Is it any wonder (America) rejects you first?

The ongoing debate re the new NIE provides a useful contrast to the difference between the way republicans and democrats view the world, security, and politics. in large measure the debate on the republican side has been focused on whether the report itself is credible. no one wants a war with iran, but neither does anyone want a nuclear armed iran. if the report cannot, or should not, be trusted, it's value as a risk assessment tool is nil.

on the democratic side, the report is taken at face value, and the debate has been about "what did the president know, and when did he know it?" this contrasts mightily with the furor over previous NIEs which showed the exact opposite, which democrats rejected w/o considering it's merits.

as John Bolton writes in today's WaPo the differences between the two documents are less in the evidence they draw on, and more in the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

even the Times and the IAEA have expressed their doubts. that democrats have used this report to pummel the president, rather than judge the report on its merits shows yet again that the democratic party is not serious about national security, and they will continue to be rejected at the national polls until that changes.

 

sam, i used to think you were intelligent enough to grasp the critical difference i'n describing, but now i'm not so sure. and i'm equally befuddled as to how you could have such complete confidence in the report, and be so blase about the possibility of an iranian nuke.

here's one small example of what bothers me about the report. it should bother any responible citizen, regardless of party affiliation. that you and your fellow dem travelers just sneer at **** likes this, just proves the point i made in my opening post.

[rquoter]Thomas Fingar, NIE author, in 2001: For those seeking nuclear weapons, ‘access to fissile material is a critical impediment’

Thomas Fingar, one of the three principal authors of the new and controversial National Intelligence Estimate, makes my point for me -- or at least he made the point in 2001.

The most difficult thing a trouble-maker has to do to make an atomic bomb, he said six and a half years ago, is obtain the highly enriched uranium (or plutonium) for the weapon.

Yet Fingar concludes in the new NIE report that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. He reaches this conclusion despite knowing that Iran today is obtaining highly enriched uranium by producing it IN PLAIN SIGHT.

‘Difficult ... to produce.’ Fingar, deputy director for analysis to the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, testified Feb. 13, 2001, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

“[A]lthough the basic understanding of nuclear weapons physics is widespread, nuclear weapons are, fortunately, the most difficult kind to produce or acquire. Access to fissile material is a critical impediment.”

The “critical impediment” is finding the highly enriched uranium, which a nuclear device can split with devastating effect. At this moment, Iran’s theocracy has at least 3,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, producing a bomb’s critical ingredient.

Of, course, the mullahs say the enriched uranium is for nuclear reactors to make electricity. But considering how Fingar and the others contributing to the NIE agree that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program before 2003, what makes them think with “high confidence” or even “moderate confidence” that Iran’s regime truly has halted the program?

‘Determined to develop.’ Just four months ago, Fingar told the House Armed Services Committee:

“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.”

What happened between then -- July 11 -- and three days ago, when the NIE declared the Iranian regime probably stopped the weapons program four years ago?

Short of mental telepathy, how can our intelligence community conclude that the Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, isn’t pursuing a nuclear weapon?

Secret ‘military notes.’ There is some evidence supporting the NIE. Apparently, in August of this year, intelligence services obtained the minutes of conversations and deliberations of Iranian military officials. The “military notes” indicate these military officials were angry that their superiors cut off work on fitting a nuclear warhead onto an Iranian missile.

Exactly how long does it take to draw up and build a shell capable of carrying an atomic bomb atop a missile? Iran already has launched conventional warheads on its missiles. If Iran has the nuclear bomb design -- and most in the intelligence community assume Iran does have it -- cradling it in a nose-cone is the least of the ayatollah’s problems.

Based on the “military notes” from Iran, the NIE finds the weapons program has been inactive. Why? The Iranian officials in the “military notes” discussions obviously weren’t the ones who made the decision on the nuclear program; otherwise they wouldn’t have been complaining so “bitterly,” as The New York Times puts it.

No hint of a reason. If the program was shut down, what was the reason? Says The Times:

[A]ccording to the intelligence and government officials, they [the notes] give no hint of why Iran’s leadership decided to halt the covert effort.

So it’s possible the ayatollah and then-President Mohammad Khatami told most of Iran’s military leaders in 2003 that the program was on hold, when in fact a small group still was moving full-speed ahead on the warhead design.

Even if the design has been suspended four years, note that the intelligence agencies also say Iran had been working on nuclear weapons from the 1980s to 2003. In the 1940s, it took the U.S. four years to build an atomic bomb, and then we had no idea which design would work -- or if it would work at all. With all the time Iran has had, its design work could be complete.

‘Come clean.’ That’s why President Bush said yesterday that Iran’s regime has to “come clean.” He said:

“It is clear from the latest NIE that the Iranian government has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions, especially the covert nuclear weapons program pursued until the fall of 2003, which the Iranian regime has yet to acknowledge.

“The Iranians have a strategic choice to make. They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment program and come to the table and negotiate, or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people. The choice is up to the Iranian regime.”

Meanwhile, as Russia and China point to Fingar’s new NIE as proof that Tehran is nothing to worry about, Iran has thousands of centrifuges spinning, enriching uranium, overcoming the “critical impediment.”

Frank Warner[/rquoter]

 

thanks deckard, for proving my point.