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

[LuvDuke]

I heard that the Republicans in general were keeping pretty quiet about that report....

It kind of makes you wonder what the WH was basing all their sabre rattling on.

I'm surprised they didn't make this one disappear by classifying it "Top Secret" with the secret being they're lying/exagerrating/cherrypicking .......... again.

 

[disneyfan67]

Well, I guess there goes the theory that the "President never lied to me" routine.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/white-house-bus.html

December 05, 2007 6:57 PM

ABC News' Martha Raddatz Reports: The White House made a stunning admission Wednesday that appeared to suggest President Bush has directly contradicted himself about when he learned U.S. intelligence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program.

During a press conference on Tuesday, the President told reporters that he was briefed that there was new intelligence information about Iran, but nothing specific.

"I was made aware of the NIE last week," Bush said Tuesday. "In August, I think it was [Director of National Intelligence] Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze."

However today the White House is saying the President was told much more.

After taking a reporters' question earlier today about exactly what the President was told, White House press secretary Dana Perino provided a response to reporters Wednesday night.

Perino stated Bush had been told in August that Iran suspended it's covert nuclear weapons program.

"In August, DNI Director McConnell advised President Bush that the intelligence community would not be able to meet a congressionally imposed deadline requiring a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran because new information had been obtained just as they were about to finalize the report," Perino wrote in an emailed response.

"He said that if the new information turns out to be true, what we thought we knew for sure is right. Iran does in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program, but it may be suspended," Perino's email said.

Perino also said McConnell told the President the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment of Iran's covert nuclear program.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate -- declassified excerpts of which were released on Monday -- found that Iran actually shelved it's nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Despite the fact that Bush was told in August that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted, the Bush administration continued to raise the rhetoric against Iran, calling for a third round of United Nations sanctions.

The President even warned publicly in October about a World War III if Iran didn't cease their weapons program.

"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 (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said in October.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Oh, I'm sure there will be a good and valid explanation as to how the President didn't actually lie. It amazes me how good some people are at rationalization. It reminds me of Jeff Goldblum in the Big Chill: "Rationalization is more important than sex, how many people can go a day without a good juicy rationalization?"

 

[Charade]

"In August, DNI Director McConnell advised President Bush that the intelligence community would not be able to meet a congressionally imposed deadline requiring a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran because new information had been obtained just as they were about to finalize the report," Perino wrote in an emailed response.

"He said that if the new information turns out to be true, what we thought we knew for sure is right. Iran does in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program, but it may be suspended," Perino's email said.

Rationalization alert!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Well, I guess there goes the theory that the "President never lied to me" routine.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/white-house-bus.html

In Maureen Dowd's Op-Ed column this week, she said that Sy Hersh claims that the White House has known for a long time that Iran had stopped its nuke program, and that Dick Cheney “has kept his foot on the neck of that report".

You know how it's going to go with the righties though...as long as it's not under oath or about *******s, then it's not only OK to lie, but it's unpatriotic and a disservice to national security not to.

 

[bsnyder]

Should be interesting, especially if and when the almighty Christian Conservatives get behind him. Tell you one thing, I'm counting the days until the next Republican debate. With Angry Rudy finally showing his true colors, Huckabee's new media darling status and the new Intel on Iran, I'm thinking it'll be a real bare-knuckled grudge match.

They're already behind him. I went to a Huckabee event the Tuesday night before Thanksgiving. I went, not because I'm supporting Huckabee, but because my cousin hosted the event, and I always take the opportunity to assess a candidate up close and personal. I've been involved in GOP politics locally for a long time, and this was a very different crowd - I didn't see hardly any of the people I'd expect to see. My cousin has never been involved in supporting a candidate either locally or nationally and I think most of the other people who attended would fall into that same category.

For the folks who think George W. Bush has displayed his faith too prominently, they'd be absolutely apoplectic if faced with a Huckabee presidency.

 

[bsnyder]

Well, I guess there goes the theory that the "President never lied to me" routine.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/white-house-bus.html

Despite the fact that Bush was told in August that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted, the Bush administration continued to raise the rhetoric against Iran, calling for a third round of United Nations sanctions.

So, for those who think this latest NIE is the gospel, can I assume that you think there's no further need for diplomatic pressure or sanctions against Iran?

 

[LuvDuke]

So, for those who think this latest NIE is the gospel, can I assume that you think there's no further need for diplomatic pressure or sanctions against Iran?

No you can't. Time to put that strawman to bed.

 

[Fitswimmer]

So, for those who think this latest NIE is the gospel, can I assume that you think there's no further need for diplomatic pressure or sanctions against Iran?

Only in the world where there is only Black and White. In the real world, people can agree with the NIE report AND believe that Iran should be watched carefully and the diplomatic pressure and sanctions aren't a bad idea.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

They're already behind him. I went to a Huckabee event the Tuesday night before Thanksgiving. I went, not because I'm supporting Huckabee, but because my cousin hosted the event, and I always take the opportunity to assess a candidate up close and personal. I've been involved in GOP politics locally for a long time, and this was a very different crowd - I didn't see hardly any of the people I'd expect to see at an event like that. My cousin has never been involved in supporting a candidate either locally or nationally and I think most of the other people who attended would fall into that same category.

For the folks who think George W. Bush has displayed his faith too prominently, they'd be absolutely apoplectic if faced with a Huckabee presidency.

What kind of people did you see? Snake handlers and people speaking in tongues?

Honestly, I'm surprised his candidacy didn't catch fire earlier. The Evangelicals I know really knew nothing about Huckabee until just recently. They were lukewarmly supporting Romney and I kept asking them "Why?", especially with a candidate that so strongly follows their ideals. Tell you one thing, they're all over him now.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

No you can't. Time to put that strawman to bed.

And freakin' how!

 

[bsnyder]

No you can't. Time to put that strawman to bed.

It's not a strawman, it's the next logical question. If you assume the NIE is correct, doesn't that call for a shift in our relations with Iran, and if so, what should that shift look like?

Of course, the question assumes that those wanting to discuss actually take the issue seriously, as opposed to the subject being just another opportunity for gratiutitous Bush bashing.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

It's not a strawman, it's the next logical question. If you assume the NIE is correct, doesn't that call for a shift in our relations with Iran, and if so, what should that shift look like?

Of course, the question assumes that those wanting to discuss actually take the issue seriously, as opposed to the subject being just another opportunity for gratiutitous Bush bashing.

C'mon Bet, that's like saying the next logical step to not believing the NIE is to start bombing tomorrow...

 

[bsnyder]

Only in the world where there is only Black and White. In the real world, people can agree with the NIE report AND believe that Iran should be watched carefully and the diplomatic pressure and sanctions aren't a bad idea.

How does one support sanctions under this scenario? I don't see how we can possibly get any international cooperation on that subject now that this report has been released. We were having enough trouble getting most of the big players on board before. You really don't think this is going to be their excuse to bow out?

 

[Fitswimmer]

It's not a strawman, it's the next logical question. If you assume the NIE is correct, doesn't that call for a shift in our relations with Iran, and if so, what should that shift look like?

Of course, the question assumes that those wanting to discuss actually take the issue seriously, as opposed to the subject being just another opportunity for gratiutitous Bush bashing.

I gave you a serious answer. People can believe the NIE and STILL believe that Iran needs to be watched and that sanctions are a good idea. The two posititions are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

[bsnyder]

C'mon Bet, that's like saying the next logical step to not believing the NIE is to start bombing tomorrow...

No, it's not. We've thought for a long time that Iran has nuclear ambitions, and we haven't bombed them. We have been trying to garner international support for economic sanctions, based on the above assumption. If we assume the report is true, what basis do we have for putting pressure on Iran? And what do we even want to pressure them to do?

 

[bsnyder]

I gave you a serious answer. People can believe the NIE and STILL believe that Iran needs to be watched and that sanctions are a good idea. The two posititions are NOT mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they're mutually exclusive. But thinking sanctions are a good idea is not the same thing as actually having any hope of implementing them.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

How does one support sanctions under this scenario? I don't see how we can possibly get any international cooperation on that subject now that this report has been released. We were having enough trouble getting most of the big players on board before. You really don't think this is going to be their excuse to bow out?

China might, but they were never fully on board anyway. I think if we play our cards right, and the President stops with the WWIII talk, we may be able to keep a strong coalition of our allies together and continue the pressure, coupled with some carrots, to get Iran to keep operations within UN guidelines. This report definitely changes things, but our position has to change with the realities of the world as well.

 

[bsnyder]

China might, but they were never fully on board anyway. I think if we play our cards right, and the President stops with the WWIII talk, we may be able to keep a strong coalition of our allies together and continue the pressure, coupled with some carrots, to get Iran to keep operations within UN guidelines. This report definitely changes things, but our position has to change with the realities of the world as well.

So, we've been pressuring them for years, and what has been the result?

A year ago they had 300 centrifuges operating at Natanz. Now they've installed 3000.

How do you think this latest hand we've been dealt should be played?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I didn't say they're mutually exclusive. But thinking sanctions are a good idea is not the same thing as actually having any hope of implementing them.

Actually you did.

So, for those who think this latest NIE is the gospel, can I assume that you think there's no further need for diplomatic pressure or sanctions against Iran?

You backed off it later, but your first response was a clear either/or.