Are you saying it is the same type of misinformation that Bush used to justify invading Iraq, before he took the stance that Hussein was a naughty man? Possibly. Of course, that would mean you have to believe that Bush was given misinformation and that blows out the Bush lied theory. It is simply too early to say, and I hope this isn't true. I hope Iran did stop their weapon's program in 2003. But if this is false, I hope they find out soon because the only thing worse than Iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons is for them to do so while we think they aren't. Fingar's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on July 11, 2007. Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons. A heard a loooooong retired CIA agent asked about this newly released information. He made some very good points. Mainly that highly classified, current information of this kind would never be released...so classified and secret would it be. It could be, he said, nothing more than a low-level diplomat conversing at a embassy party in Jordan with another low-level diplomat who in turn shares some info with a State Dept. person..... only to later be written up in a document and suddenly becomes gospel. (Sound familiar?) It was very discouraging to listen and hear how inept some of the people are. Also, it was pointed out that it "supposedly" ended in 2003 which gives how many years in wh... Interesting that this NIE is "questionable" when the last time around the other one on Iraq was a "slam dunk". Of course if you couple this report (which was held back by the VPs office for over a year, so its not something entirely new) with the IAEA report, the picture become clear, no nukes from Iran and no reason to bomb them. Thats what has the neocons all in a twitter, they said the same thing about the IAEA report as well. Truth does not become them. Actually, Iran stopping their nuclear weapons production in 2003 would be a good thing for conservative. First, we don't hope for the worst for our country based on political polls. Second, it would mean that the invasion of Iraq resulted in not only taking Saddam out of power, but ending the nuclear programs of both Iran and Libya. I would much rather this report be right than be wrong. I just wonder what they found out in the past five months that has them singing an entirely different tune? What is the connection between Iraq and Iran exactly? Conservatives may not want a war, but the neocons like Frank Gaffney, Stephen Hadley and their ilk are cut front a different cloth. Just listen what they are saying. What significant event can you think of that happened in 2003 which would convince two countries that continuing to develop WMDs might not be in their best interest? So basically its post hoc ergo propter hoc, because the program was stopped in 2003 and the invasion happened in 2003 then one follows the other. Of course you also ignore the cooperation behind the scenes between Iran and the U.S. in Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance been supported by both Iran and the U.S.) and the offer made by the Iranian leadership shortly there after through the Swiss, one that was dismissed out of hand by none other than John Bolton. Its really funny that all those people that dodged and weaved the questions about the heavily doctored NIE that lead in part to the war in Iraq and now are calling for all manner of investigations, the same people with zero credibility ... Its really funnyI'll tell you what's really funny. The same people who have done nothing but question the intel community now get ONE single NIE that favors them politically and they flip sides and decide that our intel must be infallible. But no matter how either side has reacted the question still remains, what is happened in less than five months that has made the lead author of this NIE do a 180 on his opinion of the Iraqi weapons program? Actually. the question where not directed at the intel community, the original NIE on Iraq was shock full of useful caveats, caveats that did not survive the "revision" process of the Iraq study group and others. So scapegoating the intelligence analyst is not the way to go. Also some sources say that this document has existed for over a year, not the last 5 months, so the question is, why did it not come out sooner and why did the President make that ridiculous WW3 speech when this was out there. And its not the NIE alone, the AIEI report was out earlier and they have a better track record (they where right about Iraq to) than this Administration. Pop for the discussion. What document? If you are speaking of the NIE, then why did it's author say just five months ago that Iran still had an active weapons program? From what I have read, they have a high confidence that the program was shut down for a period of time, but only a moderate confidence that it isn't operating today. They base part of this on photographs taken this year that lead them to believe the Iranians are having a hard time enriching the uranium (not that they aren't still trying). They also say they don't believe they have restarted the weapons program as of mid 2007, but that they could restart it at any time. So it sounds to me like they are having some difficulty enriching the uranium ri... Yes the NIE report is indeed questionable, since it was delayed for over a year because Cheney wanted it redacted to preserve the neocon propaganda about Iran. Bottom line: Iran is no nuclear threat. Period, end of argument. Deal with it. Ya, I know. It is all them damn neocons and Jooos fault... Nice of you to thrown in some presumed bigotry on those that debate you. I have seen his other posts and replies and he blames everything on Bush, the neocons, and the zionists. Don't really feel like playing games with the tinfoil hat types today. |
View the Top Clips from December 5, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
