Maybe you should learn to keep score - to evaluate people based on their track record. A failure in this department might help explain why you continue to lend credence to the paranoid ramblings of people who have consistently been proven wrong in their every assertion for the last 7 years.
basso, I just heard. I'm so sorry to hear that you won't be getting a war. You'll get through it. We're here for you. -bucket
By overhyping the threat of Iran it is defending the President's rhetoric. The reaction to the NIE was natural America's 16 intel organizations looked at the evidence and found that Iran halted a nuclear weapons project. We know the President found out about it in August and yet he continued to hype an Iranian threat talking about nuclear holocaust, and WWIII. Most people who are played like that get upset at their leader for doing that. It is natural. It doesn't have to do with politics at all. When a leader is dishonest with the people, and tries to manipulate them by scaring them, everyone should throw the most reliable evidence back in the leaders face. The leader and those who support them including some who wrote articles posted by you, have a horrible track record when it comes to interpreting the evidence in these situations. That's putting it nicely. furthermore the threat being talked about switched once the new information came out. They still wanted a threat, so they just tweaked it when the facts changed. They didn't let the facts determine the threat or level of threat, they just slightly changed the threat and tried to sell it as scary even more.
Thanks again for highlighting what you find significant. You may not like my reply. (surprised? ) For some time, the conventional storyboard drawn for the Bush presidency has been that the U.S. is led by a bumbling Elmer Fudd, who outlandishly overestimates the danger from such imagined threats as Saddam Hussein, Syria or Iran's mysterious-looking mullahs. Prominent political figures here design their comments on world events to fit inside cartoon dialogue balloons. John Edwards, after the NIE story broke, denounced the Bush-Cheney "rush to war with Iran." Sen. Harry Reid demanded a "diplomatic surge." These wide, all-or-nothing swings may serve the melodramatic needs of politics and the press, but they don't much help an electorate that will vote a year from now to send a new U.S. president out into the world. With or without the NIE's opinion of Iran's nuclear program, that world is still a dangerous place. Let's assume for argument's sake that Iran did stop its nuke program in 2003. Why, then, in 2006 was Iran performing test flights of the Shabab-2 and Shabab-3 ballistic missiles, the latter with a range of some 1,200 miles? Commenting at the time, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Iranians "are not unaware that the security environment is one in which if they actually were to do something, Iran would suffer greatly." But as of this week, they might not. I agree that Bush has been "a bumbling Elmer Fudd, who outlandishly overestimates the danger from such imagined threats as Saddam Hussein, Syria or Iran's mysterious-looking mullahs." As for what Edwards and Reid said, Bush has given every indication that war with Iran is very much on the table, and given the NIE, using "rush to war with Iran," after Bush used World War III rhetoric, knowing the results of the NIE, doesn't appear as hyperbole at all. And given the pathetic diplomatic record of the Rice/Bush during these last several years, neither does Reid's comment. Iran testing long range missiles? I'm not in the least surprised. If a nation has been called a member of "The Axis of Evil," has been treated as a pariah by Bush and company, has an invasion and occupation force on its border, a massive fleet in the Gulf, with American and American allies bases in the region, is it any wonder that they would want a way to hit back, if they are attacked? Personally, I have no problem with the US Navy showing its guns in the Gulf, or with US bases in the region, and if Iran doesn't like it, tough. But there is no surprise there with the Iranian development of missiles. What there is here are opinions from a columnist attempting to create a solid link to an atomic weapons program via the missile development. I think that is worth discussing, but not in the way he goes about it. Iran developing atomics? They should be prevented from doing so, given the current regime, by diplomatic means if at all possible. Given the NIE, you use those means until given reasons not to. We don't have those reasons now. This column? It is a hit piece aimed at the Democratic Party. As simple as that. Missile defense? If we have one that works, which I'm not at all convinced of, certainly you must deploy it. Show a Democratic President a missile defense system that works and he/she will deploy it. Trim Bush!
France and Germany think the NIE is irrelevant. [rquoter]PARIS, Dec. 6 — The leaders of France and Germany said Thursday that Iran remained a danger and that other nations needed to keep up the pressure over its nuclear program despite a United States intelligence report’s conclusion that Tehran was no longer building a bomb. Speaking at a joint news conference at the Élysée Palace, President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel said they had not changed their minds despite the findings of the American intelligence estimate released Monday, which some believed would have eroded support for tougher new sanctions. Their remarks came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won the backing of NATO foreign ministers on Thursday for new United Nations sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. “The threat exists,” said Mr. Sarkozy, one of the staunchest defenders of the new sanctions. “Notwithstanding the latest elements, everyone is fully conscious of the fact that there is a will among the Iranian leaders to obtain nuclear weapons.” “I don’t see why we should renounce sanctions,” he added. “What made Iran budge so far has been sanctions and firmness.” Mrs. Merkel stopped short of explicitly mentioning sanctions, but also appeared determined to support current negotiations in the Security Council on the issue. “I think that we are in a process, and that Iran continues to pose a danger,” she said. The National Intelligence Estimate made public on Monday said that Tehran had frozen its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But it also said that the country was continuing to build up a technical ability that could be used both for civilian and military purposes. Both leaders urged the continuation of a strategy that combined pressure with dialogue. In comments apparently directed at Russia and China, two members of the Security Council that have been reluctant to endorse new sanctions, Mr. Sarkozy urged that there be a coherent position, a view Mrs. Merkel said she shared. At a working dinner with Ms. Rice at NATO headquarters in Brussels, the NATO foreign ministers accepted the Bush administration’s argument that Iran remains a threat, the Belgian foreign minister, Karel De Gucht, told reporters. “On Iran, everybody around the table agreed we should not change our position,” he said. Ms. Rice will see the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, on Friday. Israeli officials say their intelligence indicates that Iran is still working aggressively to build nuclear arms.[/rquoter]
deck- how does it feel to be part of 18%? [rquoter]Just 18% Believe Iran has Stopped Nuclear Weapons Development Program Friday, December 07, 2007 Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women (see crosstabs). The survey was conducted following release of a government report saying that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States. Only 19% disagree while 14% are not sure. Fifty-nine percent (59%) believe that the United States should continue sanctions against Iran. Twenty percent (20%) disagree and 21% are not sure. Forty-seven percent (47%) believe it is Very Likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the future and another 34% believe Iran is Somewhat Likely to do so. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of liberal voters believe that Iran has stopped its weapons program but 54% disagree. Among conservatives, just 8% believe Iran has stopped and 81% disagree.[/rquoter]
yeah, these people polled know about what's going on in Iran than our Intelligence agency. you win the prize, utter brilliance
Wow. Basso really is shameless - I mean the guy goes on and on for years ranting like an idiot about how french and germans are feckless anti-semite communists douchemonkeys for not joining in the fun tat is Iraq, then he grabs onto a french public opinion poll and treats it as gospel. He is SO BAD at arguing - I mean, you couldn't draw it up to be worse as far as somebody who just switiches positions every 10 seconds no matter how inconsistent. I don't thnk he is a serious poster for that reason, he might just be a joke poster like a trader jorge, but with a much worse sense of humor, not that jorge has a good one.
More insane ramblings by John Bolton. When you begin to consider the release of information to be an overt revolutionary threat to the ruling administration, that says quite a bit more about the administration than the facts. In fact, attacking and denounching the release of information as an political revolutionary action sounds quite a bit like something that Hugo Chavez would do. [rquoter] Bolton calls report on Iran quasi-putsch The former ambassador to the U.N. says the the latest intelligence estimate is meant not to inform but to influence policy. BERLIN — U.S. intelligence services attempted to influence political policy by releasing their assessment that concludes Iran halted its nuclear arms program in 2003, said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Der Spiegel magazine quoted Bolton on Saturday as alleging that the aim of the National Intelligence Estimate, which contradicts his and President Bush's position, was not to provide the latest intelligence on Iran. "This is politics disguised as intelligence," Bolton was quoted as saying in an article appearing in this week's edition. Bolton described the report, released Monday, as a "quasi-putsch" by the intelligence agencies, Der Spiegel said. The intelligence estimate said Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago but was continuing to develop the technical means that could be used to produce a bomb. This contradicted Bush's assertion that Iran was actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The hawkish Bolton has long criticized Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, who has said that there was no hard evidence that Tehran was pursuing nuclear weapons. ElBaradei said the report "somewhat vindicated" Iran, which has denied allegations that it was secretly trying to build nuclear weapons. It says its nuclear program is to generate electricity. [/rquoter]
Interesting tidbit on the NIE from CBS News: [rquoter] Behind The NIE By Kevin Drum Dec 9, 2007 (Political Animal) BEHIND THE NIE....I don't know if you'd call this backlash or irony or something completely different, but can you guess at the ultimate source of last week's NIE concluding that Iran halted work on its nuclear bomb program in 2003? Turns out it was largely the result of a CIA program called "Brain Drain," which sought to persuade Iranian defections from the ranks of its nuclear program, which in turn was part of a "major intelligence push against Iran" ordered by the White House two years ago. Greg Miller has the story in the LA Times today: [rquoter] Intelligence gathered as part of that campaign provided much of the basis for a U.S. report released last week that concluded the Islamic Republic had halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003. ....The White House ordered the stepped-up effort in hopes of gathering stronger evidence that Tehran was making progress toward building a nuclear bomb. The Bush administration "wanted better information" on Iran's nuclear programs, said a U.S. official briefed on the expanded collection efforts. "I can't imagine that they would have ever guessed that the information they got would show that the program was shut down," the official said. [/rquoter] And why did we need a "major intelligence push" in the first place? According to Miller, it's because Bush dismantled the Iran Task Force set up during Bill Clinton's administration in order to focus all his attention on — surprise! — Iraq. "When Bush came in, they were totally disinterested in Iran," said a former CIA official who held a senior position at the time. "It went from being a main focus to everything being switched to Iraq." Great stuff. Still, once "Brain Drain" produced its unexpected (and unwelcome) results, couldn't Bush simply have buried it? Why release it publicly at all? Via Matt Yglesias, former spook Pat Lang provides his take: [rquoter] The "jungle telegraph" in Washington is booming with news of the Iran NIE. I am told that the reason the conclusions of the NIE were released is that it was communicated to the White House that "intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary" if the document's gist were not given to the public. Translation? Someone in that group would have gone to the media "on the record" to disclose its contents. [/rquoter] That would have been quite a sight, wouldn't it? [/rquoter]
