View Full Version : Bush Adminstration's About-Face on Iran
Atlanteax
12-03-2007, 02:45 PM
From STRATFOR Newsline:
U.S., Iran: Nuclear Program Halted in 2003?
December 03, 2007 18 12 GMT
A Dec. 3 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate representing all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and that the program remains on hold.
This is an explosive report to come out at this point in the U.S.-Iranian negotiations over Iraq. By releasing it, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is contradicting its past two years of policy, which has framed Iran as aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
But why now?
In the past couple of weeks, Washington and Tehran have taken several tangible steps toward cooperation over Iraq. This U.S. move to back off on the nuclear issue in such a bold manner means that it is highly likely that the two countries already have reached a major understanding on Iraq's future behind the scenes.
Seems self-explanatory...
I am looking forward to more positive news coming out of Iraq/Iran...
...and the continuing decline of oil prices, as the "war with Iran" speculation supporting prices dissipates.
thefarmer
12-03-2007, 03:50 PM
We're just trying to suck and/or bully Iran and the rest of the middle east so when Palestine gets their own country they won't all join up with the oil barons and fuck us up good.
Kembal
12-03-2007, 04:00 PM
Not that self-explanatory. This just really fucked up every major Republican candidate's foriegn policy platform, heh.
If thats what the intelligence reports suggest, then its a good policy shift.
Atlanteax
12-03-2007, 04:14 PM
Not that self-explanatory. This just really fucked up every major Republican candidate's foriegn policy platform, heh.
Why?
By removing "war with Iran" from the table, it's one less issue that Democrats can use against Republicans... when John Q Voter is less than enthralled with the prospect of a greater involvement in the MiddleEast.
Androidpk
12-03-2007, 04:25 PM
While this is some good news in general, I find it a little troubling as well. How long has the Bush administration been sitting on this information while all this has been going on? Not to say the Intelligence agencies couldn't have just found out recently, but I doubt it. Maybe it's just me, but something just doesn't seem right about this announcement.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
12-03-2007, 04:58 PM
Not everything is a conspiracy.
Eoghain
12-03-2007, 05:20 PM
You mean my government doesn't tell me the truth about everything so I can make informed decisions? That's heresy, sir.
Stanley Burrell
12-03-2007, 05:36 PM
I always thought the issue was uranium enrichment, not whether or not a warhead was utilized. I mean, even the 2000-present more-polarized-than-usual UN has been warning Iran over enrichment in their rhetoric, not warheads per se.
I've known too many people who immigrated to the U.S. from Iran (mainly pre and post Bangladeshi-migrated Sunnis) to understand that Iran having uranium enrichment, especially with a wackjob like Ahmadinejad, is far less than half a step away from peaceful uranium enrichment and non-peaceful uranium enrichment.
I think what upsets me the most about Iran in the recent years is that if you actually apply the preservation of American lives rhetoric that this administration has beat us over the skull with, combined with the notion of preemptive strikes, Iran has been one of the most unchecked contributors into the ending of American lives during the farce of the "Iraq has nuke-u-lar of weapons" phase.
The paradox that I see just pisses me off.
Parkbandit
12-04-2007, 01:09 PM
I'm amazed at the libs on this one. Had the report come out and said that Iran was still trying to get WMD, they would treat it like the pre-war Iraq intelligence and dismiss it... but because it says they aren't, well the Intelligence Department is BRILLIANT!
Kembal
12-04-2007, 01:24 PM
Why?
By removing "war with Iran" from the table, it's one less issue that Democrats can use against Republicans... when John Q Voter is less than enthralled with the prospect of a greater involvement in the MiddleEast.
That's what you're not getting: Beating the drums for war with Iran is most of these guys' foriegn policy platforms.
And since Bush is still beating the drums (see his speech today), the Republican base will expect them to follow suit. That will torpedo them in the general.
Kembal
12-04-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm amazed at the libs on this one. Had the report come out and said that Iran was still trying to get WMD, they would treat it like the pre-war Iraq intelligence and dismiss it... but because it says they aren't, well the Intelligence Department is BRILLIANT!
More like the Intelligence community figured out it was a good idea to not get blamed for another war that had no reason behind it, and so they didn't conform their conclusions to policymakers' wishes.
That's what you're not getting: Beating the drums for war with Iran is most of these guys' foriegn policy platforms.
Then again, when has this administration ever really considered "intelligence" when it comes to making foreign policy decisions.
Parkbandit
12-04-2007, 02:03 PM
More like the Intelligence community figured out it was a good idea to not get blamed for another war that had no reason behind it, and so they didn't conform their conclusions to policymakers' wishes.
Yea.. I loved how they completely covered their ass by saying that Iran's nuclear program is possible, but unlikely. If either one is true, they can claim they were right.
Hulkein
12-04-2007, 02:32 PM
Yea.. I loved how they completely covered their ass by saying that Iran's nuclear program is possible, but unlikely. If either one is true, they can claim they were right.
Not really. If it turns out they never shut down their program the intelligence groups would still look stupid despite the fact that they said it was 'possible.'
Daniel
12-04-2007, 02:58 PM
Why?
By removing "war with Iran" from the table, it's one less issue that Democrats can use against Republicans... when John Q Voter is less than enthralled with the prospect of a greater involvement in the MiddleEast.
Unfortunately. Bush seems content to not let that happen.
Atlanteax
12-04-2007, 02:59 PM
That's what you're not getting: Beating the drums for war with Iran is most of these guys' foriegn policy platforms.
And since Bush is still beating the drums (see his speech today), the Republican base will expect them to follow suit. That will torpedo them in the general.
Sorry, what *you are not getting* is that the target audience for the drum-beating is Iran, in regard to maintaining US leverage in negotiating over Iraq.
(as in the US threat to attack needs to be credible ... and if the US population thinks there is a chance an attack will be made on Iran, it's credible)
It is all for show and not a geniune platform that is planned to be acted upon.
Tsa`ah
12-04-2007, 03:11 PM
It is all for show and not a geniune platform that is planned to be acted upon.
Says who? You? I won't even bother pulling the "source plz" card.
It may be your belief ... but you don't even have a track record to base this belief on. The second coming of Christ has more credibility at this point.
It is all for show ...
See, thats my take too. I see this as playing Iran's game of talking loud and letting them think what they will. Its just good spin material for those who will find any excuse to bash Bush and his administration.
Now Israel on the other hand...
Daniel
12-04-2007, 03:19 PM
See, thats my take too. I see this as playing Iran's game of talking loud and letting them think what they will. Its just good spin material for those who will find any excuse to bash Bush and his administration.
Now Israel on the other hand...
How is it "Spin" if that is what they are saying?
That's called comprehension.
And here I was thinking conspiracy theories were restricted to the loony lib bin only. Guess not.
Kembal
12-04-2007, 03:59 PM
Sorry, what *you are not getting* is that the target audience for the drum-beating is Iran, in regard to maintaining US leverage in negotiating over Iraq.
(as in the US threat to attack needs to be credible ... and if the US population thinks there is a chance an attack will be made on Iran, it's credible)
It is all for show and not a geniune platform that is planned to be acted upon.
Whether Iran is the target or not of this drum-beating...it still has an effect on the presidential election. And if you don't believe that a majority of the Republican base expects the Republican candidates to hew to the administration line on Iran, while your average independent swing voter wants nothing to do with it, you've not been paying attention to the election.
It's nice to pretend that actions exist in a vacuum...but they (and their effects) don't.
How is it "Spin" if that is what they are saying?
That's called comprehension.
Well, if Bush talks tough towards Iran (as he's doing now) and yet doesnt jump off to war, then its just that, tough talk, designed to elicit a response.
Spin occurrs when those not supporting the administration call his tough talk the 'drum beats of war' and run panicking in the streets that Bush is going to bomb Iran next.
Comprehension can exist on many levels, you might try it on more than just the surface. ;)
And here I was thinking conspiracy theories were restricted to the loony lib bin only. Guess not.
Stellar input.
Whether Iran is the target or not of this drum-beating...it still has an effect on the presidential election. And if you don't believe that a majority of the Republican base expects the Republican candidates to hew to the administration line on Iran, while your average independent swing voter wants nothing to do with it, you've not been paying attention to the election.
Source please.
Stellar input.I thought so too.
Kembal
12-04-2007, 04:54 PM
Source please.
PC can't do tables. (or if it can, I can't figure out how)
From the newest Pew-AP poll:
Republicans: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/375.pdf
Q.44 Which is your greater concern when it comes to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program … that we will take action TOO QUICKLY, or that we will wait TOO LONG?
Natl IA NH SC
Take action too quickly 24 20 27 22
Wait too long 67 69 61 68
Don't know/refused 9 11 11 10
Democrats: http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/374.pdf
Q.44 Which is your greater concern when it comes to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program … that we will take action TOO QUICKLY, or that we will wait TOO LONG?
Natl IA NH SC
Take action too quickly 48 60 64 46
Wait too long 40 29 26 44
Don't know/refused 12 11 10 11
Pew/AP's got something that has data for Independents, I think, but they haven't released it yet. In any case, there's a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats. I consider it highly doubtful that Independents would line up in the same manner as Republicans considering this divergence, but be somwehere in the middle instead.
Daniel
12-04-2007, 06:13 PM
Well, if Bush talks tough towards Iran (as he's doing now) and yet doesnt jump off to war, then its just that, tough talk, designed to elicit a response.
Spin occurrs when those not supporting the administration call his tough talk the 'drum beats of war' and run panicking in the streets that Bush is going to bomb Iran next.
Um. No. Spin is not someone saying "Don't attack Iran, they are not making you do anything" when someone else says "We'll Attack Iran if they make us!"
Spin is saying "We'll attack Iran" and then going "You should know I don't actually mean ""attack"" Iran".
You'll have to excuse me if I don't have that much faith in the administration not running off half cocked, seeing as how I fought in Iraq when there was no discernible plan or methodology for success.
chillmonster
12-05-2007, 08:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boGw3VciDig&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3BLVyeUGiA
Don't you just love this administration?
Sean of the Thread
12-05-2007, 09:19 AM
The US knows that Israel will fuck up any nuclear development.
We just washed our hands from any backlash.
Sean of the Thread
12-05-2007, 09:19 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boGw3VciDig&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3BLVyeUGiA
Don't you just love this administration?
I certainly don't hate it.
chillmonster
12-08-2007, 11:15 AM
Administration's Credibility Gap on Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6d9BT8ZgRE&NR=1)
This was on MSNBC this week and I hoped someone would post it on youtube. Great discussion of exactly what this means they've been doing and shows exactly why it should make us stop and think about the consequences of their rhetoric.
Edited to add:
This one just underscores it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLioyP69N3I)
Administration's Credibility Gap on Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6d9BT8ZgRE&NR=1)
This was on MSNBC this week and I hoped someone would post it on youtube. Great discussion of exactly what this means they've been doing and shows exactly why it should make us stop and think about the consequences of their rhetoric.
Edited to add:
This one just underscores it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLioyP69N3I)
Congratulations, you can pick up your new hat downstairs. Oh, and I want my 10:50 back. :(
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1250/876370530_888a03faa9_o.jpg
chillmonster
12-08-2007, 12:23 PM
...Erm, what's the hat for?
For some reason, it reminds me of Heaven's Gate. Did they wear hats?
Sean of the Thread
12-08-2007, 12:26 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/tfh1.jpg
chillmonster
12-08-2007, 01:29 PM
If you have to ask...
...then you don't know what the fuck it means. Is that you in your D&D costume?
chillmonster
12-08-2007, 01:30 PM
What's with the hand and the facial expression? Is he trying to look like a gangster?
Androidpk
12-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Tinfoil hat...
Sean of the Thread
12-08-2007, 02:45 PM
A conspiracy gansta'
...then you don't know what the fuck it means. Is that you in your D&D costume?
Wow, you're really an idiot.
LMingrone
12-08-2007, 06:56 PM
Iran gave the US a nice little "f you" by deciding to accept other currencies in exchange for their oil. Now countries will be buying from them with Euros, Yen, etc.. instead of having to go through the middleman Dollar.
Keller
12-09-2007, 02:58 AM
Wow, you're really an idiot.
OMG HE MUST BE BACKLASH!!!!!!1111111111
Stanley Burrell
12-09-2007, 08:31 AM
Q.44 Which is your greater concern when it comes to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program … that we will take action TOO QUICKLY, or that we will wait TOO LONG?
This is sort of ... Narrow. It makes me think of the immediate supposition that "action" in the poll not being defined as anything that isn't strong-arming.
I guess that the third option of don't know/refused would tie into where I'd place my vote, just out of sheer principle. Although, with some of the options in a bunch of our glowing PC polls, this is pretty expansive by comparison. International surveys are way less important than forum polls, though.
I guess if I had to make some sort of tin foil speculation, I'd venture to say that I believe there's a chance that the bad/lack of intelligence common to this administration regarding the Iran data may have been disclosed publicly in lieu of torture allegations as an offset tactic. I think from what I've been seeing and hearing about how a media outlet (NYTimes) disclosing these statements right now as a "why" an intelligence agency would become so vocal, as if some how chronologically unavoidable to release statements at any other interval is somewhat ludicrous. The media is an entity that locks horns with the government time and again (not exclusively related to the U.S. only) but I would say this isn't always before you would have QC briefings within the intelligence and government industries and subsequent negotiations with news outlets as a way of fine-tuning a timeframe to crash control a distraction method whenever you've fucked up > 1 times.
Valthissa
12-09-2007, 09:53 AM
Tinfoil hat...
Whenever I see 'tinfoil hat' I am reminded of the Throne of the Third Heaven.
In an odd way the exhibit was spiritual. We went several times and it was always the same - people would enter, they would gasp at the shear size of the works, and then stare quietly for several minutes before moving on.
http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/throne.cfm
C/Valth
OMG HE MUST BE BACKLASH!!!!!!1111111111
OMG HE MUST BE BLACK!!!!!!!!111111111111
landy
12-09-2007, 10:48 AM
Isn't the problem we currently have with Iran their enrichment of nuclear material for energy? I don't think we've been worried about their open enrichment for weapons purposes in a while, it's the fact that they want nuclear technology at all. A country with strong ties to organizations and individuals the United States views as terrorist getting nuclear technology would be a catalyst for even greater military action in the middle east, something most people would agree would not be good.
Parkbandit
12-09-2007, 12:16 PM
Isn't the problem we currently have with Iran their enrichment of nuclear material for energy? I don't think we've been worried about their open enrichment for weapons purposes in a while, it's the fact that they want nuclear technology at all. A country with strong ties to organizations and individuals the United States views as terrorist getting nuclear technology would be a catalyst for even greater military action in the middle east, something most people would agree would not be good.
Warmonger! I think any country should have the right to develop any technology they want. We have it, we should help them get it. I'm sure they won't use it against us or our allies. Let's just have some faith in them
Whenever I see 'tinfoil hat' I am reminded of the Throne of the Third Heaven.
In an odd way the exhibit was spiritual. We went several times and it was always the same - people would enter, they would gasp at the shear size of the works, and then stare quietly for several minutes before moving on.
http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/throne.cfm
C/Valth
Whenever I see a Tinfoil hat I think of Backlash (RIP). Pretty soon someone else will step up to take his place I imagine. :tumble:
Isn't the problem we currently have with Iran their enrichment of nuclear material for energy? I don't think we've been worried about their open enrichment for weapons purposes in a while, it's the fact that they want nuclear technology at all. A country with strong ties to organizations and individuals the United States views as terrorist getting nuclear technology would be a catalyst for even greater military action in the middle east, something most people would agree would not be good.
You know, if we could all just hug one another all this anger and strife would just go away.
:grouphug:
Sean of the Thread
12-09-2007, 12:39 PM
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/ewok_this_way.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.