Hambergler

Bush told reporters that he was told of "new information" about Iran in August during a briefing by Adm. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence.

"He didn't tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze," the president said. He said he wasn't briefed about the new information until the new intelligence report was prepared last week.

The Democratic presidential candidates were incredulous that Bush did not know about the assessment's new finding.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called that explanation "unbelievable."

"Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?" Biden asked in a conference call with reporters.

__________________

Kerostasis

Actually, although the article linked at the start doesnt mention the language of the original report, according to what I've been hearing from other sources:

The report doesn't really say Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, it says the existence of such a program is "plausible but unlikely", using the type of language that allows the report to be later proclaimed as "correct" regardless of which way the actual facts come out. The level of certainty expressed in this report is pretty low.

__________________

Steeler

The level of certainty of any intelligence on Iran is pretty low, but that doesn't stop politicians and saber-rattlers from declaring them the foremost threat facing the world today and demanding immediate bombing.

__________________

leejo

What level of certainty do you think is appropriate when we're talking about nukes and dealing with a person who speaks of wiping an ally off the face of the earth?

We know they have a nuclear program. We know that they have refused to let UN inspectors have access to the program. We know they had a weapons program. The 2005 NIE report said "with high certainty" the program was active. The 2007 report says "with high certainty" that the program was halted in 2003. I wonder if the 2009 report will say "with high certainty" that it was started again in 2005. That's the pattern, right?

The Iranian regime has repeatedly shown its hostility toward us and I would prefer that they not have nukes. Someone in this thread mocked our concern about Iran ("they're different from us omg!"). I hope the reason for such a statement is that person wasn't alive when these same people in power stormed our embassy and held our people hostage for a year. They aren't messing around with us in Iraq either - I wonder how many of our dead there have Iran to thank.

So it's interesting that news that Iran isn't seeking nukes isn't so much seen as good news for America by those who are waving this report around and cheering. It's seen as "bad news" for Bush, haha, in your face neocons. WTF? Do you ever think about anything larger than your little political games?

So yeah, I hope THIS report's "high certainty" means more than the LAST report's "high certainty". That would be good.

AMosely

I see your point Kerostasis, but it's called an 'intelligence estimate' for a reason. The main issue here is that this administration has no credibility anymore. It has been proven that they manipulated intelligence to serve pre-established goals and cited sources who were known liars (see 'Curveball').

I'm actually more concerned about Cheney (via Bush) legally justifying a military attack on Iran than I am about Iran's nuclear ambitions. There is documented evidence that the Bush administration is at least planning for action. Iran could very well eventually go the way of North Korea in terms of diplomacy, but this administration could easily cut it short out of pure fear and speculation by cherry-picking intelligence and ignoring better judgement and the will of the people and their representatives.

I offer up two pieces of documentary evidence:
'Cheney's Law' and 'Showdown With Iran'

leejo

Well I guess that's it in a nutshell.

CingularDuality

C'mon, man. Read what you just wrote. That's insane.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

AMosely

Yes it is. Iran's nuclear ambitions (and that's all they are at this point) can be controlled through diplomacy or they can be ignited through war. You (along with a fraction of the republican right) are advocating the latter, and I'm advocating the former. So yes, I am very concerned about unilateral action on the part of the American executive branch once again fanning the flames of terror based on their own fears. It's not solely up to them to decide how this plays out, and the decision to attack should certainly not be based on holes in an NIE - surely we've learned that lesson from the recent war in Iraq, have we not?

In response to Cing, I don't believe this to be insane. The fastest course to a nuclear war with Iran (not to mention increased terrorist activity throughout the world) is to launch an unprovoked attack in the near future. These governments and their dictators launch these programs out of fear and their desire to defend themselves - at least this is the recent case in Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. What better way to validate those fears than to attack? My viewpoint may be insane if we had credible evidence that Iran had nuclear weapons already or was even manufacturing them. We do not. In fact, there is evidence that they do not and are not. Attacking them now would only serve to guarantee the development of these weapons in the future.

Look at the example of Israel, who has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's (though officially undocumented, this is widely accepted as truth). Look at all of the opportunities since then that they would have had an opportunity to use them. We need to overcome the fear and start looking at the human side of the nuclear equation - airstrikes and ground wars prevent nothing and solve nothing.

Switchcraft

North Korea was developing nukes for years before Bush took office, so I don't know why I've seen two references in this thread that seem to point the finger at Bush for that. "Diplomacy" in that case meant give them something in return for no enforcement of their side of the bargain.

If we accept this new NIE as "true", (something the IAEA isn't so far willing to do, btw), then we also accept that at least until 2003 Iran DID have a nuclear weapons development program, and it is currently halted. Not gone, not dismantled, halted. And they are continuing to enrich uranium and refuse to deal.

I don't see any right-wingers in this thread advocating the immediate attack of Iran in this thread, but I think the simultaneous implication that Bush is responsible for North Korean treachery, and Iran's desire for nukes, as well as the biggest threat to peace in the Iranian situation, is a bit of a stretch. North Korea is dealing with us MORE fairly than they did under the impotency of the framework in the 90s. And Iran, if contrary to the view of a lot of other intelligence organizations, has actually halted weapons development, that is a positive step. But it is Iran's responsibility to negotiate now, too, and I wish the left was a little more willing to hold Iran accountable for Iranian actions with the same gusto that it seems to want to hold Bush accountable for Carter's failure.

FatCobra

If you fail to realize what you just said is crazy then...... you're crazy.

AMosely

For those calling me crazy, how much do you know about Cheney's record and Iran's ambitions other than what you've gotten from news outlets and White House statements? Did anyone take the time to watch and read the interviews in the two documentaries I posted? How familiar are you with Israeli history, and can you describe the differences and relationships between Judaisim, Israel and Zionism? The issues are more dynamic than you may think.

Specifically, read and view the segments on sticking points in negotiations (chapter 5) and diplomacy vs. military action (chapter 6). There is room for diplomacy here.

Just try and see the broader picture here. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'd hope you could at least see my point.

AMosely

This is why I believe that Cheney-backed/justified military strike is currently more threatening than Iran's halted nuclear stance. A significant part of the Iranian population doesn't support nuclear weaponry. Given time and eventual regime change their nuclear weapons persuit could remain permanently stalled. Military action, even if successful at destroying nuclear assets, would polarize the population and serve as a catalyst for future hatred, fear and destructive ambition against not just Israel but Europe and America as well.

Just think about it. What exactly are people fighting for? The right to exist. Though we believe we fight in the name of freedom and its preservation, it is almost always perceived as imperialism, no matter how surgical the strike or humanitarian the mission. Policymakers must take this into account when weighing options, and I don't think the current executive does this very much if at all.

leejo

I for one am not advocating war with Iran. If the goal is to enjoy a world without Iranian nuclear weapons, then it seems to me that this report should be received by all with some relief and some skepticism. The fact remains, as Switchcraft pointed out, that these contradictory "high confidence" NIE estimates indicate that there was a program in place and now it's just sitting there waiting. Waiting for the civilian program to produce enough enriched uranium? Waiting for the political environment to shift? No-one knows because Iran isn't being exactly cooperative with the UN.

I really think that some people dislike and mistrust Bush and Cheney so much that they're saying some truly stupid and dangerous things. It's too bad.

AMosely

More stupid and dangerous than the things that Bush and Cheney have already done or are about to do? And why is that too bad? Are we not supposed to question mistakes?

I'm glad you're not advocating war with Iran, but you do realize that some in the executive are, don't you? That's what I am getting at here - that concerns me more right now than what Iran is doing.

Steeler

So to sum up the past few exchanges: other people's opinions are insane, crazy, stupid, and dangerous, and mine are correct. Got it.

I have heard this spun every which way but out since the story broke. The NIE repudiates the Bush doctrine (whatever that is). It supports the doctrine's further use as policy. It shows that getting tough gets results. It shows that getting tough is childish and unnecessary to get results. It was leaked by the CIA to discredit Bush. It was leaked by Bush to send a coded message to Iran. Iran has a greater than 1% chance of having a nuke, so we should bomb them. Iran has less than a 2% chance of having a nuke so we should wait a few years, and THEN bomb them.

We are a nation of scared, petty children. All of us.

__________________