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 
I think it’s time to tone down the rhetoric and find some common ground on the Iranian issue. I think it’s safe to say that both conservatives and liberals would agree that using a seat-belt every time you drive is a good idea. But, why? Do you get into an accident every time you drive? I certainly hope not. No, it’s a good idea, because it is possible that you could get into an accident. I think both conservatives and liberals would agree that it is possible that Iran is attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon. There is no absolute way to be sure they aren’t. Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side? Or do liberals like to live dangerously?
Kahn,
Thanks to Jimmah Carter…..
Kirk,
I think thats a good idea. OK, so we got them to stop. But maybe it was just that they paused? How can we be sure?
Thats what Bush is pushing for, I believe. That they acknowledge that they even had a program and that they dismantle it. THAT’s the problem with the NIE.
Certainly people can agree that stopping sworn enemies from getting nuclear weapons is a good idea? Funny, because I’ve seen it both minimized here and Iran’s positions defended.
“Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side”
Ok, why would us “lefties” not think it would make sense to attack Iran just to be safe while still thinking it’s a good idea to wear a seat belt?
Here’s why it’s not a good idea. They have a huge military. They have control of a lot of our oil which means they can control our economy. They would retaliate by striking our allies, ya know, Isreal. It would be a huge mess in the middle east. And it would really piss off the muslims in the region. Hezbollah would probably get involved.
Also:
“An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, especially provoking the Shiite Muslim populations. Considering that Shiites largely run the governments of Iran and Iraq and are a potent force in Saudi Arabia, that doesn’t bode well for calm in the region. It would incite the Lebanese Hezbollah, an ally of Iran’s, potentially sparking increased global terrorism. A Shiite rebellion in Iraq would further endanger US troops and push the country deeper into civil war.
Attacking Iran could also tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to piss off during his period in office.
Russia and China have developed strong ties recently, both with each other and with Iran. Each possesses nuclear weapons, and arguably more threatening to the US, each holds large reserves of US dollars which can be dumped in favor of euros.”
——————-
So, all of this, just to be safe? Does this sound all that SAFE of a bet? Because to me it’s clearly ludicrous to try to attack Iran. I’ll gladly, however, buckle my seat belt if our idiotic leadership and republicans that support them do indeed do this.
“If Bush really did get all three of these countries to drop their programs – then it’s a major accomplishment.” Kahn
I agree. What astounds me is that the leftist blame Bush for everything imaginable, Global Warming, 9/11, the price of gasoline, Katrina, you name it, anything that has gone wrong in the world is his fault.
However when three countries drop their nuclear programs during his term, in response to pressure, Bush had nothing to do with it, and can’t be given any of the credit.
Its the same disconnected logic in which one one hand they call Bush a moron, who can’t walk and chew gum, and on the other a mastermind who has conncocted diabolical plans to steal two elections, destroy the twin towers and lie to the American people to invade a country to avenge a faile attempt on his father…blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, time and time again they have shown a willingness to sacrifice principle for peace.
And these idiots want to run the country???
phnx, how much oil did you consume today? Probably as much as the rest of us did. Which is 20 million barrels a day.
You know who has the most oil? Saudis, Iraq, and Iran… in that order. Without oil what are we? Nothing. If we have control of it, we are the strongest nation in the world.
Without it we are, again, nothing.
So think about that next time you advocate attacking and occupying a soverign nation sitting on a huge oil reserve.
Peace in America in 2007 and beyond = Securing Oil Reserves
My vision of Peace? Focusing on renewable resources, become the biggest most innovative producer of these products and become the biggest exporter of said products to the rest of the world.
Is that so crazy?
Kahn, common sense is the best policy. I really can’t grasp why people would argue otherwise yet I see it all the time from the left.
SteaM, I agree that Iran has a huge military on paper, but most people in the Iranian military would greet us as liberators. This would be a short war. As far as your safety concerns, do you really think a nuclear holocaust is safer than conventional warfare? Seriously, do you really think a war that takes a few weeks or a few months is worse than every American citizen being vaporized?
Kirk,
Uh, are you Don Rumsfeld or something? Greet us as liberators? Short war? War would only take a few weeks or months?
good god, man, this is what all the architects of the Iraq war kept telling us. That’s how they sold it to us and the media. And they were wrong. I ain’t gonna be fooled again.
Didn’t we learn anything from Iraq? Or hell, what about vietnam?
SteaM,
Canada is our largest supplier of oil, and considering the vast reserves there, we may never need ME oil.
There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves here. That’s second to Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion but it’s only what companies can get with today’s technology. The estimate of how many more barrels of oil are buried deeper underground is staggering.
“We know there’s much, much more there. The total estimates could be two trillion or even higher,” says Clive Mather, Shell’s Canada chief. “This is a very, very big resource.”
Very big? That’s eight times the amount of reserves in Saudi Arabia.
SteaM, I object to your use of the word “sold.” Tell me though, what were Rumsfeld or the “architects” wrong about? Of course we learned a lot from Iraq. That’s why we are going use that war as a template for Iran. I see no reason why we won’t have the same success. Perhaps you have some “secret” information that President Bush doesn’t. If Vietnam taught us one thing it’s that you only lose a war when you pull the troops out. Perhaps you think our troops are losers, but most Americans would disagree.
And to further back NeoCon’s statement: Since oil is a world commodity oil prices will rise thereby enabling American oil companies to increase profits and trickle them down to the American people. I just don’t see anyway we can lose by attacking Iran and Syria. Or perhaps you don’t think Americans should be prosperous?
Wow, Kirk, I don’t know where to start. I’m laughing too hard to type. Your comment is satire, right?
Kirk,
“I think both conservatives and liberals would agree that it is possible that Iran is attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon. There is no absolute way to be sure they aren’t. Given that we all agree that always using a seat-belt is a good idea then wouldn’t we all agree that it makes sense to attack Iran just to be on the safe side?”
By your logic, I should shoot my neighbor before he shoots me. By your logic we should attack every other country in the world, because they might be threats some day.
SteaM, smearing me won’t cover the fact that you don’t seem to understand geopolitics. Take for example your view that since we get most of our oil from Canada that cutting the supply from the “ME” will have no effect on us. Quite clearly this will cause oil prices to rise domestically as Canada will sell to whomever will provide the most profits. This in turn means American oil companies can raise their prices too; thereby allowing the American people to reap a windfall of profits. This is simple supply and demand. I don’t want to be too harsh, but only a dullard would think that cutting the supply of oil somewhere other than Canada or the US has no effect on us. It’s as if you live in your own little world and don’t understand market forces at all.
Back to the real lie.
McConnell TOLD Bush back in August about an important NIE finding. Bush did not ask, nor was seemingly interested in finding out what this NIE contained.
He did not find out until last week.
BUSH IS LYING.
You know it, I know it, the world knows it.
Sad. Honestly, how sad. The leadererer in Chief.
Kirk,
geopolitics is NOT bombing every nation you don’t agree with.
Good grief.
Casper, that is a silly thing to say. Quite clearly you can’t attack everyone at once so you must use peace as leverage against the less serious threats. I think this is a key difference between us: You see peace as a goal in and of itself while I see it as a necessary evil. Sometimes I get criticized as being too moderate for having this view, but I see nothing wrong with being pragmatic.
Joe, do you really think I don’t understand that? Why do you think we developed ICBM’s? Your extreme ideology makes you twist my words.
Okay, now I get it… Kirk is a plant trying to make conservatives look like a bunch of morons.
So Kirk… why exactly is Iran more of a serious threat than say… Pakistan (who already has a bomb) or North Korea who already tested (although unsuccessfully) nuclear weapons?
Why do you say Iran, who HALTED HEIR WEAPONS PROGRAM 4 YEARS AGO is more of a threat?
Nobody has ever successfully explained why the push for bombing Iran.
SteaM writes – “Ok, why would us “lefties” not think it would make sense to attack Iran just to be safe while still thinking it’s a good idea to wear a seat belt?”
Who attacked Iran? Who was planning to? We are talking tough. You know, ther’re still enriching Uranium. The do still hate us.
But well, are you saying that Bush neutralized this problem in 2002 and he’s just miking it? That his 3 and 0 record on nuke stopping is bad?
Kirk, you say I twisted YOUR words??? You are the one who claimed…
Perhaps you think our troops are losers, but most Americans would disagree.
Who ever said that????
Ricorun, very clever. Pretend to be a conservative spouting that I’m part of a conspiracy to discredit other conservatives in order to discredit conservatives yourself by making us look like conspiracy nuts. I think everyone can see who the real conspirator is.
Agent – so Bush is lying to cover up a major victory? That doesn’t sound absurd to you?
Nuclear weapons nuclear weapons nuclear weapons. They are too dangerous to assume anything. OK, so they stopped working on them. Great. They never admitted they WERE working on them. They are still enriching uranium. AND the report says their program could still be running (plausible, but not probable). So? Which is it? Are they still a threat? Or did Bush eliminate the threat already?
Maybe he eliminated it, but wants to keep it eliminated?
I’m getting sick of these stupid posts. Your hatred has colored your judgment to the point that your arguments are insane.
North Korea – stopped their nukes.
Iran – stopped their nukes.
Libya – stopped their nukes.
ALL because of Bush policies. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Yoy asshole. You’re actually angry because Bush eliminated a nuclear threat. What a dick (you are).
Joe, it’s because Iran could restart their nuclear weapons program. President Bush has made this very clear. Also, you don’t deny that you think our troops are losers so I think it is pretty clear to most of us that that must be how you feel.
Kahn, you are giving aid to the enemy by claiming that America is just “talking tough.” Please desist.