Why Iran?

[ntalwar]

Speaking of broadening terms to the point where they're robbed of all meaning whatsoever, then exploiting them for political grandstanding...

There are many other sites that don't mention candidates:
e.g.: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears

The concern with the broad wording is that protesters would be considered terrorists.

 

[anitram]

There needs to be a middle ground here, and I think that, for all the sabre rattling, this is exactly what's being done. Nations like Iran (state sponsors of terrorism--i.e., Hezbollah), Venezuela and Russia ("democratatorships") have no place in the 21st century, and, rather than automatically bringing out the military and blowing them up, you can also put diplomatic pressure on them that is prolonged and repeated. Some nations, eventually, like Libya, will learn that it is better to cooperate with international law than it is to continually thumb its nose at it, and we're getting emerging signs that North Korea might be soon learning a similar lesson.

If we want to talk about who has no place in the 21st century then clearly we have to start with the Saudis and that is precisely where our hypocrisy and self-interests become most apparent. In light of how that country is treated by the west, and particularly how it is hailed by the US government, any other stand we take is maybe not entirely empty, but pretty damn close.

 

[Irvine511]

Iran is still enriching Uranium.

Iran is still funneling weapons into Iraq that are killing innocent Iraqis and American soldiers.

Iran is still connected to terrorist groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a "foreign terrorist organization." (Hillary should be given credit for recognizing this.)

Ahmadinejad is aligning himself with Hugo Chavez.

Iran is still a threat -- but the good news is maybe they're more responsive to sanctions, world-wide condemnation and yes, the hint of military intervention, than we may have believed.

That's an ignorant jackass's view anyway.

and none of this makes Iran a nuclear threat worthy of invasion. and it seems you agre.

and i wish i was shocked that you're perfectly fine having your leaders lie directly to your face about matters of life, death, and global security. they wanted to start a war -- and Cheney still does -- over information that is not just verifiably false, but the precise opposite of what is true.

why? why do we put up with this?

 

[Bonochick]

I stand by every word I said.

And that was the EDITED version of what I was originally going to post.

If you think that posting like that is okay here, that's going to be a problem.

 

[INDY500]

and none of this makes Iran a nuclear threat worthy of invasion. and it seems you agre.

and i wish i was shocked that you're perfectly fine having your leaders lie directly to your face about matters of life, death, and global security. they wanted to start a war -- and Cheney still does -- over information that is not just verifiably false, but the precise opposite of what is true.

why? why do we put up with this?

I do agree, military strikes can, for now, be taken off the table. But the report indicates that Iran has only "suspended" their quest for nuclear weapons...not abandoned it. The threat still remains, only the urgency for action has changed.

If I thought George Bush had been lying about this I'd say so. But I think this more of another instance of our intelligence agencies failing us. It very much hurts our credibility to again appear so out-of-touch with our security assessments. But that is very different than lying. Believe it or not, George Bush is not creeping around the Middle East in a turban and false beard gathering this information. He's much too busy eavesdropping in on American phone calls for that. No, he is dependent on the C.I.A and others to collect and interpret the information.
And it appears they have let him, and us, down again.

 

[anitram]

If I thought George Bush had been lying about this I'd say so. But I think this more of another instance of our intelligence agencies failing us.

Have you completely missed this:

But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

At best, with rose-coloured glasses he's disingenuous. You don't even seem open to this option, though.

 

[Infinity]

AHAHAHAH

Bush - what a sad clown.

I'm so angered and don't even know what to say, so i'll say this:

I hope Bush goes down as the most evil dictator in history of civilization.



This is why we are hated and why people want to kill us! We step all over the world acting like we own the place. WE ARE THE THREAT, not Iran, WE ARE.

Osama bin Laden, if you're reading this, please know that most of us are sane people so don't attack us please, most of us are not evil like the monkey in the White House.

 

[Irvine511]

And it appears they have let him, and us, down again.

this really misses what has been going on the past 7 years.

GWB and Cheney have used the intelligence community not to create policy, but to verify whatever preconceived course of action. and when the facts don't fit the plan, the facts are disregarded.

at the very least, can we stop with the Hitler comparisons?

 

[ntalwar]

But the report indicates that Iran has only "suspended" their quest for nuclear weapons...not abandoned it. The threat still remains, only the urgency for action has changed.

The report may still be inaccurate.

There's no consensus among other countries that they had a nuclear weapons program:

''We do not have information that such research was made before 2003, though US colleagues stated that this was the case,'' Mr Lavrov said here at a press conference after talks with his Armenian counterpart Vardan Oskanian.

He stressed the information provided by the United States gave no grounds to assume that Iran had ever pursued a military nuclear programme.

''The data possessed by our American partners, or at least the data shown to us, give no reason to assume that Iran has ever pursued a military nuclear programme,'' Mr Lavrov said.

 

[kellyahern]

The sad thing is is that Iran is still a threat. But it is not an imminent threat. And by trying to convince the American public that Iran was (falsely) an imminent thread (ex. using phrases like "WWIII" etc.), Bush and Cheney have continued to weaken their credibility.

They did the same thing with Iraq and the WMD. What they don't seem to realize is that by crying wolf over these two issues, how are we supposed to believe them when a real threat comes along? If Iran does ever get close to being an imminent threat, what is Bush supposed to say? "Wait, I really mean it this time."

And that press conference was just sad. The NIE report was available to the administration months ago and Bush just found out what it said last week? This from a man who gets briefings everyday?

What was Bush's explanation? Something like "I knew there was new information but I didn't know what it said until last week." Really? Like one of the news commentators said last night, "Well, didn't you think to ask? How did it go? Someone comes into your office a few months ago and says, 'Sir, we have some new information on Iran.' You look up from your desk, say 'Okay.' and go back to what you were doing?"

This is supposed to be the President of the United States and that was the best he could do yesterday? Please.

 

[INDY500]

At best, with rose-coloured glasses he's disingenuous. You don't even seem open to this option, though.

Well, that's the opinion of a Washington Post article. The way I understand it, Bush was told several months ago that new information might lead to a reassessment of some type, but that the final report was only just approved and received by the White House last week.

I hope Peter Baker and Robin Wright can fill in the details of how they know that the president was given the complete NIE months before the White House says they received it.

 

[kellyahern]

The way I understand it, Bush was told several months ago that new information might lead to a reassessment of some type, but that the final report was only just approved and received by the White House last week.

I hope Peter Baker and Robin Wright can fill in the details of how they know that the president was given the complete NIE months before the White House says they received it.

Even if he didn't know "exactly" what was in the report, I'm sure he had some idea. He's the President. Do you honestly believe that he had no idea what the report was going to say before last week?

And when he did find out months ago that there was new information, why continue the talk of "WWIII" and similar rhetoric?


So it's either he's uninformed and not on the ball, or that he's lying.

To buy Bush's explanation that he knew there was a NIE report with new information but he didn't know what was in it, is asking us to believe that he doesn't know what is going on with Iran in a timely manner.

The other side is that he did know and chose to ratchet up the rhetoric anyway.

I don't know which explanation is scarier.

 

[Irvine511]

this is a president who is fixated on Iran, who gets briefings every day -- do you honestly think he was uninterested in learning this "new" information on Iran before it was "ready"? does ignorance strike you as an explanation, especially one to be proud of as Bush seems to in this press conference? does it comfort you that Bush's inner-circle routinely do things that he's kept unaware of, like dissolving the Iraqi army or outing a CIA agent in political tit-for-tat? that he doesn't actually read documents or ask any questions after his briefings?

it's laziness. simply laziness. this whole administration has been characterized by half-assing. why build up a case of objective, nuanced information against Iran and Iraq and NoKo when you can simply declare people, places, and things "evil" and then walk away from it? why bother interrogating suspects when you can just waterboard them and then say you got information?

all in all, i think the most interesting question is how an NIE that's so thoroughly embarrassing to the administration got out -- you'd have thought that Cheney would have kicked someone's puppy or put his heel on the throat of someone's grandmother before this got out.

 

[anitram]

all in all, i think the most interesting question is how an NIE that's so thoroughly embarrassing to the administration got out -- you'd have thought that Cheney would have kicked someone's puppy or put his heel on the throat of someone's grandmother before this got out.

If you were the intelligence guys, would you want to take the fall for these idiots a second time?

 

[DaveC]

If you think that posting like that is okay here, that's going to be a problem.

Fair enough.

But I still meant every word I said.

I say that not to be belligerent to you BC, but it wasn't that bad. If someone can't take being called an ignorant jackass for defending a liar and a criminal (and it wasn't directed at anyone specifically anyways), then they've got incredibly thin skin. Much worse things are said about all sides of the political spectrum every single day on television.

Anyways, I don't mean to hijack the thread with this. Great discussion here, BTW

 

[phillyfan26]

And it appears they have let him, and us, down again.

The intelligence has never mattered to them at all.

 

[Irvine511]

If you were the intelligence guys, would you want to take the fall for these idiots a second time?

i'm just amazed that someone outwitted Cheney and didn't wind up stamping passports in Djibouti. good for them.

 

[DaveC]

i'm just amazed that someone outwitted Cheney and didn't wind up stamping passports in Djibouti. good for them.

I bet whoever it was is sleeping with a .44 close at hand.

 

[anitram]

Nobody cares about Cheney anymore because at this point reality is starting to hit close to home and they're looking forward to November. It's self-sufficiency that's the driving force now.

 

[Infinity]

And the one thing I really don't get is how people could support war hawks like Giuliani or Fred Thompson. Do they really want 4 more years of this same war bullshit?

Does anyone even remember how Giuliani said that he wouldn't mind NUKING Iran in order to to stop their nuclear weapons program???

Oh yea, nuke Iran, kill 200,000 people of a country that can do us no harm.

Why should we use the lives of our soldiers, use hard earned hundreds of billions of dollars, go into trillions of dollars in debt to kill and attack people in a country that has no capability of attacking us????????

Anyone who says that we need to do that in order to defend Israel deserves to go to a mental institution. ISRAEL HAS HUNDREDS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THEY DON'T NEED OUR HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FUCK BUSH FOR SPENDING MY HARD EARNED MONEY TO BUILD AN EMPIRE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

 

[DaveC]

And you people think I'm upset.

 

[Irvine511]

Nobody cares about Cheney anymore because at this point reality is starting to hit close to home and they're looking forward to November. It's self-sufficiency that's the driving force now.

weirdly, i think this actually has something to do with the Democrats, and by extension, the country.

it really was the mid-term elections in 2006 that have started to right what's been so wrong about the past 7 years. if the Dems hadn't won back so many seats, then Rumsfeld would still be SecDef today. Condi now has more sway and has argued, since the beginning, for diplomatic action (and not military action) against Tehran. Cheney has been pushed to the margins, and will continue to be further marginalized.

so, ever so slowly, things are getting better.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I hope Bush goes down as the most evil dictator in history of civilization.

Maybe you should re-think what you are hoping here - though I'm sure that wasn't meant entirely seriously.

Osama bin Laden, if you're reading this, please know that most of us are sane people so don't attack us please, most of us are not evil like the monkey in the White House.

Osama Bin Laden or any other of those doesn't care the least bit who is actually running any Western country.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just love that we're in major debt because of this, and that my generation, as well as future ones, are going to be paying for this crap mess we're in. Thank you, Bush administration! Couldn't use that money for anything WORTHWHILE, could you?

They did the same thing with Iraq and the WMD. What they don't seem to realize is that by crying wolf over these two issues, how are we supposed to believe them when a real threat comes along? If Iran does ever get close to being an imminent threat, what is Bush supposed to say? "Wait, I really mean it this time."

Exactamundo. And to melon's post, too.

Angela

 

[Infinity]

Maybe you should re-think what you are hoping here - though I'm sure that wasn't meant entirely seriously.



Osama Bin Laden or any other of those doesn't care the least bit who is actually running any Western country.

No, I really hope it. What i'm afraid of is people in the future not realizing how bad Bush is. And it happens a lot, once a President leaves office, people start to forget about the negatives of the President. I hope that doesn't happen with Bush. The worst thing would be that people will actually respect him in the future like we respect, say, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.

And yes, Osama bin Laden does care. It is the policies of our country which drove al-Qaeda to attack us. It is the Bush policy of policing the world and attacking/occupying Iraq which is a reason for another attack. So if we get a guy running our country who is willing to mind their own business and pull out of Iraq, not threaten Iran and mind our own business with Israel/Palestine, we will be less prone to attack.

 

[Infinity]

And you people think I'm upset.

Amen to everything you said in all your posts in this thread. This situation is just getting ridiculous. Really, how can anyone support this clown? Really??? I just don't understand.

 

[DaveC]

No, I really hope it. What i'm afraid of is people in the future not realizing how bad Bush is. And it happens a lot, once a President leaves office, people start to forget about the negatives of the President. I hope that doesn't happen with Bush. The worst thing would be that people will actually respect him in the future like we respect, say, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.

While I would say the guy is certainly doing his best to get the "Worst President in History" title, "Most evil dictator" is pretty much locked up by some German dude.

 

[DaveC]

Amen to everything you said in all your posts in this thread. This situation is just getting ridiculous. Really, how can anyone support this clown? Really??? I just don't understand.

I really think there may be something physically wrong with the brains of people who insist that Bush is doing a great job.

I'm not kidding.

Constantly, blindly supporting a proven idiot, pathological liar and criminal has got to be associated with some kind of mental flaw.

 

[Vincent Vega]

As much as Bush might be an idiot, and as sad as it is that he will get off of what he has done that easily, no, he didn't slaughter millions of people brutally, installed "killing fields", or did anything nearly that awful.
Guantanamo, the torture employed or the wars waged are far from making him the "worst dictator ever", and I'm sure you don't want him to go that far only to appoint him that title.

Worst American President might fit, but dictator really is far off.


You really think Al Quaeda started this whole crap because the guy in power was Bush?
They would have attacked on 9/11 even if it was Gore. Bush is doing a good job recruiting new terrorists for Al Quaeda, but it's not Bush why they have attacked, or might attack again. It's the Western way of living and their insane vision of having the world under their powers that's giving them wet dreams.
You can do what you want, Al Quaeda will always justify their massacres.

But you need an administration that is really trying to do something about it, not driving more people into joining that organisation.

 

[kellyahern]

Constantly, blindly supporting a proven idiot, pathological liar and criminal has got to be associated with some kind of mental flaw.

Sort of on the opposite of that note, did anyone see Pat Buchanan rip into Bush last night on the Dan Abrams show? It was weird to feel agreement with Pat Buchanan, I never thought that would happen.

But there ya go Bush. See what you made me do. You made me agree with Pat Buchanan about something.