New NIE On Iranian Nukes
Posted December 5th, 2007 by Da King
The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says Iran stopped working on it's nuclear weapons program in 2003, which has Democrats in Congress grinning from ear to ear, and Republicans in Congress scratching their heads. The Democrats are grinning, not because no active Iranian nuclear program is good news (though it certainly is, if true), but because they believe it gives them some ammunition in the Democrat's war against the real enemy, George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons. Republicans are scratching their heads, because the 2007 version of the NIE is a direct contradiction to the 2005 version of the NIE, which indicated that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The 2007 version is also a contradiction to the 2002 NIE on Iran. From all I've read on this subject recently, it appears nobody in our media has noticed that if the Iranians STOPPED working on nuclear weapons in 2003, then they had to be working ON developing nukes up until that time, which gives the lie to the Iranian claim that they never intended to build nuclear weapons. Iran was lying to the world. The new NIE cites "international pressure" as the reason Iran stopped it's nuclear program in 2003. Let me see now, if what the NIE says is true, who was applying the most international pressure on Iran in 2003 and forward ?….Hmmm….Oh yeah, it was GEORGE W. BUSH and his merry band of neocons, who coincidentally happened to have america's military right next door in Iraq, and were telling Iran to stop it's nuclear weapons program or else. It was either THAT international pressure, or the UN having a meeting and issuing a statement that deterred Iran. You decide.
Wasting no time in attempting to take political advantage of this new development, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid characterized the NIE as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” Reid also said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy” (No word on whether Harry Reid will adjust his own "the war is lost" rhetoric and policy regarding Iraq in light of the recent success there). This is so typical of the Harry Reids of the world. When the tough talk and firm stance against Iran appears to have worked, they criticize the tough talk and firm stance, and then recommend that the policy goes back to the former weak one that didn't work at all. Brilliant, Harry, just brilliant. If I thought for a second that Reid believed his own words (I don't), I'd think the guy was just dumb, but he isn't, he's a calculating partisan animal. Reid's not dumb, he's just full of it.
National security advisor Stephen Hadley puts the news in a more realistic light:
“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”
“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.
UPDATE 12/6/07:
Here are the key judgements of the 2007 NIE on Iran, which can be linked to here:
• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently
have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined
to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment
that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure
suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged
previously.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:49 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Right you are, King. If the NIE report is accruate, the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program in response to America's invasion of Iraq in 2003 along with the other pressure that the Bush Administration has applied to that radical Islamic state.
[Please note I said "America's invasion of Iraq" and not George Bush's. That's because President Bush had congreessional approval -- including the votes of the likes of Comrade Hillary and trial lawyer Johnny Edwards. The war in Iraq is an American enterprise, not a George Bush war. This point is often lost on the dingbats of the Left, but then again much of relaity is lost on them.]
And guess who else gave up their nuclear weapons program in response to the war of liberation in Iraq? That's it — Libya!
So, if the current intelligence report is correct, George Bush has succeeded in getting two crazed Islamic states to think twice before trying going nuclear. Not bad. This is much better than the corrupt Clinton/Gore administration which allowed China to buy & steal U.S. hi-tech.
Ah, those Clintons; they're a barrel full of laughs.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Vince, I don't think those Clintons are nearly as funny as the CNN crew is with those huge grins on their faces when they talk about this NIE. They look just like a bunch of little Harry Reids as they continue to talk just the opposite way that we do. I think that there must be something seriously strange about them in that they just don't manage to see anything that da King and I see about all this. Yesterday I heard Wolf Blitzer talking with Ambassador Bolton and Blitzer managed to avoid anything Bolton said along the same lines as King talks. I guess when the employer wants one to think something one just must do that.
For some reason THEY just can't understand that the program is still ongoing or that if they stopped in 2003 it must have been because they didn't think they should go on, as Vince says. This is really a grand situation that CNN manages to make a big deal out of by saying that Bush once again refused to ask that old lady of the White House press corps a question. You know the old lady that Ann Coulter called an "Old Arab".
December 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
So when Iraq contacted the U.S. in 2003 and wanted to sit down and talk…..and what they wanted to talk about was ending any program that was problematic in exchange for assurances…..and the Bush White House said "go blank yourself" or something similar, refusing to talk…..is that what caused Iran to cease any problematic programs?
Or are you saying, in typical neo-con fashion, that the attack and illegal occupation of the sovereign country of Iraq, was the reason Iran ceased it's program?
And how does any of what is here on this post clear up any of the facts about neither Iraq nor Iran being a threat to America IN THE LEAST LITTLE WAY?
Neo-cons don't believe in traditional conservative thinking…..they are, instead, extremists. Typically, conservatives want a strong defense in order to DEFEND America when the time comes.
The new consevatives are pre-emptive war believers…..no matter the threat…..which is simply naked imperialism. Not much different from 30's Germany.
The sad part is how 30% of Americans have endorsed such an extreme, radical doctrine. Fear and hate, I guess.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Rev, I just love the way you phrase your propaganda. I really do. It's so surreal. Completely disconnected from reality. For instance, you say, "So when Iraq contacted the U.S. in 2003 and wanted to sit down and talk…..and what they wanted to talk about was ending any program that was problematic in exchange for assurances…". I mean, that's just priceless. That makes the Butcher of Baghdad sound so reasonable. What a reasonable fellow, and our side was just so mean. Gimme a break, already. The truth is completely different. What Iraq REALLY did was violate every term of it's Desert Storm surrender, mislead the UN weapons inspectors at every turn for 11 years, including the violation of 14 UN resolutions, corrupt the Oil For Food program, shoot at our planes in the no-fly zone, payoff the families of Palestinian terrorists, run terrorist training camps, etc, etc.
Then you characterize Iraq and Iran as no threat, when both countries were committed to the destruction of Israel (now only one of them), when both funded terrorist groups (now only one of them). That's pure insanity. In your world, you'd just sit back and let the real extremists (wakeup call - it's not Bush) acquire nuclear weapons, all while you say they are no threat. Even after they have told you their intentions, you still maintain they are no threat. Even when they act on those intentions, you say they are no threat. Then one day, when a terrorist group just happens to miraculously acquire a nuclear weapon or two (oh gee, where would they get them ? DUH !), and Tel Aviv or New York ceases to exist, you'd just look for the nearest Republican to blame. You are out of your mind, Rev. The president of the USA has a duty to think about and prevent just such a reality from coming to pass. Things don't just unfold by accident, you know. If we don't stand against the Islamic extremists, we are tacitly helping them achieve their goals.
If you want to spin it some other way, where the actions of the Bush admin weren't responsible for getting Iran (and Libya) to end their nuclear pursuits, go right ahead. Drop Harry Reid an e-mail. I'm sure he'd like to hear any spin you've got.
Btw, we didn't attack Iran. Maybe Bush just forgot, eh ?
It is the 1930's again, and you are on the wrong side. You are sticking up for the lunatics.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Yes, Roysoldboy, it is as if the liberal media and the Dims live in an alternate universe.
This is why liberalism, when properly diagnosed, is called a mental disorder.
And the America people see it. That's why viewership at CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC and readership at the New York Times, LA TImes, Washhington Post and other liberal rags continues to plummet.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I made an error in my first paragraph. I meant Iran, not Iraq. The context actually, though, was clear.
The hysteria the Islam-phobic Americans experience is a fabricated hysteria. We had a dangerous enemy in the Soviet Union. We do not have a dangerous enemy in Iran, nor was Iraq a dangerous enemy.
Now ALL the evidence demonstrates the truth of that last statement.
It's the fabricated fear that jimmyjames mentioned previously that has the neo-con bunch all hysterical and stuff. There's absolutely no reason to be that fearful.
Yes, Islamic radicals can be and have been dangerous. Yes, this must be dealt with. But there is no reason whatsoever to fabricate a danger that's not there or to pump up a contrived hypothetical danger out of pure fear.
All this Islamic hatred and belief that says Islam wants to take over the world…and on and on……is simply ridiculous.
What followers of the neo-cons have done is taken their Dear Leader and his Leadees….seriously. That's the problem. The 30% that still support Bush actually believe him and Cheney and the rest. Hell, they don't even believe what they're saying, why should anyone else?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Rev, you are the same old Red. You haven't changed at all and that will never do the world a favor to have people like you around. All you are interested in is defeating GWB and it seems you will still be there the day he leaves office. What then, Red? What if he isn't replaced by a Demoncrap? You will have to go hide with Dirty Harry since you wore yourself out the past 7 years.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Yeah Roy, it's true that I'm the same. Reality based.
You're silly, my Kansas friend. Bush is already defeated. He now needs to be held accountable for his numerous crimes. Are you against the rule of law now Roy?
As far as if I'm wearing myself out……I'm just getting started.
Au contraire…you cyclone you….I am doing the world a favor by what I'm doing.
Truth is truth.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Rev, since you are "reality based" (cue laugh track), explain how Iran enriching uranium, lying about it's nuclear program, and obstructing the international community from looking at it's nuclear sites is nothing more than "the hysteria of Islamophobic americans" or "a fabricated danger". Btw, it isn't just the americans. It's the United Nations, you know, most of the world, who wants Iran to be accountable and in compliance with the NPT.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
The Iranians are enriching uranium for nuclear energy purposes. They are perfectly within their rights to do so. Why wouldn't they be?
The IAEA does inspections.
All this talk has NOTHING to do with Iran and nuclear anything.
This has to do with neo-conservative criminals and their desire for regime change anywhere they want it.
Pure imperialism.
Supporters of neo-con fantasy have bought into the fear hysteria…..and for no good reason.
Iran is no danger to America, just like Iraq was no danger to America.
Americans……non-neo-cons……know all this.