So This Is What It's Like To Have Zero Credibility
New job adjustment... blogging will be light for a while. Plus I'm in a really happy place for the first time in years so I don't want to ruin the buzz with political angst. But I did have to say WOW on the Iran NIE Report.
BushCo has been ratcheting up the do-or-die rhetoric on Iran in a very Iraqish way, setting the stage for some kind of military action based on Iran's nuk-u-lar weapons program and the threat of WWIII. Except according to our own intelligence estimates, Iran doesn't have a nuk-u-lar weapons program. Amazingly, Bush was aware of this even while trying to prepare the world for our preemptive strike... Zowie!
Preznit Bush -- Dude -- it's time to throw in the towel. At this point if someone had a giant, mega, Earth-destroying bomb and was ready to deploy it tomorrow, and even if you saw it with your own eyes and tried to warn the world, nobody would believe you. That's not just a problem for you... that's a problem for us.
It's still not clear to me why Iran cut its nuk-u-lar weapons program in 2003, though. Doesn't that seem odd? Instapundit is trying to infer that we scared Iran into giving it up by invading Iraq. If that were true, however, you'd think Iran would have been trying to fly under the radar on the topic instead of throwing their "right to bear nukes" in the collective world face every 5 minutes. Weird.
BushCo has been ratcheting up the do-or-die rhetoric on Iran in a very Iraqish way, setting the stage for some kind of military action based on Iran's nuk-u-lar weapons program and the threat of WWIII. Except according to our own intelligence estimates, Iran doesn't have a nuk-u-lar weapons program. Amazingly, Bush was aware of this even while trying to prepare the world for our preemptive strike... Zowie!
Preznit Bush -- Dude -- it's time to throw in the towel. At this point if someone had a giant, mega, Earth-destroying bomb and was ready to deploy it tomorrow, and even if you saw it with your own eyes and tried to warn the world, nobody would believe you. That's not just a problem for you... that's a problem for us.
It's still not clear to me why Iran cut its nuk-u-lar weapons program in 2003, though. Doesn't that seem odd? Instapundit is trying to infer that we scared Iran into giving it up by invading Iraq. If that were true, however, you'd think Iran would have been trying to fly under the radar on the topic instead of throwing their "right to bear nukes" in the collective world face every 5 minutes. Weird.
posted by Logic101 at 12/04/2007 08:51:00 AM
7 Comments:
I prefer the following reason as to why the Iranians stopped in 2003:In August 2003, reports emerged of dealings with Iran; it was claimed that Khan had offered to sell nuclear weapons technology to that country as early as 1989. The Iranian government came under intense pressure from the United States and the European Union to make a full disclosure of its nuclear programme and, finally, agreed in October 2003 to accept tougher investigations from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA reported that Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility using gas centrifuges based on the "stolen" URENCO designs, which had been obtained "from a foreign intermediary in 1987." The intermediary was not named but many diplomats and analysts pointed to Pakistan and, specifically, to Khan, who was said to have visited Iran in 1986. The Iranians turned over the names of their suppliers and the international inspectors quickly identified the Iranian gas centrifuges as Pak-1's, the model developed by Khan in the early 1980s. In December 2003, two senior staff members at KRL were arrested on suspicion of having sold nuclear weapons technology to the Iranians.
My above post should be credited to Wikipedia under Kahn...since it is 'acknowledged' as a liberal source I figured you would accept it as fact.
Hey Cuz,
I just sent you an e-mail with your request. My e-mail is MGlenney@aol.com so you know which one it is. Later Cuz
Matthew
Matthew,
Hey there... I don't see any emails from you in my inbox. Perhaps my email address only works for penis enlargers and instant weight loss advertisements and someone named Exotica promising me hot sex?
I think I found you on Yahoo, though... sent you a note with the address, please confirm.
Thanks!!
Milton,
Thanks for the info. So assuming Iran did indeed discontinue their nuke quest under international pressure (and the US calvary storming the region), I suppose their indignation at Bush's recent World War III rhetoric might have been righteous? Maybe their current nuclear program really is for peaceful energy purposes, then. It would seem far fetched that they'd voluntarily discontinue a program and then fire it up very publicly under the guise of energy a few years later and be this belligerent about it.
On the other hand, I can't even begin to know what goes on in the mind of Ahmadinejad.
Your angst for anything Bush (and my severe right leaning tendancies) has blinded us from subjective reasoning....the Weekly (a great magazine) states
1. Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE
2. Why did Fingar change so drastically in just four months time from his earlier NIE analysis on Iran?
3.Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn his previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
4.Did Fingar's political or ideological leanings influence his opinion in any way?
Very good questions, aren't they? Everyone seems to be asking them. I'm not sure if we'll ever get an answer. Could be we got another "Curveball".
The point of my post, Bush bashing (which is always a pleasure) aside, is that we were gunning for war based on intel we knew was at least in question. Does this not bother you? Does it not bother you that the circumstances surrounding this seem like a painfully obvious redux of Iraq WMD?
Post a Comment
<< Home