Norman Podhoretz takes note of some questions about it:
…I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”
Me, too; I haven’t read the actual NIE, but it is reported that while the NIE is highly confident that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Iran continues to enrich a sort of uranium which is really only useful in a nuclear weapons program. In technical terms, to say something like that is known as bullsh**. Its like saying that the illegals have stopped trying to cross the border, but are still digging that tunnel under the fence…
Someone at State and/or CIA is merely trying to undercut the President’s stated policy of not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Yet another lesson in the absolute necessity of any future GOP Administration to fire each and every person hired or promoted by a previous Democratic Administration. Aside from that, I don’t think this NIE will amount to a hill of beans as far as President Bush is concerned – it won’t be an NIE which decides what to do about Iran, but President Bush after carefully weighing all the available data.
Blogs For Victory 
Almiranta,
“The fact that many agencies of the government are inhabited by radical Lefties is no secret.”
Nice that you conviniently ignore that fact that this NIE was reviewed and approved by the National Intelligence Board, which is chaired by the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, a man appointed by George W. Bush. And is made up almost entirely of Bush appointed agency heads.
You people seriously think that all 16 intelligence agencies are involved in this grand conspiracy against the President simply because you didn’t like what they had to say. George Bush said that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, so that means that Iran must be, right?
Jesus… Grand conspiracy by the intelligence community. Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. And you people call liberals unhinged? You really have no idea how completely foolish you people sound right now do you?
how exactly did Bush do this? There decision to stop pursuing nuclear technology had nothing to do with Bush – indeed it was something that was negotiated between the leaders of Iran , the IAEA, and the UN – most of it before Bush was president . In fact the leaders of the UN and the IAEA along with independent intelligent agencies concluded that if anything the Bush rhetorick delayed and threatened the pre-existing agreements..
none of this is in response to Mark’s insane rants though – what about all of those
“You lefties really need to address the substance here rather than just pretending that I said something I didn’t say…an NIE says there is high confidence that Iran halted its program in 2003 even though a 2005 NIE said there was high confidence that Iran had NOT halted its program”
So that must mean the older report is right? Why is that Marky? Becuase it says what you want it to? God forbid we acquired new intelligence on Iran.
“and, meanwhile, even this NIE says that Iran continues to enrich uranium which is generally only useful for a weapons program…in other words, they are highly confident that it has been stopped AND highly confident that it is ongoing”
And you generally don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/Aboutusec_enrichment.asp
“Uranium enrichment is a critical step in transforming natural uranium into nuclear fuel to produce electricity. Uranium is a naturally occurring element containing U-235 and U-238 isotopes. Only the U-235 isotope is fissionable. Enrichment is the process of increasing the concentration of U-235 and decreasing that of U-238.”
The United States enriches uranium all the time for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. In fact you have to enrich Uranium if you want to use it in nuclear power plants.
To say that enriched uranium is only useful for making nuclear weapons demonstrates either a complete lack of knowledge about the topic you are blogging about, or a deliberate attempt to be intellectually dishonest. I’m willing to bet it’s a little of both.
Ok, bottom line. The world is a little safer than we thought. If Kahn’s right, and it’s because of the Iraq war, then YIPEE!! We got something positive out of the war and the occupation. If not then YIPEE!! We have one less thing to worry about and a lot less reason to jump into another war regardless of what brought this about.
please go actually read the report Mark. Don’t just listen to what your pundits tell you it says go read it.
USA has one of the worst cases of projection I have ever seen…med adjustment on aisle 57
Kahn,
You keep claiming North Korea as a victory of some kind. Is that because they currently possess nuclear arms? I thought the idea was to prevent that.
Faceplant,
Go re-read what I wrote – break out the dictionary if any of the words are hard to understand. I didn’t write what you think I wrote.
LiberalT,
Have you read it?
Things which don’t strike our lefty friends as odd:
1. Two years ago, the very same NIE said that Iran was for-sure making nukes.
2. Iran has been rapidly increasing its enrichment capability.
3. The bloodthirsty rhetoric from Iran has INCREASED over the past couple years.
4. Israel just bombed a suspected nuke site in Iran-allied Syria.
5. Iran is busily dispersing and hardening its nuclear facilities.
With all that, our lefties take the NIE’s “stopped in 2003” as gospel…they won’t think beyond that. They’ve got what they think is a BUSH LIED!!!! moment, and thus their brains shut down as their mouths open wider to shout all the more…
For the alleged reality based community, you lefties sure don’t seem interested in using the intellect God gave you…and, you know, at Judgement you will have to account for how you used His gifts. Might want to start thinking about thinking – independent thought only hurts the first time you try it.
Casper – “The world is a little safer than we thought?” Give me a break.
Do some research on the damage one MODERN nuke could do. I can’t believe it, I’m having to explain to a liberal how bad atomic bombs are.
Diana – Korea tried one explosion that appears to have been a dud. We don’t think they have them. Maybe they do? I don’t think so.
Interesting – it’s possible that George Bush actually did a great thing here. Does the derangement preclude that you actually look into and think a little? Posters above (like faceplant) who are pasting into this blog without reading the discussion make me laugh. You have one half of you saying Bush wants war and this is bad, the news. And when I pooint out that if they stopped its a victory, you throw the breaks on so fast.
So which IS it? Did they stop in 2003? BEFORE the sanctions? And why?
Or, are they still a threat?
Logic, I know you aren’t used to it. Hate really is a poor substitute you know.
George Bush’s preemptive attack against Iraq may have ended the nuclear programs in three hostile nations. One of which is still technically at war with us (only an armistice was signed in Korea).
So – is that bad or good?
You know liberals, all I’m doing is agreeing with you version of the facts and judging if thats good or not.
You tell us
– Libya –
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
– North Korea –
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
– Iran –
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
If you think they stopped, then I’m right!! If you don’t think they stopped them Mark is right!!!
So – you decide: Which Republican is right?
Mark writes:
an NIE says there is high confidence that Iran halted its program in 2003 even though a 2005 NIE said there was high confidence that Iran had NOT halted its program…and, meanwhile, even this NIE says that Iran continues to enrich uranium which is generally only useful for a weapons program…
Actually Mark, enriched uranium is used in power generationas well. It is the level to which the uranium is enriched that determines what its use is. Higher the enrichment more likely it is used in a weapon.
…if you don’t want any intellegent people around to stop you devils. You have to fire any desent huh?…your ideas are very weak. Lies probably. Can you comprehend anything I say? Mark, Conservatives? The few devils patting you on your back aren’t going destroy the fact that most of the posters are against you.
UneducatedStupidArse, could you please rewrite this jibberish? Other than the last sentence, nothing else makes sense.
As for the last sentence, Mark, USA has a point. The fact that you are so tolerant of these puke lemming trolls has driven a lot of your supporters away. A lot of them have gone to blogs where lefty gloating and gotchafests aren’t tolerated. That’s all the majority of these trolls do here, with the exception of Diana, extramedium, and a scant few others. The rest of them–liberetardT, lenny, What?, plaincowjane, Sunny, USA, Aairhead, et.al., are a nuisance and should be banned, before more of your supporters desert.
The reason why the US hates Iran is be because it refused to be a vassal of the US.
Iran has the democracy that Bush claims he is trying to export to the Middle East.
The popularly elected Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown in a CIA plot in 1953 because he nationalized the oil. The US and the British put the Shah of Iran in his place. The Shah murdered all proponents of democracy and brutalized his people in ways that would make Saddam cower. It was under the Shah’s brutal oppression that the population turned to religion. It was only under that oppression that this religion became militant, until it overthrew the Shah in favor of theocratic form of government. Then the US sided with Saddam to destroy Iran.
The Persians know their history so they know who the evil empire is. It is the US. Were it not for the US greed for Persian oil, Iran would be celebrating its 56th year as a democracy.
Please review the link for Iranian history.
http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html
Kahn,
I know what a modern Nuke can do. That’s my point. If Iran is no longer trying to build them, then wouldn’t the world be safer?
I have a difficult time understanding why it took five years to come to the conclusion that Iran has halted its nuclear program. I’m not saying it’s not true (at this point I don’t know what to believe), I’m just curious as to why we were fed ‘false’ information for five years?
Also, if I ran halted its nuclear program in 2003, why didn’t they open their facilities for international inspection at that time in exchange for economic concessions as did Libya and N. Korea? These countries have little else to gain by developing nuclear arms other than to use them as extortion tactics. Therefore it would make no sense for Iran to ‘secretly’ shut down their nuclear program.
um….Christian,
The Pahlavi family had ruled Iran since 1919 and the Shah had always been the government figurehead following his fathers death. Mossadegh was APPOINTED the prime minister and ATTEMPTED to nationalize the oil industry against the wishes of the Shah and was subsequently deposed by the Iranian military with the help of the US and British.
Just FYI
And Iran is hardly the wonderful democracy you allude to.
Casper – not just a “little” bit safer. As your post said.
If Bush really did get all three of these countries to drop their programs – then it’s a major accomplishment.
Kahn, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I had stuff to do.
You tell us
– Libya –
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
They stopped when their turn-key uranium enrichment plant was discovered on ship before it was delivered. I’m sure they spent a lot of money on it, and not getting it was a major, probably fatal blow to their nuclear aspirations. At the time they were also coming close to an agreement for sanctions to be lifted. So the revelation put that in serious jeopardy. So, irrespective of Iraq, the choices were: (1) to continue their nuclear program (which was now in shambles) and continue suffering under sanctions, or (2) to drop their nuclear program and get the sanctions lifted. It’s possible that Iraq had some influence on that decision, but it’s also possible that it didn’t. They certainly said it didn’t.
– North Korea –
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
The information obtained from Libya revealed the secret enrichment programs conducted by North Korea (and Iran). When confronted with it they responded by kicking out the inspectors and reviving work building a plutonium device — work that had been shut down for over a decade by virtue of the agreement reached with the Clinton administration. Finally, earlier this year they came back to the table when international pressure was stepped up. Again, Iraq may have had something to do with their decisions, but if anything the influence was likely to have been more negative than positive.
– Iran –
WMD or not?
When did they stop (if they did)?
Why?
The information obtained from Libya revealed their secret enrichment program too. The current NIE indicates they stopped as a result of international pressure following that revelation. But in their case the invasion of Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanistan) almost certainly assisted in that decision. Saddam was their mortal enemy. One of Saddam’s captors recently revealed that one of the big reasons Saddam lied about his WMD was to thwart possible hostile intentions on the part of Iran. I’m sure the Iranians felt the same way. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was also unfriendly to Iran. Suddenly there wasn’t so much reason for nuclear protection as before.
That’s how I’d answer your questions. As you can see, the question is rather complicated. It might not be spot on, either. On the other hand, just because the Iraq invasion closely preceded other things don’t necessarily mean they are related. In this case there is also something else that closely preceded the other things as well — intercepting Libya’s nuclear shipment. And the cause and effect there is much clearer.
Christian wright,
Interesting link … the fact that most people, myself included, in this country have a serious lack of histroy education is a big part of the problem. Of course some people have very little ability to take the time to learn the history. They accept what they are told in 30 minute news shows that are made up mostly of entertainment, celebrity, and weather items.
“1951- 1953 — Iran’s Majles passed a law sponsored by the nationalistic (soon to be prime minister) Dr. Mossadeq to nationalize Iran’s oil from British control. The British, enraged by the threat to their oil concessions, froze all of Iran’s Sterling assets and took their case to the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in Iran’s favor. Undeterred, the British placed a total trade embargo on Iran and enforced it with their navy, leading to the collapse of Iran’s economy. Citing the threat of a communist takeover, British Intelligence and the CIA sponsored a coup to topple Dr. Mossadeq’s government. In the midst of the coup, the young Shah, having thought the plan had failed, left the country. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Mossadeq’s government was overthrown and the Shah was put back in power.”
SteaM,,It appears as though you still need more history lessens:
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran………..was the monarch of Iran from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11, 1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah of the Iranian monarchy.
The Shah came to power during World War II, after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah’s rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death.[citation needed] The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.[citation needed] Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh.
Rico – excellent answer thanks. You’re right – it’s complicated. But I think that Iraq probably had a big psychological effect whether its admitted or not.
But the big picture is, that the current administration is not the big scary march-to-war monster that it is portrayed as. Here we have three hostile nations that through a combination of sticks, carrots, intercepting material, and intelligence work have stopped their programs. And yes, it’s big and complicated. But also yes – President Bush’s administration was successful.
The petty arguments about this NIE miss this point. President Bush is arguing about keeping his current program to suppress Iran’s program in place. There is still an argument for this. And well, he’s been successful so far.
I don’t understand why Republicans are letting the press and the left beat us up on this. This is the third in a string of striking victories. Though chronolgically – North Korea was the final one to stop.
neocon et al,
Heck, I went to tech school with Iranians in 1977. They were flying F-14’s, Bell helicopters, and more.
Two years later we were flying ELINT missions off the Midway up into Iran in preparation for the (aborted) rescue mission.