0
   

Iran's illegal Nuclear Weapons Program

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:00 pm
Digby

Succinct as always... Ooops

Quote:
by digby

I can't wait to see how the Iran hawks spin this.


BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Report Says Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003


I suspect they will just drag out their old tried and true tropes against against the intelligence agencies, perhaps even start up a new Team B project. In fact, they'll likely have to dredge up how the CIA supposedly screwed up the Iraq WMD assessment, in which case we should bring out the Orville Reddenbacker. It should be quite a show.

But time runs short for this administration. I don't know for sure that this means we can breathe a little bit easier, but I think it probably does. It's hard to see that Bush could push the button with this kind of assessment in public.

Of course, they are nuts...


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:05 pm
...of course they are nuts...

a worrying assessment there
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:07 pm
Of course, now that heroic prognosticator and truth-teller Paul Wolfowitz is returning to State, we could shortly find that the Iranians have developed the technology to turn stolen white christian and jewish babies into nerve gas that is being stockpiled in biblical proportions.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:10 pm
Well if they had any in Iran, I think thats prolly only the tip of the iceberg.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:12 pm
Huge stockpiles...HUGE...on the far side of the moon, Curveball says.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:29 pm
And let's note that this report was completed last year (2006). These were some of the lies that followed. Really quite a repugnant crowd of humans, these people.

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." [Bush, 10/17/07]

"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." [Cheney, 10/21/07]

"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." [White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, 10/26/07]

"We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace." [Bush, 11/7/07]

"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." [Cheney, 11/9/07]

"We are convinced that they are developing nuclear weapons." [Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, 11/13/07]

http://thinkprogress.org/
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:33 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure but is continuing to enrich uranium, which means it may still be able to develop a weapon between 2010 and 2015, senior intelligence officials said Monday.

That finding, in a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, is a change from two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear capability and was continuing its weapons development program. It suggests that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic pressure, the officials said.


source
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:41 pm
Here's their spin:


Today’s National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen.

But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem. The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the Administration has been trying to do. And it suggests that the President has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran.

The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran — with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure — and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution.

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 02:56 pm
yup
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 03:30 pm
Just found the source for deb's quote...Hadley, who else?
Quote:
Statement By Nat. Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 10:05 am
Press Release: The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Today's National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.

The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically - without the use of force - as the Administration has been trying to do.

And it suggests that the President has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran.

The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran - with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure - and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution.

ENDS
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0712/S00209.htm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 03:35 pm
Wingers across the net are pissed today. They see this as an anti-Bush faction in the intelligence agencies trying to prevent him from 'doing his job' and starting another war.

There's also the fact that we can add many, many new statements to the 'known lies' list by the Bush admin. Per Think Progress..

Quote:


Lies. They have known for a long time that Iran represents no true threat to the US or Israel. Yet they continue to use the specter of a nuclear Iran in order to whip of fear - and joy - of war amongst their followers. Reprehensible!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 03:40 pm
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2972457#2972457
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 03:40 pm
Gyargh, thanks

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 03:56 pm
What do you folks suppose might happen if a new president were to order the Pentagon to immediately begin planning to close down the permanent US military facilities built or being built in Iraq?

In early to mid 2003, a US general mentioned that an undecided aspect of the Iraq project was establishing just what size of permanent footprint the US ought to have in Iraq. I posted that here at the time.

Rather obviously, it was entirely relevant to the proposals (such as from the AEI) which held that the US ought to take the opportunity (after the decline of the USSR) to dominate the world and knock down any power or potential power which might seek to challenge US dominance. And, equally obviously, it was relevant to the whole set of issues related to ensuring access to and control of the oil resources of the middle east.

Oil and permanent bases, controlled by the US and for the purposes of the US, remain two significant matters which the American press will almost never touch.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 04:35 pm
so several posts ago

I said he would say this

how did I know

how did I know Utd would stuff Fulham?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 04:41 pm
We bow down before you, exalted one.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 04:53 pm
Thats very kind

now back to work there is a couple of hours left by my calculation.


Smile

isnt it interesting that the bombers and nuclear-fetishists have gone very quiet?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 04:57 pm
You phucked up, exalted one.

It would be "are hours left". Apparently you is on graveyard shift again.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 05:34 pm
blatham wrote:
You phucked up, exalted one.

It would be "are hours left". Apparently you is on graveyard shift again.
quite right. Either graveyard shift or gin and noilly pratt...same thing really

anyhooe goode nighte ande fare ye welle frome olde Londone Towne
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 05:45 pm
Per TPM, wisdom from Josh Marshall:

Quote:
12.03.07 -- 6:05PM // link
First, Do No Harm

I haven't had a chance yet to weigh in on today's news about the IC's apparent conclusion that the Iranians shuttered their nuclear program in 2003. But it's awfully big news. There's a secondary, though still very interesting question, of just why the NIE findings were released at all, and what intra-administration in-fighting might be behind it. But it shows us once again, for anyone who needed showing, that everything this administration says on national security matters should be considered presumptively not only false, but actually the opposite of what is in fact true, until clear evidence to the contrary becomes available. They're big liars. And actually being serious about the country's security means doing everything possible to limit the amount of damage they can do over the next fourteen months while they still control the US military and the rest of the nation's foreign policy apparatus.

--Josh Marshall


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:47:02