ALL major Sunni countries were present. They are concerned about Iran. We will be able to call on them. Look at all the Sunni $ going into developing places like Dubai (you may notice Dubai has an ad above this thread for condo rentals or did yesterday) .....they do not want the Iranians spoiling their fun.

One thing not mentioned much is the apparent effect that so-called US "Cowboy Diplomacy" may have had on Iran already (if in fact they stopped researching N-bomb in 2003). If so, I say Yippee-Kay-ah!

The US is nearly finished clearing our flanks around Iran. We have significant offensive capability in striking distance of Iran. Iran is surrounded and under increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to join the world community.

This "moron" (your words) has already done more than any other person EVER to bring freedom, stability and right of self-determination (IOW Democracy) to the Middle East. I would expect the party of "nuance" to appreciate the possibility of a favorable outcome in the Middle East that does not involve defeat for the US . Then again, maybe you cannot imagine such an outcome, because you are too invested in defeat.

Regards,

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

And spewing hatred towards Israel. And threatening its destruction, And supporting terrorists groups, and sending IEDs across the border to Iran.

Doesn't sound very "shades of gray" does it?

But Bush and Cheney are the bad guys to many here.

And we hear, oh, the millions of shades of gray to "the realities of life," -- it's not "good and evil" nor "Black and White". The (dumb) "neocons" have not learned their lesson.

Some should ask Isreal re the realities of life. Give the terrorists a break, and they kill your children on a bus or in the marketplace.

Remember when European appeasers gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt -- until it was too late. "Peace in our time."

 

[LakeAriel]

I just received this from Jewishvoiceforpeace.org

Interesting Read...



Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical
Church of the Saviour. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he chaired
National Intelligence Estimates and produced/briefed the President's Daily
Brief. He is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS).

This article is of particular interest not only because of what it says
regarding Iran's nuclear weapons (or rather lack of such), but also because it
describes how Cheney got overruled - informing us that the forces opposing war
on Iran within the system have some muscle. This is good news, for a change!
Racheli Gai.


http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/69591/

Intelligence Report Reveals Bush and Cheney's Iran Warnings as Fraudulent

By Ray McGovern, Consortium News. Posted December 4, 2007.


A new intelligence assessment that Iran's nuclear weapons program halted in 2003
utterly contradicts the dire claims made by the war-mongering White House.


For those who have doubts about miracles, a double one occurred today. An honest
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program has been issued
and its Key Judgments were made public.

With redraft after redraft, it was what the Germans call "eine schwere Geburt"
-- a difficult birth, ten months in gestation.

I do not know how often Vice President Dick Cheney visited CIA Headquarters
during the gestation period, but I am told he voiced his displeasure as soon as
he saw the first sonogram/draft very early this year, and is so displeased with
what issued that he has refused to be the godfather.

This time Cheney and his neo-con colleagues were unable to abort the process.
And after delivery to the press, this child is going to be very hard to explain
-- the more so since it is legitimate.

The main points of the NIE:

"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program...

"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear
weapons program as of mid-2007.

"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran
is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely...

"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically
capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the
2010-2015 time frame.

"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of
producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."

Having reached these conclusions, it is not surprising that the NIE's
authors make a point of saying up front (in bold type) "This NIE does not
(italics in original) assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons."

This, of course, pulls out the rug from under Cheney's claim of a "fairly robust
new nuclear program" in Iran, and President Bush's inaccurate assertion that
Iranian leaders have even admitted they are developing nuclear weapons.

Apparently, intelligence community analysts are no longer required to produce
the faith-based intelligence that brought us the Oct. 1, 2002, NIE "Iraq's
Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction" -- the worst in the history
of U.S. intelligence.

Truth be told, one of the Iran NIE's findings was written into its first draft,
from which Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell drew in telling
the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 27 that Iran could possibly develop
a nuclear weapon by early-to-mid-next decade.

McConnell said not a word, though, about Iran's having halted its nuclear
weapons program in fall 2003. And in February, he was still adhering to the
faith-based approach, saying, "We assess that Iran seeks to develop a nuclear
weapon."

At which point, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, tried to sum up the
proceedings with the disingenuous comment, "We all agree, then, that the
Iranians are trying to get nuclear weapons."

Curiously, McConnell indicated recently that the key findings of NIEs would no
longer be made public.

My guess is that the Pentagon, and especially Adm. William Fallon, commander of
our forces in the Middle East, succeeded in persuading McConnell to go public.
Several months ago, Fallon was reliably reported to have said, "We are not going
to do Iran on my watch."

And it is an open secret that he and other senior military officers, except
those of the Air Force, are strongly opposed to getting into a war with Iran for
which the U.S. is so ill prepared.

Will President George W. Bush and our domesticated media succeed in dismissing
this latest NIE as "guesswork," as he has in the past? It is going to be highly
interesting to see how the White House will try to spin this one.


................................................................
--------
Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Shlensky
Alistair Welchman
-------

Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to www.jewishpeacenews.net

 

[salmoneous]

Then again, maybe you cannot imagine such an outcome, because you are too invested in defeat.

Regards,

If you are going to insult people by saying they are "invested in defeat", is it really appropriate to tack "Regards" onto the end of your post?

Democrats and Republicans both want what is best for this country. We just don't always agree on what is best.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

From the Washington Post-May 12, 2007



From the New Yorker, October 8, 2007




Bolding is mine. There is saber rattling going on and has been for quite some time. To ignore it is to go down the same path we followed that landed us in Iraq with 4000 dead and no way out.

but you do realize in a way you're making my point?

Funny how the nuclear program ended [edit to say supposedly] in 03 when all of this "saber rattling" began

I mean can you honestly say that Ahmawhatever is a stable fella??

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Doesn't sound very "shades of gray" does it?

But Bush and Cheney are the bad guys to many here.

And we hear, oh, the millions of shades of gray to "the realities of life," -- it's not "good and evil" nor "Black and White". The (dumb) "neocons" have not learned their lesson.

Some should ask Isreal re the realities of life. Give the terrorists a break, and they kill your children on a bus or in the marketplace.

Remember when European appeasers gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt -- until it was too late. "Peace in our time."

Nice little ditty your singing there, Joe, it's the same tune you inject into every debate, with no real meat on the debate topic at hand. Unless you're going to add an actual opinion, I think I'd rather hear your song on any one of the thousands of posts in which you've danced around alot, added alot of fluff and haven't added one iota into the discussion. And for the record, Dawn's a big girl who isn't afraid to inject real opinion into actual debate...she doesn't need a sidekick or a cheerleader. So c'mon, step off the sidewalk and give us a real take on the topic at hand, the new intel on Iran's nuclear arms program and your opinion on what should be done...a "with us or against us" rush to war, or a methodical, diplomatic approach?

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

Oh the irony. The reason why the Iranian influence has grown is because of the Bush policies

so YOU say...reasonable people can make a very logical argument thats not the case....

how does Israel fit into that equation?

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

When the election was over, a lot of people, myself included, thought that there were Republicans in the House and the Senate who would see what the will of the people was and act accordingly.

the will of the people? like the same people who re-elected GWB in 04?

Even your own leading contender for president isn't really talking all that much about changing the current Iraq strategy...

The Democrats are none too thrilled with the Democarts in congress right now either...

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Nice little ditty your singing there, Joe, it's the same tune you inject into every debate, with no real meat on the debate topic at hand. Unless you're going to add an actual opinion, I think I'd rather hear your song on any one of the thousands of posts in which you've danced around alot, added alot of fluff and haven't added one iota into the discussion. And for the record, Dawn's a big girl who isn't afraid to inject real opinion into actual debate...she doesn't need a sidekick or a cheerleader. So c'mon, step off the sidewalk and give us a real take on the topic at hand, the new intel on Iran's nuclear arms program and your opinion on what should be done...a "with us or against us" rush to war, or a methodical, diplomatic approach?

You type a paragraph of insults, then you ask for my opinion.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

but you do realize in a way you're making my point?

Funny how the nuclear program ended [edit to say supposedly] in 03 when all of this "saber rattling" began

I mean can you honestly say that Ahmawhatever is a stable fella??

Question is...now that we know that Iran's weapons program is a paper tiger, much like Saddam's, should we continue to rattle those sabers? My concern is that now that the facts are out in the open, might it hurt America's standing with our allies if we continue to, for lack of a better word, "bully" a country that is complying with UN sanctions, and at the same time, elevate Iran's standing as a victim of America's overreaching foreign policy?

 

[Mr Man]

If you are going to insult people by saying they are "invested in defeat", is it really appropriate to tack "Regards" onto the end of your post?

Democrats and Republicans both want what is best for this country. We just don't always agree on what is best.

I really don't see this as being insulting, and I do send my best regards.

The Democrats are invested in defeat. How many times have they said "we lost". Rep. Murtha, Sen Reid etc etc. This is backed up by word and deed.

Regards,