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

[salmoneous]

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?

Nope - you assume wrong. Nobody has suggested any such thing. Nor, IIRC, has anyone suggested the NIE is "gospel" - just the best info we've got.

 

[salmoneous]

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.

Oh, come on - do you actually believe this stuff - or are you trying to be argumentative?

 

[bsnyder]

Actually you did.



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

You're right, but I was trying to phrase the question in a rehtorical sense, and made a hash of it. I believe you when you say that you think sanctions are a still a good idea, even if you believe the report is accurate. But I think those who were opposed to sanctions or were dragging their feet out of self-interest will now use this as an excuse. And I'm wondering what the U.S.'s diplomatic argument (or yours) will be, to justify sanctions now.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

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?

You're the one who seems to be implying that more should be done. Other than the status quo, what do you think we should do?

 

[disneyfan67]

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 I never said that or implied that. My previous posts to date show that I do feel Iran is a threat. I also think that most long time readers here, also know how I feel about the Middle East in general.

I was correctly pointing out that by GWB knowing about this report in August, but denying it and and only saying he found out about it last week, is lying. You can't get around that and it's as simple as the day is long.

News reports of his administration trying to keep a lid on this report and not allowing it's release to the general public, is obstruction of the truth. It probably won't matter to you or most supporters of GWB because of your faith in him and what side of the political isle you fall on. To some people like me, a lie is a lie, no matter who does it. I don't care if it's Priest or a Politician, it's all the same in my book.

I would be willing to bet if Hillary Clinton did this in a few years from now as POTUS, you wouldn't be so forgiving and talk radio would be in an uproar over it. Would I be wrong in assuming that?

 

[bsnyder]

You're the one who seems to be implying that more should be done. Other than the status quo, what do you think we should do?

Okay, you've lost me here. Why don't you define the status quo, as it relates to Iran? Otherwise, we'll just be talking in circles.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You're right, but I was trying to phrase the question in a rehtorical sense, and made a hash of it. I believe you when you say that you think sanctions are a still a good idea, even if you believe the report is accurate. But I think those who were opposed to sanctions or were dragging their feet out of self-interest will now use this as an excuse. And I'm wondering what the U.S.'s diplomatic argument (or yours) will be, to justify sanctions now.

While the report was pretty clear that Iran doesn't have a program now, they were also pretty clear that Iran is still working on their nuclear capabilities. If Iran is smart, they will be open about what they are doing and allow UN inspectors to continue to monitor the situation. If they should decide that they want to "go dark", then sanctions would be an appropriate response.

 

[bsnyder]

No I never said that or implied that. My previous posts to date show that I do feel Iran is a threat. I also think that most long time readers here, also know how I feel about the Middle East in general.

I was correctly pointing out that by GWB knowing about this report in August, but denying it and and only saying he found out about it last week, is lying. You can't get around that and it's as simple as the day is long.

News reports of his administration trying to keep a lid on this report and not allowing it's release to the general public, is obstruction of the truth. It probably won't matter to you or most supporters of GWB because of your faith in him and what side of the political isle you fall on. To some people like me, a lie is a lie, no matter who does it. I don't care if it's Priest or a Politician, it's all the same in my book.

I would be willing to bet if Hillary Clinton did this in a few years from now as POTUS, you wouldn't be so forgiving and talk radio would be in an uproar over it. Would I be wrong in assuming that?

You think Iran is a threat. I agree. And yet, we've just released a report that will make that threat much harder to contain.

And your only complaint is that the Bush Administration tried it's hardest to keep a lid on the report being release?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Okay, you've lost me here. Why don't you define the status quo, as it relates to Iran? Otherwise, we'll just be talking in circles.

OK, how about we use the sanctions imposed by President Bush last October as a defining US stance on Iraq? Above and beyond that, what should be done, now that the NIE report states that Iran discontinued their nuclear weapons program in '03?

 

[Fitswimmer]

You think Iran is a threat. I agree. And yet, we've just released a report that will make that threat much harder to contain.

And your only complaint is that the Bush Administration tried it's hardest to keep a lid on the report being release?

It's not just that they wanted to keep the report hidden-it's WHY they wanted this stuff to never see the light of day. Way back at the start of this thread I posted articles about Naval movements in that area and other signs that the administration was getting ready to bomb Iran. I've heard that bombers were being retrofitted to carry tactical nukes-although I haven't been able to confirm that anywhere so far.

To those of us who believe that the run up to the Iraq war was based on falsified information, or information deliberately left out to allow only one conclusion to be drawn-the idea that the Administration would try to bury this report is "deja vu all over again".

 

[bsnyder]

OK, how about we use the sanctions imposed by President Bush last October as a defining US stance on Iraq? Above and beyond that, what should be done, now that the NIE report states that Iran discontinued their nuclear weapons program in '03?

But we've been working ever since then, to get the international players on board with those sanctions. China seemed about ready to deal last week. But I'll be willing to bet that those efforts are dead as a doornail now.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

But we've been working ever since then, to get the international players on board with those sanctions. China seemed about ready to deal last week. But I'll be willing to bet that those efforts are dead as a doornail now.

Do you feel that the CIA has purposely tanked those efforts by filing a flawed report?

 

[Mr Man]

The more background info on this NIE I am exposed to, the greater my concerns are on the authors of this NIE.

Specifically

-Dr. Tom Fingar (who just 4 months ago published a report stating his serious concerns about Iran's advanced nuclear program). He was very skeptical of the intelligence on WMD prior. Fair enough. Is he now compensating for this? In any event, his background and expertise is China (not Iran). Career FSO (State Dept).

Kenneth Brill- Pres. Clinton's ambassador to Cyprus. Consistently undermined current administration's policies on non-proliferation at every opportunity....to the point of being let go by Colin Powell at one point.....yet hired back.... Career FSO (State Dept).

and then there's Vann Van Diepen- This guy has been unabashedly trying to get the US govt. to accept Iran's "right" to enich uranium for the last 5 years. I grudgingly admire his skill.......but deplore his

It is fair to note that none of these gentlemen are supporters of the currrent administration.

As should be obvious from my previous posts , I am a supporter of the current administration. The primary authors of this NIE are not. Is this coincidence or does this suggest a partisan political objective?

Further, since when do these Intelligence agencies decide US policy? Essentially, that is what they are trying to do here IMO.

Regardless of which side of the spectrum you argue from, can you honestly say that govt bureaucrats first undermining and now seeking to change US policy instead of informing policy makers is a good thing? I do not. There is a word for this (which I know the meaning very well). I will not say it, as I do not think enough info is known yet about this latest intelligence mess.

This is beyond dangerous and I am amazed (in a very very bad way) at the number of people who see this NIE as a good thing

Is this still insulting? (sarcasm hehe)

 

[LuvDuke]

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

Ladies and gentleman, we got a winnah here.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The more background info on this NIE I am exposed to, the greater my concerns are on the authors of this NIE.

Specifically

-Dr. Tom Fingar (who just 4 months ago published a report stating his serious concerns about Iran's advanced nuclear program). He was very skeptical of the intelligence on WMD prior. Fair enough. Is he now compensating for this? In any event, his background and expertise is China (not Iran). Career FSO (State Dept).

Kenneth Brill- Pres. Clinton's ambassador to Cyprus. Consistently undermined current administration's policies on non-proliferation at every opportunity....to the point of being let go by Colin Powell at one point.....yet hired back.... Career FSO (State Dept).

and then there's Vann Van Diepen- This guy has been unabashedly trying to get the US govt. to accept Iran's "right" to enich uranium for the last 5 years. I grudgingly admire his skill.......but deplore his

It is fair to note that none of these gentlemen are supporters of the currrent administration.

As should be obvious from my previous posts , I am a supporter of the current administration. The primary authors of this NIE are not. Is this coincidence or does this suggest a partisan political objective?

Further, since when do these Intelligence agencies decide US policy? Essentially, that is what they are trying to do here IMO.

Regardless of which side of the spectrum you argue from, can you honestly say that govt bureaucrats first undermining and now seeking to change US policy instead of informing policy makers is a good thing? I do not. There is a word for this (which I know the meaning very well). I will not say it, as I do not think enough info is known yet about this latest intelligence mess.

This is beyond dangerous and I am amazed (in a very very bad way) at the number of people who see this NIE as a good thing

Is this still insulting? (sarcasm hehe)

We all know exactly where you're coming from. If Dick Cheney didn't make it up and draft the intel himself, no neocon thinks it legit.

Everyone knows that W has zero respect the US Intellegence community (daddy issues), but who knew it filtered down in the kool-aid?

 

[Mr Man]

We all know exactly where you're coming from. If Dick Cheney didn't make it up and draft the intel himself, no neocon thinks it legit.

Everyone knows that W has zero respect the US Intellegence community (daddy issues), but who knew it filtered down in the kool-aid?

hehehehehe.....you assume too much. I am not a neo-con. I am not even a card-carrying Republican. I am a conservative sure but more importantly, I am a patriot and I support the elected President of the United States. Yes, this mean even President Clinton who was in office when I served.

These men appear to serve a "higher calling"? (ladling sarcasm in heaps now)......

 

[LuvDuke]

The more background info on this NIE I am exposed to, the greater my concerns are on the authors of this NIE.

Specifically

-Dr. Tom Fingar (who just 4 months ago published a report stating his serious concerns about Iran's advanced nuclear program). He was very skeptical of the intelligence on WMD prior. Fair enough. Is he now compensating for this? In any event, his background and expertise is China (not Iran). Career FSO (State Dept).

Kenneth Brill- Pres. Clinton's ambassador to Cyprus. Consistently undermined current administration's policies on non-proliferation at every opportunity....to the point of being let go by Colin Powell at one point.....yet hired back.... Career FSO (State Dept).

and then there's Vann Van Diepen- This guy has been unabashedly trying to get the US govt. to accept Iran's "right" to enich uranium for the last 5 years. I grudgingly admire his skill.......but deplore his

It is fair to note that none of these gentlemen are supporters of the currrent administration.

As should be obvious from my previous posts , I am a supporter of the current administration. The primary authors of this NIE are not. Is this coincidence or does this suggest a partisan political objective?

Further, since when do these Intelligence agencies decide US policy? Essentially, that is what they are trying to do here IMO.

Regardless of which side of the spectrum you argue from, can you honestly say that govt bureaucrats first undermining and now seeking to change US policy instead of informing policy makers is a good thing? I do not. There is a word for this (which I know the meaning very well). I will not say it, as I do not think enough info is known yet about this latest intelligence mess.

This is beyond dangerous and I am amazed (in a very very bad way) at the number of people who see this NIE as a good thing

Is this still insulting? (sarcasm hehe)

Poor George Bush. Everybody's got it in for him. Everybody's lying to him. Everybody's giving him misinformation. And on and on and on. Make up your mind: Is George Bush a strong, decisive leader and driving the turnip truck? Or is the mindless puppet sitting in the backseat? Which is it? Either he's responsible for the mess or he isn't.

Btw, does it ever occur to people like you that one can love their country, be patriotic, wish nothing but the best for the US and still despise Bush. If these 5 years have taught us anything, it wasn't the Bush bashers who pushed the misinformation that led to the Iraq. It was his political in-crowd who cherrypicked what they wanted and fabricated what they didn't have to fulfill their dream of invading Iraq.

And are you accusing Dr. Tom Fingar, Kenneth Brill, Vann Van Diepen of deliberatly lying about Iran's nuclear capabililties and putting this country's security at risk? Why? Because they don't kiss Bush's ***? Is that it?

Yanno, I heard the same BS sentiments 5 years ago from the ones who got everything wrong about Iraq. Only then, those on my side of the aisle were accused of hating Bush so much, we wanted to see Americans come home in body bags. Well guess what: We were right, you were wrong and you can look in the mirror if you want to know who's really responsible for the body bags.

 

[Mr Man]

And in further news.......the NYT (who never miss an opportunity to publish leaked intelligence from their "fellow travelers" in Govt that puts American lives at risk) had this to say today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/w...b3d92971e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Apparently, US Intelligence has a high level source who supplied the info causing their 180degree turn-about on Iran's WMD program as published in the latest NIE.

Um, "Curve Ball II- The sequel" perhaps?

Irony just doesn't cover it.

 

[disneyfan67]

You think Iran is a threat. I agree. And yet, we've just released a report that will make that threat much harder to contain.

And your only complaint is that the Bush Administration tried it's hardest to keep a lid on the report being release?

No, my complaint is that Bush knew about the report last August, yet still kept up the "Bomb Iran" rhetoric 4 months later. That's an obstruction or a delay in telling of the truth.
When he said he only saw the report last week and was contradicted by his WH staff, that is a lie. Period. If you're not bothered by him doing this, then that's your right and choice. Speaking for myself, I don't care for or accept that type of behavior. I didn't accept it when Bill Clinton did it, nor will I when Bush is caught doing it. If you don't want to admit that Bush lied when these strong facts indicate otherwise, well..... what can I say.

To those of us who believe that the run up to the Iraq war was based on falsified information, or information deliberately left out to allow only one conclusion to be drawn-the idea that the Administration would try to bury this report is "deja vu all over again".

I think what Fits has written speaks for a lot of us, or at least me in this case. I notice the same rush to resolve the issue concerning Iran that was used in dealing with the threat of Iraq and Saddam. I'm not going to make that same mistake twice. There's other means of dealing with Iran without the heavily implied threat of an all out assault on them. America needs to do better this time and Iraq is constant reminder of where a short sighted, bull in a china shop, style of Foreign policy can get you. That's my feelings on the matter.

 

[LuvDuke]

And in further news.......the NYT (who never miss an opportunity to publish leaked intelligence from their "fellow travelers" in Govt that puts American lives at risk) had this to say today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/w...b3d92971e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Apparently, US Intelligence has a high level source who supplied the info causing their 180degree turn-about on Iran's WMD program as published in the latest NIE.

Um, "Curve Ball II- The sequel" perhaps?

Irony just doesn't cover it.

If you think this is "Curve Ball II", go back and read the story.

Here's the bottom line and this will be the bottom a year from now: George Bush tried to do with Iran what he did with Iraq, he fell flat on his *** doing it, and he torpedoed his own party even more in the process.

This story screams "Bush is a liar". Nothing in this story presents any other possiblity other than Bush was told, last August, the info had changed and he didn't bother following up. He's either a liar or a dangerous incompetent. IMO, he's both.