Was the NIE Cooked to Thwart Bush’s Iran Policy?
February 6th, 2008 at 02:30pm Mark Noonan
Interesting report over at NRO’s The Corner:
Eli Lake reports that top spy Michael McConnell has had second thoughts about the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. If the goal of the NIE was to tie Bush’s hands, it succeeded marvelously. Eli writes:
The director of national intelligence is backing away from his agency’s assessment late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear program, saying he wishes he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner. …
The release of the December 2007 estimate at best delayed American diplomatic efforts to pass a third U.N. Security Council resolution sanctioning Iran’s uranium enrichment, an activity the mullahs have continued for two years despite warnings from all five permanent members of the security council. The estimate also drew rare rebukes from American allies, including Israel, France, and the United Kingdom who said their intelligence agencies did not concur with the American assessment that Iran had frozen its plan to produce an A-bomb.
I tried to get into the Lake article, but I think half the blogospher hit the link once it showed up on NRO - if correct, this story shows that at least part of the intelligence community was determined to thwart President Bush’s policy towards Iran’s nuclear program. As to why President Bush would along with such subversion - simple, he had to. In a dishonest age, it is difficult at times to immediately combat a clever lie. Had Bush suppressed the report, the fact of its suppression would have been leaked and it would have looked in idiot MSM reporting like President Bush had something to hide - so, Bush was forced to grit his teeth and put lipstick on the pig.
Hopefully, however, the truth will come out, and come out soon - because if this NIE was bogus, then we need to move very, very quickly against Iran.
Entry Filed under: President Bush, War on Terror
95 Comments
1. Iran » Was the NIE &hellip | February 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
[...] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on Was the NIE Cooked to Thwart Bushâs Iran Policy?Here’s a quick excerptEli Lake reports that top spy Michael McConnell has had second thoughts about the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. If the goal of the NIE was to tie Bush’s hands, it succeeded … [...]
2. keefer | February 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mark, there are shadow warriors in the U.S. government, beaurocrats left over from past administrations whose main goal is thwarting any success by President Bush. Read Timmerman’s book…
3. Joe | February 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Hopefully, however, the truth will come out, and come out soon - because if this NIE was bogus, then we need to move very, very quickly against Iran.
Why?
What you have presented is that “The director of national intelligence is backing away from his agency’s assessment late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear program, saying he wishes he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner.”
“In a different manner”. That doesn’t mean that it was wrong. It doesn’t mean that Iran IS working on nuclear weapons. It doesn’t even mean that the original NIE is wrong. He just wishes he wrote it in a different manner. So maybe instead of “High Confidence”, maybe it was “Fairly High Confidence”, etc.
Nothing you have presented implies that the NIE was WRONG.
So why are you so eager to start ANOTHER war?????
4. Mark Noonan | February 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Joe,
Its not another war - its all the same war; and, when you get right down to brass tacks, the war started on November 4th, 1979 when the Iranian hostage crisis began…at the end of the day, the War on Terrorism isn’t finally and completely won as long as the mullahs rule in Tehran.
As for the NIE, it was telling, I think, that the rest of the world immediately dissented from the NIE’s finding that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 - even France disowned the NIE’s judgement. In my view, the most rosy scenario is that Iran gave up actually assembling a nuclear device, but kept right on with all the other R&D necessary to make one…and this would make sense:
1. Why build a nuke which could only hit places close to Iran? Until Iran gets a missile which can hit New York, the deterrent value of a nuclear force is minimal vis a vis confrontations with the United States.
2. The last thing you actually need to do is build a nuke - so, with money tight (and even with high oil prices, Iran’s economy is a basket case), might as well concentrate on first things first, especially as missile tecnhology has multiple uses.
We cannot allow the mullahs to obtain a nuclear weapon - it will protect them while they plot and carry out a new wave of global terrorism…and that leaves aside the worry that they will provide nuclear know-how (or a nuke, itself) to a terrorist group.
5. Mark Noonan | February 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
keefer,
As I said, one day a GOPer is going to have to obtain the White House, and fire anyone ever hired or promoted by a Democrat - we just can’t take chances on just how many Plame’s and Wilson’s there are in the mix.
6. Martin | February 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“Its not another war - its all the same war…”
Exactly. The same war that Mark and Matt will not be risking their lives or limbs for if it happens. The same war that they will get to blog about from the safety of their air conditioned homes. The same war that makes them feel “tough.”
7. Joe | February 6th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
But Mark, it is still “your view” that the NIE is wrong. Because you say certain things make sense, means nothing and doesn’t make it so.
Look, I (and all the Dems) completely agree that Iran shouldn’t get a nuke. We should work towards thwarting that. So many people are so proud that Libya and NK have stopped their programs. I believe it was Kahn on this site that brings that up all the time. Neither of them involved bombing them or fighting them.
So why not try diplomacy? If you Repubs love and supposedly learn from history, you don’t have to look too far back to see that it works.
Oh yeah I forgot… Dubya doesn’t negotiate with the enemy. Bombing is much easier.
8. congressive | February 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Bombing is also much more profitable to CACI, Titan, Bechtel with $3 billion in no-bid contracts for infrastructure reconstruction, Aegis Defense Services who supply somewhere around 50,000 private defense personnel in the Middle East, Custer Battles, General Dynamics, Nour USA Ltd who provides pipeline security, all of who’s profit margins grow the more things get blown up. If it all settled down into peaceful cooperative democracies throughout the Middle East, these guys, along with comic book villains Halliburton and KBR, would lose billions.
Can’t have that…
9. winnowhead | February 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
What’s the deal with your assumption that Iran must have an advanced nuclear weapons program, and any contrary evidence must be the result of the Bush haters sabotaging his presidency? And to top it off, military action is apparently the only way to solve problems?
Why does your heart go atwitter at the idea of another war? Seriously, war deserves a bit more of a careful approach. I think someone named Jesus may agree.
10. SteaM | February 6th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
winnowhead,
Well, for some people, not nesecarily Mark or Matt, Iran is not our allies. They also have the second largest oil reserves and it’s good cheap oil too.
(not our allies) + (have lots of cheap good oil) + (beat the war drums) = another illegal [resource] war.
Just sayin…
For Mark and Matt it’s probably more along the lines of their anti-Isreal comments or something. Or they really believe that they have nukes and can blow up the USA or the 51st state. Isreal.
11. bongoman | February 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
So Reagan selling arms to Iran must have been treason then…
12. bozo the neoclown | February 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
keefer “whose main goal is thwarting any success by President Bush. ”
:::::rolls eyes:::: bush’s successes are so few and far between a troop of girl scouts could “thwart his success”
13. FmrMarine | February 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I pray, when the NBC weapons the islamic scourge will bring here, during your marxist eutopia are detonated in the cities you moonbats live in first.
I hope some here will reap the whirlwind first.
14. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
You write this garbage and call us moonbats?
Then again, this is the meme for the entire war isn’t it?
Continuing…
As usual Mark, another unsubstantiated ultra right neocon warmongering diatribe.
And your wearing ashes today right?
Spare me.
15. liberalT | February 6th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
move quickly against Iran? For what? What have they actually done too threaten the US. Not some made up thing in your head about what they might do, or might want to do, or could want. What have they actually done - plenty of places have weapons of mass destruction (like the US for example). Having them alone is not reason to attack. Having nutty people in charge of the country is not enough reason to attack. Some times I wonder deeply about you Mark - do you ever stop to think - what if I am wrong? What about all the people who will die because of my actions? Odd that you call yourself a Christian
16. FmrMarine | February 6th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
harbinger
Spew your crap to Mr Berg, and the others BEHEADED on video tape.
This will be a show coming soon to your city with the cowardly lions = democRATS in charge.
What dont you believe when an entire religion that has 600years of barbarism declares war on the USA, then proceeds to have 20 plus years of attacks, culminating with the WTC?
You loons on the marxist left are getting nuttier every day.
17. liberalT | February 6th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Marine - the middle east is hardly the only place in the world with a history of barbarism. Guess where the most people died in 20th century ? WWI and WWII? The holocaust?
This is the fundamental racist flaw in the assumption that somehow people in the middle east are more violent than anyone else.
The historical record speaks for itself - and its simply not true
18. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Must start WAR before Bush leaves office.
Your on the clock boys. Hurry.
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Scared. So very scared.
Hurry.
19. JD | February 6th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Or quite possibly Bush and his staff are lying yet again to justify attacking a middle eastern nation that possesses oil resources…
20. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Ya think? But it’s scary. Let’s bomb em’
21. FmrMarine | February 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
lt
Racist flaw??
You mean women with downs syndrome wearing explosives? while others send them to be blown up in crowds?
You mean BEHEADING people, while videotaping it?
You mean blowing up aircraft full of innocent people?
You mean flying airliners into skyscrapers?
You mean CHILDREN being laden with explosives and detonated in restaurants?
GET OFF the CRACK PIPE!
This isnt the middle ages, it isnt WW11, This today, and islam is the new nazi, marxist, bent on destroying our country and civilization.
At THIS time and age islam is the quintessential threat to us.
22. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Yikes! Now I’m really really scared.
I’ve got to clear out some stuff under my bed.
23. FmrMarine | February 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Hey harbinger;
Ok I will personally PAY for your ticket to visit (30 days) to one of these following paradises.
Camon mr sky is falling.
how about…..
1. Somalia?
2. Sudan?
3. Iraq?
4. Syria?
5. Pakistan?
6. Afghanistan?
or ANY islamic utopia. We’ll see how smug you are after a warm welcome by your friendly religion of pieces, Hell you may end up on tv or vido.
24. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
So what I get from what your saying Mark is:
Our entire (or as you put it, “part” of it) Intelligence community has BDS.
It’s a hit job. They’re out to get him! My goodness. All those agency’s in an uncover covert action have colluded to undermine the Prez!
No, really. I have to laugh.
Traitors. All of ‘em.
25. Casper | February 6th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
FmrMarine,
We liberated Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan is one of our allies.
26. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Oh, and FmrMarine…
I’d love to go. Free is for me, but…I’m like Jonah Goldberg, a tireless keyboard warrior. I’m dedicated to fighting the forces of evil disguised as the neocon right wing. (from the comfort of my computer desk)
I would just LOVE to see you make the same offer to Mark or Matt.
They would gladly go and spread the wisdom of the Bush doctrine to those faraway places. Matt could bring his Tora and Mark his Bible.
Trumpeting Bushism, and JudeoChristian principles.
I challenge you to make that offer.
I’m booked.
27. js | February 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Geeze, where in the word did all the half wits come from?
Did they close down Moveon.org or what?
28. keefer | February 6th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Harblinger, it’s “you’re,” you stupid moron.
steaM, it’s “Israel,” you bigger, stupider moron.
Casper, they’re liberated, but still not safe, moron.
FmrMarine, stop trying to reason with morons…
29. liberalT | February 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Marine - WWII was not that long ago. In fact - what you are seeing is the result of the middle east being far less politically stable than Europe is right now. It is not a matter of them being for the Middle East or a matter of being Islamic. There have been enough Christians who have done horrible things to themselves and other people as well.
30. keefer | February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
FmrMarine, you’re always gonna get the same old “Christians did bad things” argument from the lobotomized, lily-livered lemmings. So what if all those bad things happened in the past, Northern Ireland being the exception. You see, the LLLL’s bring up centuries-old behaviour, yet bitch when we bring up trangressions of a former Donkaroach president who couldn’t keep his pecker in his trousers.
Geez, I shouldn’t talk about peckers–libretardTHC will be getting excited…
31. Casper | February 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
keefer,
“Casper, they’re liberated, but still not safe, moron.”
When did we liberate Pakistan? And if Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated, how can they be Islamic utopias?
32. js | February 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
If a person follows the instructions in the Bible, alot of “things” would not happen.
Liberals tend to blame it all on Christians though, even though most of the time it was just men doing what men do, not what the Bible said.
They gotta blame somebody. Must be some mental issue with them, because most of thier fathers and grand fathers and great grandfathers and great great great grandfathers were right there in the mix of it all!! Not to mention thier grammys too!!
33. js | February 6th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Then again, you gotta realize that the liberals were them guys not doing what the Bible said, just like they do today with homosexuals and abortion and…..
well….you get the idea, no?
34. keefer | February 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
And if Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated, how can they be Islamic utopias?
The utopia comment wasn’t mine, and I think it was sarcastic. You’re not too bright, are you? No wonder our kids aren’t getting proper educations…
35. liberalT | February 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
js and keefer - my point is not to ‘blame Christians’ . My point is that the argument that violence, extremism, and barbarity are *NOT* something which is limited to the middle east today and especially historically.
Look - what you want is to make this a “us” versus “them” thing because it makes it easier to view “them” as some evil hoard that needs to be destroyed. But it simply isn’t true and although that mentality may be easier for you to process - may be more comforting to you perhaps - it doesn’t stand up to basic historical facts.
This is something that you have not and indeed cannot address. So you go around shouting 2nd grade insults and claiming that somehow I am the one that doesn’t understand the world when your conception of how the world works is something better suited for a Marvel comic book.
36. Casper | February 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Actually, my comments were meant to be sarcastic. And the kids are doing fine.
37. TheHarbinger | February 6th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Oh Keithy,
YOU’RE so cute. The little attack dog. Bow wow. Our little Chihuahua.
Here’s a bone…fetch.
Wait we’re playing the big bad grammar police tonight.
Good job…(pat-pat). Now, go play.
38. Christian Wright | February 7th, 2008 at 12:15 am
16 different intellegence agencies whose heads were appointed by Bush were trying to thwart Bush?
I don’t get it.
39. Christian Wright | February 7th, 2008 at 12:19 am
“Its not another war - its all the same war; and, when you get right down to brass tacks, the war started on November 4th, 1979 when the Iranian hostage crisis began”
The conflict started in 1953 when the UK and the USA overthrew a democratically elected President after he nationalized the oil fields.
40. Another Twist and Turn &l&hellip | February 7th, 2008 at 12:38 am
[...] Was the NIE Cooked to Thwart Bush’s Iran Policy? [...]
41. bongoman | February 7th, 2008 at 12:48 am
We conveniently forget that fact, thank you Christian Wright. Along with all the other times in 20th century history when the USA has acted contrary to deomocratic intentions of other countries. The fact that US interventions are purely about strategic interest jars with the fancy rhetoric about “democracy”.
When will the USA learn to stop meddling? To stop invading other countries and killing people? Enough is enough.
42. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 5:31 am
To all the conservatives on this blog, who I’m sure would like to think of themselves as fair-minded people, I’d like to ask you a simple question. Before 1953 what exactly had Iran done to us to provoke the US to
organize a coup to depose the democratically elected government of Iran and impose a BRUTAL, callous leader in the person of the Shah? Do you realize that the Shah was only supported by the Iranian military due to the fact that the military had been bribed to do so by the CIA?
If Eisenhower had been removed from office by an illegal coup organized by a foreign power in 1953, don’t you think that every living American would be mad as hell about it? And rightly so?
And what if that horrible, callous leader had ruled our country with a bloody iron fist for over 25 years with explicit economic and military support from that foreign government? Wouldn’t every American be angry as hell about that also?
My own ex-girlfriend’s brother was publically flogged in a square in Tehran by the Shah’s security forces in the mid 70s for ‘protesting’ against the Shah’s government. This is the regime the US supported for well over two decades.
Read some history and realize that ONE HELL of an apology is owed to the people of Iran from the US government.
PS - oh, by the way, the only force that could counter the Shah’s iron fist (which was backed by Uncle Sam’s never ending suppy of money and weapons just as Israel is today) were the religious nut jobs who didn’t care if they died fighting him. Sound familiar? You see boys and girls, we reap what we sow.
Something tells me none of you are actually going to confront the (very recent) historical reality of what I’ve written above. Go ahead and call me a liberal wingnut, or someone who hates the USA. But let me tell you, I love this country. That doesn’t mean I’m going to turn my back on the reality of the horrible mistakes that were made by US administrations in the past. Or allow such horrible errors be made by the ignorant and outright prejudiced again.
43. keefer | February 7th, 2008 at 5:50 am
My point is that the argument that violence, extremism, and barbarity are *NOT* something which is limited to the middle east today and especially historically.
You point is full of holes, since 99 percent of the violence, extremism, and barbarism is connected to radical Islamofascists.
My own ex-girlfriend’s brother was publically flogged in a square in Tehran by the Shah’s security forces in the mid 70s for ‘protesting’ against the Shah’s government. This is the regime the US supported for well over two decades.
Well, he was in a FOREIGN country, so he was subject to the laws of that country. When I was in the military, and stationed overseas, we had do abide by the SOFA between our military and the host government. There were military people who were locked up in host nation jails, and there was nothing the military could do about it, because these people violated laws. Your ex’s brother violated Iranian laws, and he was flogged. End of story. As Baretta used to say, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
Disclaimer: By responding to libretardTHC’s “logic,” I was in no way, shape or form making an attempt at civility. She was and is a moron, and will be ignored as such…
44. bongoman | February 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Re the role that the USA (&UK) played in desposing and destabilising a democratic regime in Iran in 1953, here’s an interesting look at the situation as if the tables were turned. That is, as if Iran had interfered in US affairs in the way that we have in theirs: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan2.html
What decent American wouldn’t be offended if that is the way it had played out?
Do unto others…
45. js | February 7th, 2008 at 6:32 am
35. liberalT
Look - what you want is to make this a “us” versus “them” thing because it makes it easier to view “them” as some evil hoard that needs to be destroyed. But it simply isn’t true ………..
——————————
Said you.
I dont see anyone making Iraq/Afghanistan into that. But as far as reality goes, thats exactly what the orthodox islamic core of both these nations are taught to do since birth, while we were brought up in a country that views each and every person equally regardless of race, religion or gender.
You need to wake up. That is truely a halfwitted statement you made.
46. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:10 am
42. Obama Supporter
You have some flake bag history teacher OS.
The Shah of Iran was deposed in a coop in 1952, and regained control of the government in 1953 with the help of Iraqi nationalists and Brittish and US aid. The Shah was a direct descendent of the Hashemite monarchy, and took over from his father who was pro-nazi after WWII.
Its a pity that the current regime twists the history books so badly to blame everthing bad on Western Nations for all the non islamic history in Irans past. Pawns that uphold those views are no more than puppets themselves who dont have an original thought in thier heads. Omission is a lie, so when you omit to declair the whole truth intentionaly in order to villify America or Brittain, then you are a liar.
What you omit is the fact that the Cold War was a very real issue, and that the US would back any pro-western Government and support them against communist aggression. We are not the worlds baby sitter. At that time, it was necessary for the US and all other western nations to aid the ME from soviet influence/coop’s and invasion.
You complain about the petty nature of Irans woes and ignore the whole picture. Irans form of government was a constitutional monarchy with a elected prime minister and an elected Parliment. In 1953 then Prime Minister Mosaddeq conducted a coop of the Monarch. In 1953 the Monarch returned, backed by Brittish and US forces, as well as Iraqi. If we didnt intervene, Iraq would have become a Soviet ally, because of Mosaddeq’s action and leanings toward socialism. (yup, you dont really think they voted in the USSR for real candidates, do ya?)
So phoey, your representation is much filled with the lies of the conspiracy theorist that Persia is so famous for.
47. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:12 am
sorry, not hashemite monarch, should have stated Pahlavi
48. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Keefer said:
Uhm, Keefer, are you on acid? Or do you feel justified in talking any kind of drivel at the drop of a hat? My girlfriend’s brother was IRANIAN. But hey, nice of you to think that he should have ‘abided by the laws of the country’ and not protested a regime that is estimated to have killed tens of thousands of its own citizenry while suffering under the notorious (and tragically, US founded and funded) Savak, Iran’s brutal secret police. Amnesty International would write in 1976 that Iran had the “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.”
Hey, Keefer, it’s great to see that you think it’s A-OK for people to be publiclly flogged for protesting such a government. What a perfect little ‘law abiding’ authoritarian you are. If there were more people like you around in the late 1700s in ‘the colonies’ everybody in America would be buying their morning tea with pound notes featuring portraits of the ghastly British Queen.
49. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:32 am
OH ya.
I dont suppose you have any clue what would have happened in Iran if the US didnt back the Shah’s return, do you?
If Mosaddeq had actually succeded in his take over of the Iran, he would have first, Soviet weapons and money, and secondly, Soviet Troops, and eventually, a complete Soviet Invasion of Iran.
Do you know what happened to Hugary, Romania? What about other muslim nations after WWII that was enveloped by the Soviets?
Seeing how you think it was so bad in Iran, I guess you have no clue about what was going on in the rest of the world. Your brother may have been flogged for what ever, but if the USSR had its way, Islam would have been totally eliminated, and the murder of millions of protestors would have marked the death of much of the Iranian Muslim population.
Its pretty stupid to think the US and Brittain is such an evil monster because we didnt let the USSR invade Iran.
You are a true theorists though. Just remember, omission really is a lie.
50. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:39 am
48. Obama Supporter
I guess the only thing you dont want to admit is that your brother suffered at the hands of a fellow iranian, eh? Another omission. In the end, it wasnt Americans beating and brutalizing and killing other Americans, it was Iranians.
You still miss the big picture.
51. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:43 am
why dont we go back a few more years, to when the ottoman empire ruled persia Obama Supporter?
If you brother had protested the Ottoman rule, they would have just killed him.
I guess he was lucky that the Ottoman empire was destroyed by those evil western nations, eh?
52. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 7:54 am
js -
Any citations for that bizarre mixture of half-truths and wish dreams that you presented above as some form of history of Iran? Yes? No? Reliable sources? I doubt it.
Let’s imagine that everything you say in your post is true (it isn’t, check The Shah’s entry on wikipedia or in any mainstream history). But let’s say it IS true. At that time (early 1950s) Iran’s oil revenues were going almost entirely to the US and Britain to the degree that when the US instituted an international embargo against Iranian oil - due to Mossadegh’s nationalization program - the Iranians still got MORE revenues for themselves despite the fact that their oil exports were reduced by a factor of 90%!
But I realize the above may be too subtle for you to understand. The simple fact is you feel it was reasonable of the US to launch a coup against Iran and to install and maintain a murderous dictator for 25 years on the simple pretext that the country ‘might’ have been leaning towards the Soviets.
Also JS, in response to your second last post, it wasn’t my brother, it was my ex-girlfriend’s brother. Yes, he was flogged by a fellow Iranian, but one who was a member of the despised Secret Police forcee - an entity which the US helped create (check out a history of SAVAK anywhere on the web) and one which the US financed via it’s regular financial and military aid to the Shah.
But hey, since it was one Iranian against another that makes it fine right? So I guess if Iran was to fund a bunch of jerkoffs here in the US to bomb New York again that would be fine with you too since the actual dirty work would be done by our fellow Americans and not their Iranian paymasters, right?
PS - You made a remark about the ‘petty nature of Iran’s woes’. The Shah’s secret police murdered tens of thousands and were brutal torturers over a period of 25 years. Do you care to retract your comment? Or perhaps you also think the 3,000 that died in New York also amounts to a ‘petty woe’. What’s a consdierable woe in you book? Just curious.
53. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Looks like Ive got about as many referrences as you Obama Supporter.
The only real difference is my world view against your small mindedness.
54. js | February 7th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Wow, Obama. You really need to think about what your posting in contrast to what I said.
You look like a total fool saying what you said.
Total.
55. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:06 am
JS, you said -
why dont we go back a few more years, to when the ottoman empire ruled persia Obama Supporter? If you brother had protested the Ottoman rule, they would have just killed him. I guess he was lucky that the Ottoman empire was destroyed by those evil western nations, eh?
Wow, you really must have an amazing history book JS. When exactly did the Ottoman’s rule Persia? The answer is… drumroll please…. never.
Map of the Ottoman Empire over various periods.
http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/declinemap.gif
JS, can you try to stick to the consensual version or reality when posting please? It would make the conversation a lot more worthwhile.
56. js | February 7th, 2008 at 8:11 am
“The Shah’s secret police murdered tens of thousands and were brutal torturers over a period of 25 years. Do you care to retract your comment”
Why should I. Did I cause it? No.
Here is where we show how stupid Obama supporters really are.
“Iran’s oil revenues were going almost entirely to the US and Britain ”
This is a fools parade!! Now this idiot is claiming that the US and UK ripped offf Iranian Oil!!
Iranians contracted corporations to pull the oil out of the ground. Thats because they had no idea how. Did the US do it? NO. Did the UK do it? NO.
What pathetic accusation. You really need to get a life instead of totally immersing yourself in these conspiracy theories. They are SO FOS!!
57. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:28 am
JS,
Your last post (number 56) is just another sequence of outright falsehoods (though not quite as hilariously bad as your posting about the Ottomans running Iran at one time) .
First off the expression is generally known as a ‘fools paradise’, a realm you seem to be inhabiting. Anyways, Iran’s oil was controlled by the Anglo-Persian oil company, it was a ridiculous agreement engineered in 1901 by the Shah’s father (another corrupt monarch) which basically gave 80%+ of the profits to the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company
The coup of 1953 was engineered by the CIA beause the Iranians, perfectly rightly, nationalised their own oil so that the people of Iran would get a share in their own natural resources. Instead, thanks to the US organized coup, they got 25 years of bloody dicatorship.
Seriously JS, what part of this are you not understanding? Why are you trying to argue about something you clearly know nothing about?
58. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Simple Iranian timeline that perhaps even JS may understand -
1953: CIA overthrows democratically elected Iranian government, placing the Shah in power. In 1951, Iranian parliament had nationalized the British Anglo-Persian oil company. This popular move was spearheaded by the reformer, Mossadegh, who was elected prime minister shortly after. Britain and the US organize ruthless economic blockade.
1954: Iranian oil re-privatized, with US and Britain in control. Popular opposition compels the Shah to rule through a reign of terror unrivalled in the region. US helps fund huge military and police build-up, and trains Savak, the notorious secret police. Amnesty International would write in 1976 that Iran had the “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.”
59. js | February 7th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“First off the expression is generally known as a ‘fools paradise’”
Now I know your a moron, you dont have a clue what a fool parade is, do you?
“Iran’s oil was controlled by the Anglo-Persian oil company, it was a ridiculous agreement engineered in 1901 by the Shah’s father (another corrupt monarch) which basically gave 80%+ of the profits to the British.”
1- thats not America.
2- It seemed ok for the Shah to do it, but the truth is, APOC (anglo-persian oil company) was a public company, that was not the UK.
3-you really need to quit hosting these lies to defend your position. it doesnt do you a bit of good to affirm the fact that you are doing nothing but spreading propoganda for the elite mullahs in Iraq to make the US and UK look bad
Obama Supporter, you really suck at this, you know!!
60. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Wow, I’m starting to realize that I’m debating an 11 year old, this has got to stop. Once again genius the expression is “Fool’s Paradise”. There is no such expression as “Fools Parade”. Is this waaaay too complex for you?
The three other points in your post make basically no sense and do not in any way speak to the fact that the US engineered a coup in Iran in 1953 which caused the Iranian people to suffer brutally for the next 25 years.
Look, JS, if you want to debate this I’m up for it. But can you please speak to these core issues, casuse man, explaining simplicities like this to you is getting tedious.
61. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Also Js -
When you’re trying to say to someone “your a moron” you’ll get slightly more respect if you spell it “your’re”.
62. js | February 7th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“1953: CIA overthrows democratically elected Iranian government”
Another lie.
The CIA never overthrew the Iranian Government. In 1951, the Prime Minister was assasinated by Pro Soviet forces inside Iran. Mosaddeq was the new prime minister, and he moved toward the hegemony of the USSR.
In 1953, the year then Prime Minister Mosaddeq of Iran stagged a coop against the Shah, the same year, the Shah came back and defeated him. Yes, the CIA and MI5 helped, but that was because the Prime Minister of Iraq was instituting Socialist programs and conspired with the Soviets during the Cold War. Other Iranians helped him. The West prevented Iran from becoming another Soviet Possesion, saving millions of lives and allowing the free people of Iran to practice thier own religion.
The prime ministry was an elected official. You seem to represent that democracy didnt exist before or during the Shah. Thats another lie. You do present a lot of misrepresentations Osama Supporter.
63. js | February 7th, 2008 at 8:51 am
61. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Also Js -
When you’re trying to say to someone “your a moron” you’ll get slightly more respect if you spell it “your’re”.
If you want to garner respect, you should stop lying.
64. js | February 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Obama Supporter;
In your ignorance, your true colors shine through.
A fools parade is exactly what I said, and exactly what I ment.
I did NOT say fools paradise.
For your small mindedness, however, I will aid in curing your ignorance;
A fools parade is a parade of fools. This is to represent the propoganda that you have presented here before us. Your omissions of facts, that if disclosed, would totally eliminate any credibility that you think you might have had, thus, leading you to the fools conclusion that you can lie with impunity and decieve the good people on this blog.
You, sir, are the fool in that parade. Even more so, by ignoring the legitimate facts that I presented, while pointing to the most obvious lies in your parade.
65. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Where did I lie, JS?
Coming from someone who has had one falsehood after another pointed out to them above, that comment is a a little rich.
You seem to come from the ‘make one ridiculous, baseless, claim then have it verifiably refuted, then make another ridiculous baseless claim’ school of debate. Do you find that it earns you a lot of respect?
It seems you’re reduced to name calling and unfounded accusations. Grow up.
66. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Wow Js, so as well as everything else you get to coin new phrases when blogging, eh? You didn’t mean to say “fool’s paradise” (a common saying with an etymology going back at least to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet), instead you are coining and definging a new term “fools parade”.
Good man yourself. It’s a pleasure debating you.
67. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Really JS, I suggest you stop now and go and have a cup of coffee or something, I just showed some of your last posts to my girlfriends and she nearly choked on her muffin. You should go into commedy man.
68. js | February 7th, 2008 at 9:12 am
66. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Wow Js, so as well as everything else you get to coin new phrases when blogging
New phrase?
No, just the use of two words that accurately describe you and your “parade”.
69. js | February 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
65. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Where did I lie, JS?
You have a memory as small as your mind, which is very small indeed….
Your omissions are evidence of that fact.
70. js | February 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
67. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Really JS, I suggest you stop now and go and have a cup of coffee or something, I just showed some of your last posts to my girlfriends and she nearly choked on her muffin. You should go into commedy man
—————————-
Is that supposed to mean something tangible? I should just equate it to some illusion that a girl would actually put up with your BS, eh? Sorta like the conspiracy theory you float about Iran@!!!
71. majoriot | February 7th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“In a dishonest age, it is difficult at times to immediately combat a clever lie.”
…and who would know the advantage of this more than the Bush administration?
72. Timothy Horrigan | February 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Well, you can look at the unclassified versions of the NIE for yourself. The authors of the study seem to be hedging their bets… they know that the political appointees want them to say that Iran is a threat, but they also clearly believe that Iran is in fact not much of a threat… so they say things like (paraphrasing) Iran could develop a bomb in about ten years if they had foreign help, if they found a source of enriched uranium and if they commited enough resources to a program. Heck, just about any industrialized country could develop a bomb in ten years with foreign help if they wanted to. If the data in the NIE justifies bombing Iran, we may as well bomb Luxembourg and South Africa while we’re at it.
73. js | February 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
But the truth may be that they just want us, and Iran, to think that. If I were capable of monitoring the Nuclear development of my enemies, would I want them to know it? Surely, NO.
So when you conclude that the 2007 NIE report was an accurate rendition of current intelligence, you do just what they want you to do. Bush doesnt give a squat, his goal is to protect American interests, and in this case, at the expense of his very honor in the political media that feeds on gossip and rumors on a daily basis. Bush won. Hand down.
Our secrets are still secrets, even in Iran. It doesnt matter if “Bush is thwarted”. There is a much bigger stake in this than public opinion.
74. Joe | February 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
js,
The whole point here is that just because the director of national intelligence said he wished he worded it in a “different manner” does not mean it was WRONG.
What part of that do you not understand?
Just because you and Mark don’t want to believe the NIE and feel it doesn’t make sense to you is no reason to start beating more war drums and claim we “need to move very, very quickly against Iran”.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if “Bush doesn’t give a squat” or not. There is nothing here saying the NIE was not correct and there is nothing that says Iran is anywhere near a nuke.
Damn… you people really get off trying to start more wars.
75. js | February 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The only thing I understand is that trying to actually communicate with you is a useless cause.
Its pretty obvious that the statement I made is far beyond your comprehension, otherwise, you would have made a comment that contained information relevant to what I said.
You go beyond that and conclude what I (and Mark) want, which shows beyond any reasonable doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. I will continue to hold the opinion that you are worthless and are a waste of time here. Go back to moveon.org. This place really isnt your style.
Nothings changed.
76. Joe | February 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Great! Let me debate you like that…
You are an idiot and I have no time for you.
You are truly a master (de)bater. Ha! 5th grade humor is probably all you’ll get.
77. Christian Wright | February 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“If we didnt intervene, Iraq would have become a Soviet ally, because of Mosaddeq’s action and leanings toward socialism.”
So if we did not intervene, Iran would be like France (another socialist state) and its capital would be the Paris of the Middle East.
That does not sound too bad.
Even better, having a country (democratic or socialist) in the Middle East would have been pressure on surrounding countries. The entire Middle-East might have had parlaments with ministers elected by the people instead of dictatorships by now.
78. sam | February 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Js,
Bring it, I can’t wait for another attack on US Soil, it will teach you ladies about real war and death, its easy to sit here and say let us fight them on their land so they can’t fight us here, but as soon as rich kids start dying, the country will swing and the boys will be back home with their tails between their legs, like a bunch of women we all know they are…..
THe problem is that you will NEVER win the war in Iraq, there is a simple reason for it, THOSE PEOPLE DON’T WANT YOUR STYLE OF DEMOCRACY AND LIFE.
Give it up already, the Middle East is no place for infidels, you lost against Saladdin during the crusades, You will lose again and go home crying about how bad those guys are and how much the hate you. Thats right, they hate you, and I can’t wait for another round of killing here at home!
79. js | February 7th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Oh, how sweet.
Curly Joe and Moe.
The three stooges.
80. Tractatus | February 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Damn… you people really get off trying to start more wars.
So much so that when their rationale is disproven, instead of, you know, adapting to facts (”adapting” and “facts” are for damn dirty liberals, don’t you know), they say, “Uhhh…ummm…well…an evil cabal of Democrats lurking deep within various intelligence agencies is intentionally thwarting Bush! Yeah, that’s the ticket! They must be rooted out!” and actually expect to be taken seriously by non-crazy people.
81. FmrMarine | February 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
JS
The Israelis say 2-3 years for irans N-bomb.
The mossad is nearly 100% in this region.
I will believe them before some marxist democRATs at the state dept, or their cronies.
82. Obama Supporter | February 7th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
FmrMarine,
I’d take what the Israelis say about Iran with a large pinch of dead sea salt. They kind of have an agenda in regard to getting the US to attack Iran for no damn good reason, didn’t that ever occur to you.
It’s a good job you’re a FORMER marine since what you are basically saying here is that you prefer to take your lead from foregin sovereign power rather than from our own intelligence services and State Department experts (a State Department that has been under solid republican control for most of the last decade, by the way).
Israel is nakedly trying to manouver the US into fighting a dangerous, unjustified and potentially globally destabilizing war, not for OUR benefit or security but for theirs. Given that you seem to support Israel’s position versus those of own government agencies and our own obvious interests I’d have to say that that makes you are a traitorous fink.
83. js | February 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I really think the Demoncrats have thier claws inside the CIA. We need to clean it out and make the CIA do what its ment to do, instead of a pawn of political ambition. Some kind of false loyalty to the Kennedys or something instead of Duty, Honor, Country.
Im sure the Mossad has far better intelligence on the ground in Iran than we do. I dont think Israel will wait too much longer to strike, they really cant affort too.
84. js | February 7th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The only that should be taken with a grain of salt is your opinion Obama sucker.
Where are you anyways? Tehran? In the basement of some government building, payed $3 a day to hijack threads and spread propoganda?
You really are a pathetic sort, a balless wonder with pick cooties. Id venture to say your probably a coward too. Then again, the way you believe all the propoganda, spread lies and deciet, omit facts to make lies seem true, your not smart enough to come up with that all by yourself. What is there, like 2 or 3 people behind you telling you what to type?
what a phoney!!
85. sam | February 7th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
nice spelling JS…you really show your education and brains by typing the way you do. HAHAHAHA…loser.
86. js | February 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
WoW Sam.
It actually a compliment to be dis’d by a mental midget.
Thanks.
87. Obama Supporter | February 8th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Wow Mark, you must be proud to have people like JS above arguing your side for you.
Snigger…
88. js | February 8th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Gee Obama,
Your lucky Mark even tolerates your lies, let alone, tolerates some Iranian Government Operative to stack Shxx so high on his Blog.
89. Joe | February 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
js,
Sure sounds like you just invoked the…
“I know you are but what I am” arguement there.
You are a moron.
90. Rat SMELL affirmed! at De&hellip | February 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
[...] Was the NIE Cooked to Thwart Bush’s Iran Policy? [...]
91. Almiranta | February 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
When I read the thread I knew that the Lemming Loons would be falling all over themselves to sneer, snicker, titter, and giggle till they wet themselves over the opportunity to strut their ignorance.
See? I do know the rabid radical base.
I doubt that there is one Leftist platitude or cliche left uposted, after this little orgy of left-wing venting.
It makes me wish we could divide the country literally instead of figuratively, with the appeasement crowd, the Islam is Great crowd, the anti-Bush crowd, the anti-defense crowd, on one side of the country and the rest of us on the other. I think they have every right to play the silly little game of why can’t we all just get along—as long as they are the only ones to get killed when it blows up in their faces.
But we all know that if push really could come to shove, every last one of them would want to be on our side of the line—because deep down, under the posturing and name-calling and efforts to outdo each other in the spite and venom department, they know that they would not be very safe in a country which paid any attention to them.
I for one am getting more and more creeped out by the constant and undending orgy of spite and malice, of the gleeful wallowing in the nastiest possible rhetoric, in the blatant disregard for any degree of truth as long as they think they have an audience for their pathological venting of spleen.
What I have learned from this blog is that if I want to see an idea, I read certain posts—-keefer, navydad, marine, spook, even Rico when he shakes off his lingering lleftist tendencies and sticks to facts. If I were to want to wallow in the mire of what passes for intellectual political discourse from the rabid Left, which is to say a relentless spewing of hate and venom, I can always check on on whatever new toxin Joe is spouting, or any of the other Usual Suspects.
Never an idea from any of them. Ever. Just a constant regurgitation of Airhead America, the Daily Kos, and whatever other sources they have for their craving for the most negative, vile, and distasteful garbage they can then spew out in their sick need to be the nastiest of the nasty.
And we aren’t even into the election cycle yet. With participants like these, it can only get uglier.
92. js | February 8th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
89. Joe | February 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
js,
Sure sounds like you just invoked the…
“I know you are but what I am” arguement there.
You are a moron
The only thing I hear, Joe, is a simple confirmation of what I said about you. Your contribution here, or lack thereof, only makes us wonder why you even bother to think.
And again, its actually a compliment to be dis’d by mental midgets. Too funny Joe.
93. Obama Supporter | February 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Almirata,
If you read the comments above from me and several others you’ll see that the people on the liberal side of things talked about the history of Iran and why it’s probably not a good idea to get into a military conflict with Iran given that history. Your post on the other hand is merely a long whine about how you’d like to see this country literally divided in two between those who share you point of view and those who don’t (an amazingly egocentric admission), and how you only like to read posts from people who already have exactly the same point of view as your own. By your own admission that makes you an incredibly closed minded-person. You’ve added nothing to the facts of this debate. Your posts always just read like a tirade of sarcasm and naked insults, you simply have nothing constuctive to say.
94. Jessie&hellip | March 24th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Jessie
Interesting opinions which are diverse and give reason to a great deal of thought.
95. Pay Day Loans&hellip | March 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Pay Day Loans
If someone you know is plain on bill paying money just effortlessly apply for an online cash advance loan that is super, untroublesome, and express today!