tinblimp Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin Stephen Crowley/The New York Times By MARK MAZZETTI Published: December 3, 2007 WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran delivering a speech in April at the nuclear plant in Natanz in observance of National Nuclear Day. The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy. The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates. But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.” The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.” Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program. Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings about the Iranian threat, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran’s nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” He said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy,” and called for a “a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran.” :::::::BULLSHIT ALERT::::: But the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.” “The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said. :::::::BULLSHIT ALERT:::::: The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program — an estimate that led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the report’s conclusions turned out to be wrong. Intelligence officials said that the specter of the botched 2002 N.I.E. hung over their deliberations over the Iran assessment, leading them to treat the document with particular caution. “We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ----------------------------- Bu-bu-butt....... 9/11!?!? islamofascistradicalextremism!?!?!?! muhammed muhammed allah jihad?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I don't know. I heard some things. Why take a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinblimp Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why take a chance? you are pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spatdrastik Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why is the concept that these people are capable of telling the truth so hard for some to grasp? The US gov lies, so I guess the staunchest supporters of it assume everyone else must lie too WMD's anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Why take a chance? Nukes are a gold plated Luger; its just a showpiece. You'd lose more by using it than you'd ever think of gaining. Any country that nukes Israel would get plastered by a western coalition. If the US were nuked, it would actually increase our military effectiveness in the ensuing conflict. The loss of life would be tiny compared with the amount of enlistees lining up to kick some Islamic ass. Plus, we'd have a Hiroshima or Oradour-sur-Glane like shrine and the solemn confidence of knowing we're the righteous ones and we only fight the good wars and yaddayaddawoofwoof. In any case, I'd rather leave preemptive wars to the Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. " So much for logic. *wipes tears away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringBender Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yeah, but Dubya aint buying it.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/ira...lear/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake of Shadows Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yeah, I caught part of Dubya's press conference. As to why he was saying such dire things about Iran after the NIE came out in August... he only heard of it last week. Lakey's interpretation-- either they didn't like the analysis so they re-analyzed it several times first... or Duh-bya reads reeaal s-l-o-w-l-y... or both. The news conference was painful... Dubya seemed to be saying... 'well, maybe they weren't doing that awful thing, but because they might at some time in the future actually know how to build a nuke-you-liar weapon, regardless of whether they do it or not, that means they're bad guys and we gotta continue with restrictive measures, etc. just in case... ' Aaargh. That sounds like shooting an unarmed man because he didn't put down his weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattmc1973 Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Yeah, but Dubya aint buying it.... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/ira...lear/index.html I've seen this movie before...Bush & Co insist a middle eastern country starting with "Ira" is dangerous, don't care what any published reports or intelligence says, push on as if saying it more makes it true, get us into trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Zeppnile Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 That sounds like shooting an unarmed man because he didn't put down his weapon. You are a great and faithful servant of the prophet Ms Lake of the Shadows. DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL! PRAISE BE TO THE FUNNY LOOKING GUY WITH THE LONG BEARD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Of course GWB isn't buying it. He's a lame duck President, and like his Father before him, all he can do now is reward the cronies responsible for putting him in office. How convenient to toss an arrow Iran's way and then watch the price of oil jump accordingly. Most experts think the true price of gas should be about $50 - $55 dollars a barrel. How else is Exxon-Mobil and the rest of the Texas thieves supposed to continue their record profit taking ? What an embarrassment to The United States. This absolute moron uses the Presidency to threaten World War III over some more lousy intel. Then he has the audacity to call a press conference that does nothing but prove what an absolute idiot he is. I don't care what party you belong to or what your political leanings are....if you buy into this guy's game you're an idiot Does anybody wonder why our word on the world stage is worth absolute crap ? Hey ! Let's hire Paul Wolf-face once more and give him an opportunity to diagnose and spin some more faulty intel ! You couldn't generate any less credibility if you were trying ! What a bunch of sad sad cronies. Watch....the bottom is now going to fall out of the price of gas. The same thing happened immediately after his Father left office in the early 90's. Within 6 months gas dropped a buck a gallaon, and it's going to happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The suspect provenance of the NIE report Ed Lasky The Wall Street Journal editorial that ran this morning echoes and expands upon suspicions first articulated by the New York Sun that the National Intelligence Estimate was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George Bush and transform US policy towards Iran. A dynamic is at work that will serve Iranian interests by throwing a wrench in plans to expand sanctions against it for its nuclear program; it also will serve to veto any plans to attack its nuclear facilities. The three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and "diplomacy" and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have "reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials". They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Tom Fingar was a State Department employee who was an expert on China and Germany -- he has no notable experience, according to his bio in the Middle East and its geopolitics. Vann Van Diepen is also a career State Department bureaucrat who, according to the New York Sun, is one of the State Department bureaucrats who want "revenge" for having their views regarding Iran ignored by the Bush Administration. He is now seeking to further his own agenda. As the Sun wrote in their editorial yesterday: Vann Van Diepen, one of the estimate's main authors, has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium. Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington. The bureaucrats may even think they are stopping another war. Vann Diepen also shares a lack of experience in dealing with Iran or the region. The third main author comes in for particular criticism in the Wall Street Journal editorial. Kenneth Brill served as the US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA). This is an agency that has served to enable Iranian's quest for nuclear weapons. The head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, has even been called a friend by the Iranian regime. As he should be, for he has been an enabler of its nuclear weapons program and has stiff-armed European Union diplomats who have worked to restrain Iran. Elbaredei and the IAEA have over-reached and now seek to control diplomatic negotiations with Iran -- a function that is beyond its mandate. Brill was apparently unwilling to stop this mission creep and put an end to Elbaradei's efforts to help Iran. Or, as the Wall Street Journal hints, maybe he was just incompetent. This hint comes from former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton's (who headed counter-proliferation efforts in the State Department previous to his UN posting) new book: For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull -- .'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Brill also has no previous history of experience dealing with Iran. (He graduated from Business School at Berkeley in 1973!). All three of the authors of this NIE study are former State Department employees (none of them are nuclear physicists). All who are familiar with the ways of Washington know that the State Department is a fourth branch of government -- at least in its own collective mind -- that seeks to forge its own policies which may often conflict with the policies desired by its putative boss, the President. Washington being Washington, this desire can manifest itself in ways fair and foul . As the Bush Administration winds down to its conclusion, perhaps these three authors are angling for positions in the new Administration (presumably a Democratic one). They may hope to be rewarded for their "analysis" since Democrats are already using this report for partisan gain. We have three State Department flexing their muscles to derail our policy towards Iran. This has apparently had a ripple effect, as our allies have expressed a belief that this NIE report will stop efforts to enact a new round of sanctions against Iran. Who gains? Iran. This is one more step that will be noted in the future that enabled Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal.* * Recent reports, by Kenneth Timmerman and others, indicate that a single human source may be responsible for the conclusions of the NIE. This would probably be a former aide to the Iranian defense minister and a retired general with long service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (recently categorized as a terrorist entity) who disappeared in Europe earlier in the year. One should recall the notorious Curveball -- also a human source -- whose "stories" led the CIA to conclude that Iraq had an active WMD program. Curveball lied and our use of him for intelligence has been widely castigated. Are we relying now on an Iranian with a long history of service to the Iran Revolutionary Guard for our intelligence? Could he be a plant to distort our intelligence? Has history repeated itself as a farce and as a tragedy? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/1...nce_of_the.html BTW, I've read the entire NIE report. It has more acronyms than most government BS I've read, but it is a bunch of BS from this respect: If it took us 4 years from the alledged late 2003 halt to nuke weapons program to figure it out, and 2 years to correct the 2005 report that thought it was still going forward, then how far behind the times is this assessment? And, the conclusions are qualified, hedged, and couched in terms that defy you to say they were "flat wrong" if Iran drops a big one on someone. Because they were "moderately certain" or similar words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigstickbonzo Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 DEATH TO AMERICA! More likely to occur because of Americans at the helm. They can jihad McDonald's all they like. Wendy's is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 And, the conclusions are qualified, hedged, and couched in terms that defy you to say they were "flat wrong" if Iran drops a big one on someone. "Paranoia strikes deep....". Great thoughts....now let's bomb the hell out of them, and then we'll all be safe. In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims? In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Dwight D. Eisenhower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 "Paranoia strikes deep....". Great thoughts....now let's bomb the hell out of them, and then we'll all be safe. In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims? In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Dwight D. Eisenhower “I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honour.” Neville Chamberlain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 “I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honour.” Neville Chamberlain Great ! Now all you have to do to finish the comparison is let us know who invaded whose foreign country with what justification ? In case you haven't noticed, John Wayne's not in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Aaargh. That sounds like shooting an unarmed man because he didn't put down his weapon. Now where's that vigorously nodding smilie when you need it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryingbluerain Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Why take a chance? Why indeed? "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Why indeed? "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," I'd love to see somebody stand up to the real threat that Ahmadinejad poses - instead of crying wolf about imagined threats - as Bush did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Of course GWB isn't buying it. He's a lame duck President, and like his Father before him, all he can do now is reward the cronies responsible for putting him in office. How convenient to toss an arrow Iran's way and then watch the price of oil jump accordingly. Most experts think the true price of gas should be about $50 - $55 dollars a barrel. How else is Exxon-Mobil and the rest of the Texas thieves supposed to continue their record profit taking ? What an embarrassment to The United States. This absolute moron uses the Presidency to threaten World War III over some more lousy intel. Then he has the audacity to call a press conference that does nothing but prove what an absolute idiot he is. I don't care what party you belong to or what your political leanings are....if you buy into this guy's game you're an idiot Does anybody wonder why our word on the world stage is worth absolute crap ? Hey ! Let's hire Paul Wolf-face once more and give him an opportunity to diagnose and spin some more faulty intel ! You couldn't generate any less credibility if you were trying ! What a bunch of sad sad cronies. Watch....the bottom is now going to fall out of the price of gas. The same thing happened immediately after his Father left office in the early 90's. Within 6 months gas dropped a buck a gallaon, and it's going to happen again. I think you are quite right about this. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Just allow me to agree in the simplest fashion. (pardon the strong verbage that lies ahead..) Bush is a big fucking idiot. An asshat of the lowest order. And if we had another 4 years of this piece of shit, you can guarantee we'd all get an express ticket to the Hereafter. That is, after we ALL go broke. Sorry for the rant, but it felt sooooo right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Just allow me to agree in the simplest fashion. (pardon the strong verbage that lies ahead..) Bush is a big fucking idiot. An asshat of the lowest order. And if we had another 4 years of this piece of shit, you can guarantee we'd all get an express ticket to the Hereafter. That is, after we ALL go broke. Sorry for the rant, but it felt sooooo right. Thanks for saying that for me, Rock Action. I feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Thanks for saying that for me, Rock Action. I feel the same way. My pleasure. it's been building up over the years, you know? "If it's in ya, it's gotta come out!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 I'd love to see somebody stand up to the real threat that Ahmadinejad poses - instead of crying wolf about imagined threats - as Bush did.Dont worry, we'll have invaded and bombed that country to shit within, 5-10 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dont worry, we'll have invaded and bombed that country to shit within, 5-10 years from now. Why not - after all that strategy did a lot of good in Afghanistan and Iraq. Alternatively we could just ask them to accept a powerless pro-Western puppet government and otherwise carry on as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.