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 
Agent, ditto what Kahn said, but without the profanity.
That’s it Kirk… keep twisting away. Again, when did anyone say the troops were losers? I believe those were YOUR words. To quote Kahn above… “You asshole”.
You still didn’t answer the question. Why is Iran more of a threat. If they COULD reinstitute it, why couldn’t North Korea or Libya for that matter that are/were apparently further along than Iran ever was.
Why is Pakistan not a bigger threat? They don’t have to reconsitute anything. They HAVE them!!!
Okay, even I have to say that Kirk is either, A) “a lefty troll” satirizing Blogs For Victory, or B) most assuredly ought to be A, if not A.
No, not just talking tough. I just don’t think we were or are seriously considering attacking Iran.
We certainly could. And it wouldn’t take ground troops either. We have protected airfields in three nations bordering Iran. Plus, Bahrain and Kuwait. Plus we’ve got this Navy with lots of aircraft carriers and ships that have large batteries of cruise missiles.
I believe that HAD to be one of things the Iranians considered. It is actually ludicrous to argue it wasn’t. That threat MUST remain real to get them the rest of the way on this. To get them to admit to and dismantle their program.
My argument is at Liberals. YOU say he’s lying. I say about what? You mean he’s lying about not winning a tremendous victory? The absurdity is incredible.
Norman Podhoretz … when is this guy ever right?
Okay Kirk, let’s review…
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.
Peace is a necessary evil?
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.
Uh, yeah… your argument is that if you increase the supply prices will go up and that would be great for everyone.
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.
Many would argue our experience in Iraq would argue against rather than for what you propose.
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?
Why stop at seat belts? According to your reasoning a better analogy would be to eliminate cars. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about seat belts.
Joe, again you refuse to deny the comments. Also, it is unrealistic to attack North Korea, Libya and Pakistan at the same time we attack Iran and Syria. You are like a child that wants everything now. Sometimes you just have to wait.
Diana, if name calling is all you have then bring it on.
Kahn, we both agree that we could attack Iran. My point is that we should attack Iran now. Why wait? Waiting is taking a risk that more “intelligence” comes out saying they are not an imminent threat. That’s a risk I don’t think is worth taking.
That is correct Kirk, attack Iran NOW. As soon as you are done, then go into Syria. After that, then we can deal with Pakistan, Libya and North Korea. Once those all fall, then Russia and China will be invaded!!!!! You are a serious freak of a person.
The reason I haven’t denied it yet is because I never said it. It is simply you being a complete dope.
Ricorun,
1) Yes, I was quite clear in my statement.
2) No, increasing supplies would make prices go down. I said cutting supplies would make prices go up. Nice attempt to try blunt my expertise in this field by claiming I said something I didn’t.
3) Yes, many people argue ridiculous things. Just look at the comments on this blog.
4) Your analogy is flawed. The car represents the world while the seat-belt represents a strategy to keep the world safe. Are you saying we should get rid of the world just so we don’t have to worry about strategy?
Joe, how is knowing our limitations being a freak? Seriously, just because I acknowledge the reality that the United States can’t do everything it ought to do you attack me. It’s not unpatriotic to come up with a realistic strategy for success. In fact, I would say that it is more patriot to do so.
Once again, you don’t deny agreeing with those nasty comments.
Kirk,
Do you endore Ron Paul for president? If so how do you feel about him saying we should get out of the middle east immediatly?
SteaM,
Your post about the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran makes no sense whatsoever.
As you point out, we need oil, so according to you we should have been dependent upon regimes (Iraq with Saddam) and Iran, until we could develop altenative energy sources.
May I remind you that Saddam, had full intentions to resurrect his WMD program as soon as sanctions were raised. Iran probably has the same intent. So Saudi Arabia will be at their mercy as would a large portion of the the world supply of oil.
I’m all for reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, and if alternative energy is the answer, great! But best estimates are 10 to 20 years before we stand any chance of displacing oil even if the energy sources, which are R&D prijects, actually work. OBTW, environmentalists have just filed another law suit against a wind power project in Texas. So much for that source of energy as well as nuclear power, which is proven, but opposed by you leftists.
I do not understand why you leftists are against tapping our own oil reserves. Fact is we do not know with any certainty how much oil is off of our shores and in Alaska. But it seems to me that we better know and be prepared to use it in the event of a world catastrophe.
Al Queda could care less if the world has oil, they would prefer that we return to the 7th century. I would expect that a nuclear explosion in the oil fields of the Middle East is a more likely scenario than in a US city.
We should drill now, and if necessary cap the wells so that they are immediatley available when we need them in an emergency.
You fool. Of course I do not agree with them. That would go without saying. That is nothing but a rightie way of making Democrats look like they hate the military. You are so f-ing wrong you have no idea. Apparently you think Republicans have cornered the market on the military. You are a fool.
The reason you think I am attacking you is because you are crazy to think that we should pick off and invade country after country just because we don’t agree with them.
If you think you can believe Democrats hate the troops, then we can equally claim that your “plan” is to basically world domination. We started with Iraq, we will go to Iran, then Syria, etc, etc, etc.
That my friend is flat out nuts.
SteaM, I see what you are trying to get at, but let me answer your question with two quotes:
President to be George W. Bush in 2000:
They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from that you can succeed. I don’t think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.
President to be Dr. Ron Paul in 2007:
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don’t police the world. That’s conservative, it’s Republican, it’s pro-American – it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
Dr. Paul is running on the same platform as President Bush did. I have little doubt that we will have the same successes under a Paul administration as under the Bush administration.
phnx,
How do you know “May I remind you that Saddam, had full intentions to resurrect his WMD program as soon as sanctions were raised”
Are you just guessing that he COULD have done that? Because it is funny… Bush is saying that Iran COULD restart their weapons program. Kirk is saying that Iran COULD start it and for that, we should bomb the crap out of them.
Why is diplomacy so hard for you people to embrace?
Joe,
It took you long enough to say so. One has to wonder what the hold up was. Self doubt? You say I’m crazy simply for saying that we can’t invade all those countries at once? Who is the one detached for reality here? I can tell you with certainty that conservatives are not out to dominate the world. We simply want to unite the world under one flag: The U.S. flag. Are you against unity?
Joe, but this is part of diplomacy. Why would you say it’s not?
This is beyond satire. I’m ashamed of you.
I don’t think Kirk is really professing wanton NUKING of sovereign nations that have not attacked us or another country. He’s a shill. He’s mocking you, and you eat it up.
I do think most of the “regulars” who post here manically DO think this way.
Killin’ in the name of the Lord.
Yes folks, we have an admitted “WAR” Preznit. A man who admittedly does not read much, does not follow the daily news and apparently does not listen to his chief spy McConnell when reporting NIE findings.
We have warmonger Kahn who is still fighting in Vietnam, now saying that Bush’s skill in “saber rattling” has stopped the nuclear advancement of the “axis of evil”. (snicker).
Yes folks only here, (well not only here, but other extremist far right web sites),
can you find wanton war mongering in the name of peace. Bush is admired for his talent in diplomacy, and lib’s are the root of the REAL evil.
Bbwwwaaaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhaahhaaa
Kirk,
“You see peace as a goal in and of itself while I see it as a necessary evil.”
Please explain how peace is evil.
AgentFear, nice try, but I never advocated “nuking” anyone. Those are your words, not the words of anyone else here. It seems you’ve lost your composure and have started ranting.
Casper, explain how it is not.
Christ is considered the Prince of Peace. Do you consider him the Prince of Evil?
Casper,
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Who said that? Hint: He is sometimes referred to as the lamb of God.
Agent – So, you ARE arguing that Bush is covering up his victory in Iran?
And that Libya and North Korea are lying and are still working on nukes? Or are you arguing that they all did stop, but seeing our military in action and the economic pressure (only the threat of pressure in Iran, as they stopped before sanctions but after we invaded Iraq) had nothing to do with it?
I see you’ve got the insults down just fine. But what is your actual view on the facts?