See those round things bouncing off into the distance? That would be the wheels coming off the Bush Administrations attempt to bounce 1000lb bombs off the top of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's head.
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which collates the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies, have issued a report that Iran has no nuclear weapons programme.
"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," it said.
The gnashing of teeth in the Bush and Cheney house must of been deafening as their efforts to convince the World that Iran was on the brink of unleashing nuclear Armageddon on us all fell flatter than a sumo wrestlers armchair cushion.
Bush and his vice-president have been forcibly claiming that Tehran is bent on
achieving a nuclear weapon, with the president even warning in October of the risk of a third world war if action was not taken soon.
With Bush today telling a press conference that he had been aware of this information since August, it throws up two very interesting thoughts.
Firstly, why was the USA, Britain and France pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran a few weeks ago and warning that "A wait-and-see approach is not an option" if they knew, or at the least Bush did, that Iran was not building nuclear weapons? Also to be considered is what is to come of the sanctions that have already been imposed?
Secondly, and most appallingly, our leaders have once again been exposed as fantasists who were willing to unleash another devastating war, killing hundreds of thousands while increasing the risk of terrorism and hatred of the west based on outright lies.
In 2003, the UK and USA said Iraq had WMD's and Saddam said he never. In 2007 the UK and the USA said Iran was building a Nuclear capability, Ahmadinejad said he never. Both times the UK and USA have been exposed as the liars.
We can only thank the heavens that at least this time it didn't take over a million dead Middle East residents to expose our morally bankrupt and breathtakingly dishonest leaders.
Reuters
15 comments:
I was chuckling at John Bolton's
t.v. appearance earlier today, explaining in his own special way that he does not trust these findings. Shocking! What a twit. This administration will never admit to the lies they've told. Unless they're tried as war criminals. Hey..I can dream, right?
"Firstly, why was the USA, Britain and France pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran a few weeks ago and warning that "A wait-and-see approach is not an option" if they knew, or at the least Bush did, that Iran was not building nuclear weapons? "
Because he didn't care. I'm sure he knew Saddam didn't have weapons as well.
"I'm sure he knew Saddam didn't have weapons as well."
Absolutely. I think that statement is the 'elephant in the room' that a lot of people don't want to look at, as they guilelessly cling to the idea that the invasion & occupation of Iraq, whilst a complete fiasco in practice, was conceived in good faith and was something approximating 'an honest mistake' on the part of Bush (and Blair and other assorted lickspittles and hangers-on).
Riiiight. All those billions of US taxpayer's dollars that have somehow made their way into the pockets of contractors... (many of whom seem mysteriously close to the GOP)... all that oil that the US can now control the production levels of... all the pipelines that can now be built...
It's all been 'an honest mistake', apparently.
"Whoops! Suddenly my already incredible wealth seems to have doubled! No, tripled! How did that happen, eh?"
Anyway, if I was someone involved in the production of this report, then I'd be watching my back... and I'd be hoping that the usual 'Gestapo tactics' (whoops, a reference to the Nazis - how naughty of me!) would not now be unleashed to punish me for my errant ways.
I'd be sending my CIA-operative wife into hiding, for a start...
I'm curious why everyone's jumping on THIS report as the gospel truth. I thought the CIA was run by incompetents and Bush lied about everything? In any case, I don't think it's too farfetched to wonder if some committee decided we couldn't launch an attack on Iran for whatever reason, and ordered the CIA to come up with this report so we didn't look too weak. It certainly wouldn't do to admit we don't have the military might to deal with Iran. Not saying I believe this necessarily, but this CIA report could be as big a bunch of horseshit as anything else.
Lucy, I'm sorry, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your post. Miz UV is right when she says you either take the good with the bad or you don't. When we believe/disbelieve in intelligence reports only when it suits out political beliefs, I start to worry, Left or Right. Today, that bastion of Liberals, The Wall Street Journal, claimed that the report was written by 3 known wild-eyed Bush haters. Now I'm not going to sit here and state that this report is right or wrong, I'm not on the ground in Iran (thankfully), and I don't know what the TRUTH really is. I want to be able to trust my governments institutions, but as a small government conservative, it's not in my nature. This issue reminds me of the saying "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" The diplomat thinks all problems can be solved by diplomacy, the solider believes in force. We tend to approach issues and frame them to our wants and desires, we see what we want to see. This attitude, on both sides of the political scares me. How do we, as a general public, ever quite know what exactly the truth is. Not what just happens to fit in our own worldview.
On another note Lucy, I noticed in an earlier post, that Joe, Cheezy, and myself were called Triplets. That is so wrong and unfair. I am SO much better looking than those guys, Joe is a Troll, for gods sake, and Cheezy? Don't get me started, David Beckham he's not. When my politics start getting compared to Cheezy's and yourself, it might be time to turn in my John Wayne fan club membership, and resign forthwith from my country club.
Why are we pretending that whatever prewar evidence presented on Iraq was actually compelling? Why are we pretending that the administration was mislead? Remember, this stuff was presented to the U.N. by Powell and Germany, France and Russia didn't buy it. Cheney and Bush said "We know better" and 4+ years later have yet to be vindicated.
Just because that crap about being mislead by the available evidence has been repeated ad nauseum doesn't mean it holds water. I didn't buy it before we rode into Iraq, just like all those countries we derided as cowards that turned out to be right.
So really, I can't see where I'm being all that inconsistent. I wanted more than Cheney's assurance that he knew more about it than the inspectors. Besides, wasn't a lot of the intelligence classified, so that we only had the administration's assurance that it existed and would curl our hair if we ever saw it?
Final line, I can't see attacking because we don't believe they're innocent, nor can I see not continuing to gather intelligence. If we find they're guilty, then things may change. But let's not confuse years of propaganda with what information was actually available at the time. The American people could have been turned against any muslim country at that time. ANY one. We wanted revenge. Intelligence was the last thing we needed.
Oh, and you WISH you were a troll.
I guess people are giving credence to this report for a few reasons. I can think of four, off the top of my head.
The first is because it's based on more information now, rather than less i.e. back when Bush started rattling his sabre about Iran in 2005, the CIA and other intelligence-gathering agencies stepped up their efforts to find out what Iran was up to, and this report is the result of that effort.
The second reason is because this report has been vetted by analysts and experts, something that conspicuously did not happen in 2002, when the raw 'intelligence' about Iraq was (created our of thin air and?) rushed straight into the Oval Office for immediate announcement to a credulous public. The process could not have been more compromised by politics.
This report has actually been delayed a few times because it's been scruitinised by a succession of experts - rather than by party hacks.
The third reason is because the main findings of this report are generally tallying with the findings in the report produced by El Baradei and his team on the ground in Iran.
And the fourth reason is that the report is also tallying with our pre-existing knowledge of Bush & Cheney (et al) as warmongering liars, and our knowledge of Iran as a generally non-belligerent state.
Hey, but I notice that Rush Limbaugh is saying that the report is all spin.
As Yoda would probably say: "My case I rest".
Having said all of this though, if I was an Iranian living in Tehran right now, then I'd be wanting my leaders to develop a nuclear deterrent. We've seen what happens to oil-rich nations in that region of the world when they're defenceless.
"and Cheezy? Don't get me started, David Beckham he's not."
Thank f#ck for that! Manyoo scum... ;-)
"and Cheezy? Don't get me started, David Beckham he's not."
Yeah, I googled Hot English Guys, and unfortunately, it was a very short list. He was the only one on it. ;-)
Sounds like someone should give Becks a call then - he might want to keep an eye out for you :-p
i am still trying to digest the fact that people STILL believe anything this government says. even after all the lies, thus far. it's more than a little bit depressing. kool-aid, anyone?
Well, if Rush is ragging on the report, then I'm more inclined to believe it for sure. Then again, Bush doesn't seem to be disputing it . . .
It's just hard to trust anything now.
"It's just hard to trust anything now."
I so don't blame you.
I take your point Cody about us seizing hold of the evidence that backs our viewpoint and dismissing those that don't, it happens on all levels.
Cheezy and Joe has set out many of the reasons why this report is to be held up as truthful, my own justification in disbelieving the previous rhetoric from the UK and USA is what the UN, who were on the ground in Iran, said about having no evidence that Iran were developing Nukes. They also said that Iraq had no WMD's in 2003 and were found to be accurate then also.
That is both times they have been vindicated and have tried to be ignored by those set on another agenda.
My main point that i find unjustifiable is the continuation of the call for tougher sanctions and 'action to be taken' long after they knew Iran were not the threat they had perceived them to be.
Post a Comment