Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I'm sure we'll be seeing this little partisan wingnutter submit his resignation REAL soon.......
why? didn't you read the NIE? i think you cherry picked just now.
anyways, back to the issue, i can't think of anything consisting of more lagging indicators than global strategic intelligence gathering. can you?
whts funny is just what exactly happened in 2003 anyhow to make them think twice about going nuclear. the Iranians, i guess, took notice along with Quaddafi as well.
none of this would be an issue, the NIE's or aircraft carriers or UN Security Counsels, if they would just comply with the International community. plain and simple...but it's Iran, so...:rolleyes: they'll continue to do whatever it is they do and people will blame everyone but them. talk about the "status quo":rolleyes:
George Smiley
Fixed...
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
none of this would be an issue, the NIE's or aircraft carriers or UN Security Counsels, if they would just comply with the International community. plain and simple...but it's America, so...:rolleyes: they'll continue to do whatever it is they do and people will blame everyone but them. talk about the "status quo":rolleyes:
Q5echo
thats cute but people blame us for everything, unlike Iran.
George Smiley
quote:
Originally posted by Ahmadinejad
thats cute but people blame us for everything, unlike America.
George Smiley
I think there are enough Americans blindly defending anything their regime does and blaming everyone else for the world's ills for either statement to stand
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
I think there are enough Americans blindly defending anything their regime does and blaming everyone else for the world's ills for either statement to stand
really? is 30% enough? because thats where we "regime defenders" are at right now blaming the world for our problems.
thats great you hate America. Bravo. way to stand out from the crowd Georgie, but i'll let you in on a little secret. no one is scared less thinking we (Amerikkka) are gonna use nukes except the s that want to get them. i'm pretty sure the rest of the world would rather have it that way than the other way around.
Cyrus King
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
interesting that people put completely different levels of trust in american intelligence services when that service releases an analysis they want to agree with.
You shouldnt look at it that way.
I just was shocked that the US would release this new stance. Its not in their interests to do this.
Thats why i posted it. Its like the US turning its back on Israel.. its strange really.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
why? didn't you read the NIE?
I did.
(added in edit: it's misleading to say that I read the NIE in its entirety. This is finals week and I only had a chance to skim some of the juicy parts.)
quote:
i think you cherry picked just now.
By referring to what the DNI had said in contradiction? Oh wait, let me guess - since you believe in everything Bush says as gospel, I'm guessing you're believing that Bush was speaking in complete truth when he said this today:
quote:
Q Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was 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. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
........Q: Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
Several of those involved in preparing the new assessment said that when intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration on the intercepts, beginning in July, the policymakers expressed skepticism.
But of course Bush wouldn't have known anything about that, right?
Oh I know, let's put that quote in full context above:
quote:
Several of those involved in preparing the new assessment said that when intelligence officials began briefing senior members of the Bush administration on the intercepts, beginning in July, the policymakers expressed skepticism.
Several of the president's top advisers suggested the intercepts were part of a clever Iranian deception campaign, the officials said.
Intelligence officers then spent months examining whether the new information was part of a well-orchestrated ruse. Their effort included "Red Team" exercises in which groups of intelligence officers tried to punch holes in the new evidence, substantially delaying publication of the NIE.
The estimate noted that Iran continues to enrich uranium for a civil nuclear energy program. But the intelligence experts said they did not consider this a weapons program because it is being done at openly declared facilities under international supervision.
And you know what, I'm fine with that - test it out, try to punch holes in the intelligence to see if it's false. That's exactly what they should do.
But should this Administration continue saying these things while they're still attempting to punch holes in the intelligence which, I'm sure at about this time it's becoming obvious that holes could NOT be punched?:
quote:
“So 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 from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0/20071017.html
[Bush, 10/17/07]
Is it really still a threat when you have information that it may not be just that?
quote:
“Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. … The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3757406&page=1
[Cheney, 10/21/07]
That "present course" is what again? Because if there's information to the contrary that you're testing out, can you truly state this definitively?
quote:
“The problem is Iran, and Iran has not stepped back from trying to pursue a nuclear weapon, and — or reprocessing and enriching uranium, which would lead to a nuclear weapon.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20071026-6.html
[White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, 10/26/07]
But didn't your senior Administration officials possess information that you're currently testing which may clearly demonstrate otherwise? Again, is this an ethically truthful statement to give definitively?
quote:
“We’re in a position now, clearly, especially when we look at Iran, where it’s very, very important we succeed in our efforts, our national security efforts, to discourage the Iranians from enriching uranium and producing nuclear weapons.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0071109-11.html
[Cheney, 11/9/07]
And yet your boys have had information since July that may clearly demonstrate a lack of production on nukular weaponry, Dick. But pay no attention to his rhetoric, I suppose.
Considering such intelligence from the IAEA on Iraq's nukular arsenal (lack thereof), and now on Iran's capabilities, what do you say, Q? You think you guys might want to stop villifying, spying on, and not block the re-election (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/14/el.baradei/index.html) of a man who's been right all along?
quote:
whts funny is just what exactly happened in 2003 anyhow to make them think twice about going nuclear. the Iranians, i guess, took notice along with Quaddafi as well.
What's also "funny" is our Administration received an offer of negotiations from Iran back in 2003 that gave a lot of concessions on Iran's nukular program, yet for some reason it went widely ignored:
Funny that. One would think that if the Iranians were conceding so much that we'd take advantage of it.
But no one ever accused this Administration of utilizing an intelligent diplomacy "strategery".
quote:
none of this would be an issue, the NIE's or aircraft carriers or UN Security Counsels, if they would just comply with the International community. plain and simple...but it's Iran, so...:rolleyes: they'll continue to do whatever it is they do and people will blame everyone but them. talk about the "status quo":rolleyes:
I agree that they should comply, just like ALL countries that should comply with UN resolutions. I'm sure you agree that ALL countries should comply with ALL resolutions, right? Because we really need to be logically consistent here. I also agree with our sanctions as a consequence. What I do not agree with is the ratched up rhetoric for invasion and/or bomb attacks based on faulty intelligence, especially if we were to assume that this Administration had such intelligence since July.
Originally posted by Q5echo
really? is 30% enough? because thats where we "regime defenders" are at right now blaming the world for our problems.
thats great you hate America. Bravo. way to stand out from the crowd Georgie, but i'll let you in on a little secret. no one is scared less thinking we (Amerikkka) are gonna use nukes except the s that want to get them. i'm pretty sure the rest of the world would rather have it that way than the other way around.
s that want to get them = anyone we decide is deserving...
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What I do not agree with is the ratched up rhetoric for invasion and/or bomb attacks based on faulty intelligence, especially if we were to assume that this Administration had such intelligence since July.
Given the fact that the same exact situation led us to a war we are now currently in, with 0 repercussions for those involved...I can't say that this is surprising at all.
Depressing maybe...
Lebezniatnikov
I haven't seen people this fired up at the Administration since Bush pardoned Libby.
From the Politico:
quote:
When pressed about the possibility that the president was told new information existed but did not pursue or was not informed by his advisors as to the specific nature of that information, Senator Biden was typically blunt: "If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history and he is one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history."
And on Hardball:
This guy is on fire.
And if anybody is interested in playing a little game, compare the coverage of the new NIE on CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews and ask yourself... which of these three is not like the others?
