US Intelligence Says Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003 [Archive] - The Orange Mane

mhgaffney

12-03-2007, 08:06 PM

Notice that the US is building permanent bases in Iraq. The fact that Dems are not opposing this means the policy of permanent US occupation is bi - partisan. Hilary also supports it.

This means that the US threat against Iran is very real -- Iran has about as much oil as Iraq. The US weants to control Mideast oil -- because our power elite is freakin' scared to daeth of China -- the new industrial powerhosue -- and thus we are seeking to control the flow of energy out of the Mideast.

We are NOT out of the woods. MHG

Operation Iraqi Freedom Exposed

Bush Negotiates Permanent Presence in Iraq

By Marjorie Cohn

12/03/07 "ICH" -- -- The revelation that Bush will sign an agreement for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq before his term is up confirms the real reason he invaded Iraq and changed its regime.

It was never about weapons of mass destruction. It was never about ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. And it was never about bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. These claims were lies to cover up the real motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom: to create a permanent American presence in Iraq. With Bush's November 26, 2007 announcement that the United States and Iraq were negotiating a permanent "security relationship," his lies have been exposed.

Bush declared, Iraqi leaders "understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency." His outline for the permanent U.S.-Iraqi "Economic" relationship is "to encourage the flow of foreign investments to Iraq." Two senior Iraqi officials told the Associated Press that Bush is negotiating preferential treatment for U.S. investments.

This isn't the first time Bush has tried to turn Iraq into an investment haven for U.S. oil companies. He used to tout the "Iraqi oil law," which would transfer control of three-quarters of Iraq's oil to foreign companies, as the benchmark for Iraqi progress. But in the face of opposition by the Iraqi oil unions, the parliament has refused to pass that law.

All along, Bush has been building mega-bases In Iraq. Camp Anaconda, which sits on 15 square miles of Iraqi soil, has a pool, gym, theater, beauty salon, school and six apartment buildings. Our $600 million American embassy in the Green Zone just opened. The largest embassy in the world, it is a self-contained city with no need for Iraqi electricity, food or water.

Although Bush has negotiated terms to keep U.S. troops in Iraq in perpetuity, the majority of American people oppose a permanent American occupation of Iraq.

So do many Iraqis. University of Michigan Juan Cole's blog, "Informed Comment," cited an Al-Hayat report in Arabic that the Sadr Movement and the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front rejected the "memorandum of understanding" between the United States and Iraq that Bush and Nuri al-Maliki signed. These groups say this agreement would be illegal unless agreed to by the legislature, and they complain about the absence of any timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

No wonder Iraqis oppose the U.S. occupation. The organization Just Foreign Policy has estimated that 1,118,846 Iraqis have been killed since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Australian born journalist John Pilger wrote, "The scale of death caused by the British and U.S. governments may well have surpassed that of the Rwanda genocide, making it the biggest single act of mass murder of the late 20th century and the 21st century."

Yet Congress refuses to reign in the President. When Bush announced that violence is down in Baghdad so he can withdraw 5,000 troops, the Democratic candidates cheered, diverting their criticism to the lack of political progress in Iraq. But with so many Iraqis dead, there are fewer to kill.

We the people have to keep the pressure on. As we demand the United States withdraw completely from Iraq, we must also forbid Bush to attack Iran. Our voices must be heard - by Congress, by the media, and throughout the world.

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she teaches criminal law and procedure, evidence, and international human rights law. She lectures throughout the world on human rights and US foreign policy. Please visit her website http://www.marjoriecohn.com/

Bronco Bob

12-03-2007, 09:27 PM

For once, W*gs gets it right.

Yes, no way to "justify" an attack now.

Does this mean it won't come? No, because the real reason is oil -- and was never about WMD. The neo cons have already in fact moved on to another excuse: Iran's "meddling" in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the danger is not passed. Scott Ritter thinks it is increasing. He thinks the US attack will come by April-May. After that -- the risk decreases -- because of the presidential race. We have at least 5-6 months of high risk ahead.

You could be right. What better way to pull off a sneak attack than
to pretend there isn't going to be a reason to attack after all?
Iran lets its guard down and then WHAM O,
bomb bomb bomb Iran - (to quote John McCain).

Bronco_Beerslug

12-03-2007, 10:08 PM

More blatant Bush lies exposed but I'm sure LoneBolt will be along any minute to explain why you really can't call it lying.

Rohirrim

12-03-2007, 11:32 PM

God, did they really name it "Camp Anaconda?" No, we're not here to steal your resources, but we're naming our camp after the largest constricting predator on the planet.

cutthemdown

12-04-2007, 12:15 AM

HMMM interesting to say the least.

Does anyone else see this connection.

Iran was sending explosively formed projectiles which were responsible for most of the troop deaths. They were also sending lots of weapons to aid in the insurgency. Then Iranian agents get arrested and detained.

Then violence dips and the military says Iran seems to have halted the weapons.

Then those agents that were detained get released.

Then the USA seems to relent a bit on the Nuclear issue. Although they seem to not be backing away from the enriching of uranium.

I wonder if some sort of deal was struck because it sure seems like.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-04-2007, 12:54 AM

More blatant Bush lies exposed but I'm sure LoneBolt will be along any minute to explain why you really can't call it lying.

:yep:

Just like he gave Saint Ron a pass the other day for allowing American companies to give Saddam the *materials* to make WMD.

(That notorious right-wing double standard again.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-04-2007, 12:58 AM

Iran was sending explosively formed projectiles which were responsible for most of the troop deaths. They were also sending lots of weapons to aid in the insurgency.

Um, no.

US lacks 'explosive' evidence against Iran

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - For 18 months, the administration of US President George W Bush has periodically raised the charge that Iran is supplying anti-coalition forces in Iraq with arms.

Previously, high administration officials have always admitted that they had no real evidence to support these claims. Now, they are going further. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on her current Middle Eastern trip, "I think there is plenty of evidence that there is Iranian involvement with these networks that are making high-explosive IEDs [improvised explosive devices]

and that are endangering our troops, and that's going to be dealt with."

However, Rice failed to provide any evidence of official Iranian involvement.

The previous pattern had been that US and British officials suggested that Iranian government involvement in the use by Sunni insurgents or Shi'ite militias of "shaped charges" that can penetrate US armored vehicles was the only logical conclusion that could be drawn from the facts. But when asked point blank, they admitted that they had no evidence.

That allegation serves not just one Bush administration objective, but two: it provides an additional justification for aggressive rhetoric and pressure against Tehran and also suggests that Iran bears much of the blame for the sectarian violence in Baghdad and high levels of US casualties from IEDs.

The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of US troops from shaped charges used against armored vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

The US command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On June 21, 2005, General John R Vines, then the senior US commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army.

A Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs also told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the US military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infra-red detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents' "resourcefulness", according to the Pentagon source.

But some time in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On August 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to the National Broadcasting Co (NBC) and the Columbia Broadcasting System that US troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been "smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week".

The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were "convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government".

These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

But the US administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the Sunnis, enemies of the militant Shi'ite parties in Iraq that are aligned with Iran.

British troops in Shi'ite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shi'ite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armored vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told the British Broadcasting Corp on October 5, 2005, that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah". But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

Privately, British officials said the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the storyline blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told the Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported on January 5, 2006, that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south.

However, the US administration continued to push that accusation, and Bush himself raised the theme for the first time at a press conference last March 13. "Some of the most powerful IEDs we're seeing in Iraq today," he said, "came from Iran."

Bush quoted the then-director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shi'ite militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devices."

No reporter has followed up on what Negroponte meant by providing the "capability" to build such devices or why the militias would need to go outside Iraq to find that know-how.

The day after Bush's press conference, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq. Rumsfeld, appearing with Pace, said, "All you know is that you find equipment in a country that came from the neighboring country."

Last November, as the release of the Iraq Study Group Report approached, Bush administration officials again planted the story of intercepted Iranian-made weapons and munitions it had leaked in mid-2005. The American Broadcasting Co reported on November 30 that a "senior defense official" had told the network of "smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories".

The new twist in the story was that the weapons allegedly had manufacturing dates in 2006. The story continued, "This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shi'ite militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market."

The assumption underlying the anti-Iran Defense Department spin that a private market for weapons or, more likely, components, could not move them from Iran across the porous border to Iraq in a few months is far-fetched.

At about the same time, Bush apparently gave orders that the US military should seize any Iranians in the country in an effort to get some kind of evidence to use in support of its propaganda theme. The first such operation came in central Baghdad just before Christmas, and a second raid against Iranian diplomats in Irbil was carried out to coincide with the president's speech on a new Iraq policy on January 10.

These raids, presented to the public as part of a campaign against targets supposedly identified through good intelligence, were clearly aimed at trying to substantiate an anti-Iran line for which the Bush administration has no credible evidence. Those raids now create a requirement to produce something new to justify them.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA18Ak02.html

Rigs11

12-04-2007, 10:45 PM

That's it?14 posts on this?The idiot in charge calls the intelligence report that says that iran stopped working on its nuclear weapons program a 'warning sign'? Dear Mr president, for the last 4 years you have been war hawking for the attack of iran, the same way you did with iraq,and now this 'intelligence' report comes out that says that iran gave up on this back in 2003?What gives?and why did it take you so long to get this report? Or where you simply hiding it? Either you were too stupid or you were lying...again!It's a warning sign cuz they could restart it?Hilarious! Hey what about north korea? Could they restart it?No concern there? Or hey what about pakistan? oh wait they never stopped. Seriously people how anyone can support this clown is ridiculous.World war IIIROFL!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-04-2007, 10:55 PM

alkemical

12-05-2007, 12:45 AM

Rigs,

You have the current admin looking to lock the abramoff case up for matters of 'secrecy' - what more needs to be said in some ways.

defenseman

12-05-2007, 09:33 AM

Hilarious...just freaking hilarious....dman

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 09:44 AM

Hilarious...just freaking hilarious....dman

What?

This?

US Intelligence Says Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003

http://www.bartcop.com/iran-stop-attack.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 09:45 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/heretic-dumb.JPG

defenseman

12-05-2007, 09:52 AM

What?

This?

US Intelligence Says Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Program in 2003

http://www.bartcop.com/iran-stop-attack.jpg

Nah, the rhetoric here...freaking hilarious...Hilarious! ....dman

spdirty

12-05-2007, 10:35 AM

Wouldn't that be like threatening to bomb a country because we are afraid they are on the verge of figuring out gunpowder.

ummmmm, I could be wrong here, but I think gun powder and nuclear power are a tad different.

Rohirrim

12-05-2007, 10:46 AM

I think the key phrase we should all be paying attention to is what Dubya said yesterday. "Nothing has changed."

defenseman

12-05-2007, 11:09 AM

I think the key phrase we should all be paying attention to is what Dubya said yesterday. "Nothing has changed."

Israel has chimed in on this. their take is the exact opposite, and, they report they have evidence. To NOT look at the evidence is foolhardy based on the past actions and words of little hitler in iran. But, we'll see where it goes...dman

*someone please show me where Bush "lied" again. And don't say, read the article, like it's the real answer. Provide the evidence or change your statement to, "IMHO I believe Bush lied".

defenseman

12-05-2007, 11:13 AM

I swear, if Bush attacks Iran...

http://voanews.com/english/2007-12-03-voa48.cfm

Bush's Presidency is wrecked. Period.

You'll do what? Speak up man, what will you do?......He's not, and won't be attacking anyone anytime soon...get over it...dman

*Wrecked? You need to rethink that, with all the data, all of it. This entire scenario is headed for another "detant" if it is handled correctly minimizing the iranian threat, their happy, we are happy, and the iraq dilemma stabilized.

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 11:14 AM

Israel has chimed in on this. their take is the exact opposite, and, they report they have evidence. To NOT look at the evidence is foolhardy based on the past actions and words of little hitler in iran. But, we'll see where it goes...dman

*someone please show me where Bush "lied" again. And don't say, read the article, like it's the real answer. Provide the evidence or change your statement to, "IMHO I believe Bush lied".

Are you now the LoneBolt in Dmans clothing?

Proof?

Dumbya has known since 2003, but yet he's been beating the war drum based on accusations that they are pursuing nuclear weapons.

It's lying in my book!

defenseman

12-05-2007, 11:16 AM

defenseman

12-05-2007, 11:28 AM

Are you now the LoneBolt in Dmans clothing?

Proof?

Dumbya has known since 2003, but yet he's been beating the war drum based on accusations that they are pursuing nuclear weapons.

It's lying in my book!

Just re-read the article, I see nowhere in the article stating an absolute determination had been made that the iranians had hung up their nuclear weapon ambitions in 2003, IN THE YEAR 2003. No where. the fact of the matter is, the rhetoric was extreme out of tehran for the last 3 or 4 years, and continues to be, and the intelligence was very slow coming out of iran wrt the evidence that they may have stood down, years slow. Second, without solid evidence, one cannot take a position of "assuming" they've stopped. We knew they had been pursuing weapons, but, until just recently did not have any sort of reputable evidence they had ceased their operations. So, the president is supposed to ASSUME they weren't for 3 or 4 years? And, if the same report had said they WERE continuing to pursue nuclear weapons, and he had gone out on the " they stopped pursuing limb" , where are you then? You'd be calling him a liar for that also...bottom line is, there is no evidence he lied, again the "bushhater" mantra has reared it's ugly head, and again PROVE IT....take off your blinders and really analyze the facts..dman

TheDave

12-05-2007, 11:30 AM

ummmmm, I could be wrong here, but I think gun powder and nuclear power are a tad different.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's impossible to keep these countries from technology that has been around since the 1940's... We need to pick a new boogeyman.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 11:31 AM

I think the key phrase we should all be paying attention to is what Dubya said yesterday. "Nothing has changed."

No kidding.

Right on the heels of this intelligence report, Bubble Boy is still thumping his chest...

Bush tells Iran to 'come clean' on nuclear program

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

This jackass just ignores facts and makes up his own. :oyvey:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 11:34 AM

The point I'm trying to make is that it's impossible to keep these countries from technology that has been around since the 1940's... We need to pick a new boogeyman.

In this post-cold war era, the war profiteers who own Bush and the GOP need all the boogeymen they can find.

TheDave

12-05-2007, 11:36 AM

No kidding.

Right on the heels of this intelligence report, Bubble Boy is still thumping his chest...

Bush tells Iran to 'come clean' on nuclear program

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

This jackass just ignores facts and makes up his own. :oyvey:

Considering thats all he has done since the begining... I'm not real suprised.

Though I must admit his performance yesterday was one of his worst yet. At times it almost seemed like he was having trouble spinning this one.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 11:38 AM

*someone please show me where Bush "lied" again. And don't say, read the article, like it's the real answer. Provide the evidence or change your statement to, "IMHO I believe Bush lied".

In 2003, Iran offered Bush everything he asked for in terms of cooperation on the nuke issue, but Smirky McWarhardon ignored Iran.

Familiar "story arc," isn't it? (Anyone remember how the bush junta was in such a rush to stop the weapons inspections in Iraq during the run-up to the invasion?)

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 11:38 AM

At this point Bush in the WH scares me more than Iran and their nuclear ambitions.
Bush gets the info from the intell community, but he decides to, as he did with Iraq, ignore the evidence.

He wants to go to war in the name of Peace. Makes sense, doesn't it?

F-in Jackass!

TheDave

12-05-2007, 11:38 AM

In this post-cold war era, the war profiteers who own Bush and the GOP need all the boogeymen they can find.

Thats all this is... another boogeyman for the war mongers to point at. Pretty sad in my opinion.

It's funny to see the same people who support nuclear power here go ape **** when another country wants to take their advice.

defenseman

12-05-2007, 11:40 AM

In this post-cold war era, the war profiteers who own Bush and the GOP need all the boogeymen they can find.

LOL ...Bushhater extraordinaire....freaking hilarious...Hilarious! ....and you wonder why the far-left is scary? This is a perfect example...dman

defenseman

12-05-2007, 11:42 AM

Thats all this is... another boogeyman for the war mongers to point at. Pretty sad in my opinion.

It's funny to see the same people who support nuclear power here go ape **** when another country wants to take their advice.

Hey, if they really stopped pursuing WMD's , GREAT!!!!!! I'm all for it, and have at it building your new power plant. Just stay away from nuke weapons, if you don't, you'll get torched...dman

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 11:44 AM

LOL ...Bushhater extraordinaire....freaking hilarious...Hilarious! ....and you wonder why the far-left is scary? This is a perfect example...dman

Why should we not hate the arrogant SOB who, after being told that Iran had suspended its' Nuclear weapons program in '03, spew's that "it doesn't make any difference". He's a little warmongering bitch who needs to be restrained!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 11:46 AM

Thats all this is... another boogeyman for the war mongers to point at. Pretty sad in my opinion.

It's funny to see the same people who support nuclear power here go ape **** when another country wants to take their advice.

Yep.

Bush's Iraq debacle is a lot like Vietnam in that respect. That was another war for profit that was meant to be sustained as long as possible - not "won."

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 11:47 AM

Hey, if they really stopped pursuing WMD's , GREAT!!!!!! I'm all for it, and have at it building your new power plant. Just stay away from nuke weapons, if you don't, you'll get torched...dman

The problem with that is that the only way Bush will believe it, is if he bombs the **** out of Iran, so he can create more money for his cronie buddys and theior companies. Then when he doesn't find any evidence he'll have you believing that the snuck them out of the country.

Same BS, another Day!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 11:47 AM

LOL ...Bushhater extraordinaire....freaking hilarious...Hilarious! ....and you wonder why the far-left is scary? This is a perfect example...dman

What's hilarious is your belief that the above post is actually a refutation of my point.

:laugh:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 11:51 AM

Why should we not hate the arrogant SOB who, after being told that Iran had suspended its' Nuclear weapons program in '03, spew's that "it doesn't make any difference". He's a little warmongering b**** who needs to be restrained!

:yep:

D-man uses the phrase "bush hater" like it's a bad thing or something. ;)

(Nevermind that D-man and the rest of the dupes who are still carrying water for the bush crime family comprise what? <30% of the population?)

Ha!

TheDave

12-05-2007, 11:57 AM

Hey, if they really stopped pursuing WMD's , GREAT!!!!!! I'm all for it, and have at it building your new power plant. Just stay away from nuke weapons, if you don't, you'll get torched...dman

Sorry Dman but it's not an either/or issue... If you allow them to enrich uranium for reactors how do you plan to stop them from placing it in a warhead?

You can't...

Seriously does anyone realize how stupid this really is...

On one side you have 1940's physics and on the other you have untold quantities of raw materials available (between the fall of the USSR and "conventional" materials used for reactors)... and somehow you think that you are going to stop everyone that disagrees with you from building a bomb? Then, just in case that isn't dumb enough you sell 50-100 nukes to their mortal enemey Isreal... I guess as an incentive?

If I was Iran i would just buy some old soviet hardware (oil for nukes program ;) ) and laugh my ass off.

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 12:06 PM

Sorry Dman but it's not an either/or issue... If you allow them to enrich uranium for reactors how do you plan to stop them from placing it in a warhead?

You can't...

Seriously does anyone realize how stupid this really is...

On one side you have 1940's physics and on the other you have untold quantities of raw materials available (between the fall of the USSR and "conventional" materials used for reactors)... and somehow you think that you are going to stop everyone that disagrees with you from building a bomb? Then, just in case that isn't dumb enough you sell 50-100 nukes to their mortal enemey Isreal... I guess as an incentive?

If I was Iran i would just buy some old soviet hardware (oil for nukes program ;) ) and laugh my ass off.

It's the "do as I say" not "as I do" concept. I have found anyone in my cicles who will condone that type of behavior.

defenseman

12-05-2007, 12:10 PM

Sorry Dman but it's not an either/or issue... If you allow them to enrich uranium for reactors how do you plan to stop them from placing it in a warhead?

You can't...

Seriously does anyone realize how stupid this really is...

On one side you have 1940's physics and on the other you have untold quantities of raw materials available (between the fall of the USSR and "conventional" materials used for reactors)... and somehow you think that you are going to stop everyone that disagrees with you from building a bomb? Then, just in case that isn't dumb enough you sell 50-100 nukes to their mortal enemey Isreal... I guess as an incentive?

If I was Iran i would just buy some old soviet hardware (oil for nukes program ;) ) and laugh my ass off.

Do you understand what it takes to make a nuclear weapon...dman

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 12:13 PM

No Dman, who the **** made us the Judge, Jury, and executioner? WHO???

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 12:16 PM

Do you understand what it takes to make a nuclear weapon...dman

http://www.bartcop.com/iran-stop-attack.jpg

TheDave

12-05-2007, 12:21 PM

Do you understand what it takes to make a nuclear weapon...dman

Do i have a rough idea... Yes

Could I build one with current level of knowledge... no

My guess is, you are questioning wether a bomb can be made out of reactor grade plutonium (pu-240)? Or you are about to include me in the Axis of Evil and suggest that i should be bombed along with Iran....

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-05-2007, 12:23 PM

Do you understand what it takes to make a nuclear weapon...dman

I'm sure the U.S. director of national intelligence does.

His verdict?

See the article at the top of this thread. :yep:

TailgateNut

12-05-2007, 12:42 PM

I'm sure the U.S. director of national intelligence does.

His verdict?

See the article at the top of this thread. :yep:

Intel means nothing to the current administration, they prefer acting on hunches and prods from their business associates!

24champ

12-05-2007, 10:07 PM

I swear, if Bush attacks Iran...

http://voanews.com/english/2007-12-03-voa48.cfm

Bush's Presidency is wrecked. Period.

So everything is hunky doory with Iran now? Get real folks.

The NIE is a low-classification report that is released to the public and there are several different versions of reports that are high level reports and kept from the public obviously. There is raw, actual intelligence that never sees the light of day to an NIE. It doesn't say that they restarted the program in 2005, or they restarted in 2006, or that the Iranian ministry of defense was having shipments from Pakistan as we speak, or from China. That is so high classified. What I find more troubling about this report though, is that the NIE is 4 YEARS BEHIND!

Not to mention that the 3 people that wrote this report, don't have much of a clue on what they are talking about.

Tom Finegar- Has no experience in the Middle East or it's geopolitics.

Vann Van Diepen- career State Department bureaucrat who, according to the New York Sun, is one of the State Department bureaucrats who want "revenge" for having their views regarding Iran ignored by the Bush Administration. Has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium

Brill- Former Bush Administration antiproliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull -- .'" Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Also has ZERO experience in dealing with the Iranians

Add it all up and you have three guys with NO CLUE on what is going on in Iran and they have an agenda.

Sorry folks it's gonna take more than a flimsy report to convince me think Iran is not a threat anymore. Especially when in 2005 the National Intelligence Council's report stated that CURRENTLY the Iranians are determined to make Nukes.

baja

12-05-2007, 10:21 PM

Ya like that top secret information that only Bush and his inner circle had access to confirming WMD in Iraq, right?

George has a message for ya 24;

http://www.perrspectives.com/images/bush_fool_me.jpg

24champ

12-05-2007, 11:08 PM

Ya like that top secret information that only Bush and his inner circle had access to confirming WMD in Iraq, right?
[/IMG]

Everybody in Congress had access to the Intel reports on Iraq and decided to not read it and take Bush's word for it. Their fault.

Then there are those that wrote this report. They have ZERO knowledge and experience about the Middle East and its Geopolitics and they have an axe to grind. Not to mention that they write up a report about Iran halting nuclear ambitions in 2003 and we are now in the year 2007 going on 08'. Something doesn't add up.

It's going to take a little more than a little report with no facts to back it up to convince me that Iran is done trying to acquire nukes. Which by the way this report doesn't say what Iran's intentions are. I'm still skeptical when Mahmoud Ahmannutjob doesn't let anyone into these areas of suspected nuclear sites for inspection. Add in the fact that in 2005 the National Intel Council saying the exact opposite of the NIE. If you want to be naive enough and buy this little report from the NIE be my guest.

Bronco Bob

12-05-2007, 11:22 PM

Commentary: Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?
By ROBERT BAER

Bombing Iran, it seems, is now off the table. There's no other reasonable take on the latest National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

But there is also no doubt that the Bush White House was behind this NIE. While the 16 intelligence agencies that make up the "intelligence community" contribute to each National Intelligence Estimate, you can bet that an explosive, 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the President.

And explode is what the hawks in and outside the Administration are about to do. They were counting on Bush being the one President prepared to take on Iran. As recently as last month, Bush warned of World War III if Iran so much as thought about building a bomb. Bush's betrayal is not going to go down well. The neocons, clinging to a sliver of hope, will accuse the intelligence community of incompetence, pointing out that as late as 2005 it estimated "with high confidence" that Iran was building a bomb.

Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, put the best face on the new report, claiming that it was our diplomacy and saber rattling that forced the Iranians to back down. As for the intelligence community, it explained its reversal by hinting that new intelligence had surfaced.

Neither explanation is entirely accurate. The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman. Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head.

Then there are the Gulf Arabs. For the last year and a half, ever since the Bush Administration started to hint that it might hit Iran, they have been sending emissaries to Tehran to assure the Iranians they're not going to help the United States. But in private, the Gulf Arabs have been reminding Washington that Iran is a rabid dog: Don't even think about kicking it, the Arabs tell us. If you have to do something, shoot it dead. Which is something the United States can't do.

So how far is Iran from a nuke? The new NIE says 10 to 15 years, maybe. But that's a wild guess. The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it's entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn't know until they tested it.

Yet for now we should at least be happy with the good news: Armageddon is postponed.

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html

TheDave

12-05-2007, 11:34 PM

I'm wondering what guys like McCain and Guliani are going to talk about now...

24champ

12-05-2007, 11:41 PM

[SIZE="3"][B] [B]and it's entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn't know until they tested it.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html

Great! Have to wonder why we wouldn't know it? Maybe because they don't let anyone inspect the nuclear sites.

Nobody knows when Iran is capable of getting the bomb but is willing to wait until they test it...Brilliant.

This is reminding me of WW2 all over again but with worse implications.

Bronco Bob

12-05-2007, 11:52 PM

Why the Pentagon Is Happy about the NIE
By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON

The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was the final factor in a military equation that now appears to guarantee that there will be no war with Iran during the Bush Administration. It meshes with the views of the operational types at the Pentagon, who have steadfastly resisted the march to war led by some Administration hawks. The anti-war group was composed of Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs; and Admiral William Fallon, who oversees the U.S. forces that would have had to wage that war. In recent months, all have pushed back privately and publicly, on the wisdom of going to war with Tehran. Indeed, the Pentagon's intelligence units were instrumental in forming the NIE's conclusions.

The U.S. military contributes nine of the 16 intelligence agencies whose views are cobbled together in NIEs: the Counterintelligence Field Activity, the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency, Army Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Naval Intelligence. Some critics have suggested that the military simply found a public way to quiet the drumbeat for war coming from Vice President Dick Cheney and his shrinking band of allies in the Administration.

There was no formal response from the Pentagon. It is evident, however, that the U.S. military, already strained by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has no appetite for a third war. That's true even if a series of strikes against nuclear and other targets inside Iran were carried out by the Air Force and Navy, the two services who have sat, somewhat frustrated, on the sidelines as the Army and Marine Corps has done the heavy lifting in the two wars now under way. Some Pentagon officials welcomed the new NIE as evidence that the intelligence community is not tied to ideology, as some critics argued was true during the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003.

Still, Pentagon officials made it clear that this was not a political move by the brass — that the military's lack of desire for another conflict and the conclusions of the new NIE are coincidental. They stress that the military focuses on "intentions, not capabilities" when assessing threats, and that the final unclassified portion of the NIE warns that the intelligence community believes "with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so."

Indeed, Secretary Gates, in Afghanistan this week, told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community has "more confidence than ever before" that Iran had a nuclear-weapons development program, one that Iran continues to deny it ever possessed. He urged the international community "to join the United States in bringing pressure to bear on the Iranian government" to keep its nuclear-weapons efforts dead. This, he said, will help "ensure that what apparently was a suspension in 2003 becomes a policy of the Iranian government and that they agree to the requirements of the international community in terms of their enrichment program." Iran, he said, had merely suspended — not terminated — its nuclear-weapons efforts. Tehran continues to "keep its options open," he pointed out. "As long as they continue with their enrichment activities, then the opportunity to resume that nuclear weapons program is always present."

However, Gates left no doubt where he stands on how to proceed, saying that the revised NIE shows that non-military measures are the best way to curb Iran's nuclear program. "If anything," he said in Kabul, "the new national estimate validates the Administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic pressures to bear on the Iranian government to change its policies."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1691241,00.html

{sounds sort of like they staged a military coup against Cheney}

Bronco Bob

12-06-2007, 12:05 AM

I'm wondering what guys like McCain and Guliani are going to talk about now...

I think this pretty much pulls the rug out from under the GOP. They were
counting on running on the idea only they could protect us from Iran.
It's bad for Hillary too in the primaries because she was the only Iran
hawk of the Dems, and the rest of the Dems are already beating her
over the head with it. And Iowa is already notoriously anti-war.

Bronco Bob

12-06-2007, 12:11 AM

Great! Have to wonder why we wouldn't know it? Maybe because they don't let anyone inspect the nuclear sites.

Nobody knows when Iran is capable of getting the bomb but is willing to wait until they test it...Brilliant.

This is reminding me of WW2 all over again but with worse implications.

One idea I heard floated about was that once the US invaded Iraq and took
out Saddam Hussein, the Iranians decided they no longer needed a bomb
to protect them from Iraq. Perhaps the only good thing to come out of
the Iraq war.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 12:25 AM

Everybody in Congress had access to the Intel reports on Iraq...

:bs:

That's a lie.

Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq

In his speech today, President Bush claimed that members of Congress who voted for the 2002 Iraq war resolution “had access to the same intelligence” as his administration. This is patently false.

Nevermind that much of the intelligence offered to the public and to Congress was inaccurate and misleading, or that according to the Downing Street memo and other documents, such intelligence was likely intentionally “fixed.” It is simply not true to state that Congress received the “same intelligence” as the White House:

FACT — Dissent From White House Claims on Iraq Nuclear Program Consistently Withheld from Congress:

[S]everal Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments [of intel suggesting aluminum tubes showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program] said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department’s dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate.” [NYT, 10/3/04]

FACT — Sen. Kerrey: Bush “Has Much More Access” to Intel Than Congress:

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE), ex-Senate Intelligence Committee vice chairman: “The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress does. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? Look at these aluminum tube stories that came out the president delivered to the Congress — ‘We believe these would be used for centrifuges.’ — didn’t deliver to Congress the full range of objections from the Department of Energy experts, nuclear weapons experts, that said it’s unlikely they were for centrifuges, more likely that they were for rockets, which was a pre-existing use. The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress.” [10/7/04]

FACT — Rockefeller: PDBs, CIA Intel Withheld From Senate:

Ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): “[P]eople say, ‘Well, you know, you all had the same intelligence that the White House had.’ And I’m here to tell you that is nowhere near the truth. We not only don’t have, nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief. We don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him. They don’t release their — an administration which tends not to release — not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others — they control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t get that they have.” [11/04/05]

FACT — War Supporter Ken Pollack: White House Engaged in “Creative Omission” of Iraq Intel:

In the eyes of Kenneth Pollack, “a Clinton-era National Security Council member and strong supporter of regime change in Iraq,” “the Administration consistently engaged in ‘creative omission,’ overstating the imminence of the Iraqi threat, even though it had evidence to the contrary. ‘The President is responsible for serving the entire nation,’ Pollack writes. ‘Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the US government – and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.’” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/14/04]

FACT — White House Had Exclusive Access to “Unique” Intel Sources:

“The claim that the White House and Congress saw the ’same intelligence’ on Iraq is further undermined by the Bush administration’s use of outside intelligence channels. For more than year prior to the war, the administration received intelligence assessments and analysis on Iraq directly from the Department of Defense’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), run by then-undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas J. Feith, and the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group of Iraqi exiles led by Ahmed Chalabi.” [MediaMatters, 11/8/05]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/

24champ

12-06-2007, 01:04 AM

One idea I heard floated about was that once the US invaded Iraq and took
out Saddam Hussein, the Iranians decided they no longer needed a bomb
to protect them from Iraq. Perhaps the only good thing to come out of
the Iraq war.

Doesn't matter, Iran still has a nutjob that made statements to blow Israel off the map. I don't believe they shut down their program whatsoever and won't believe otherwise until they allow inspectors in to view their sites.

To quote from one of your articles. Gates says this-

As long as they continue with their enrichment activities, then the opportunity to resume that nuclear weapons program is always present."

Everything isn't hunky doory, and sooner or later we will have to deal with it.

alkemical

12-06-2007, 01:08 AM

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPp6is6KqkHE_fadGbNQDcmvgaow

Putin tells Iran to freeze uranium enrichment: Interfax

19 hours ago

MOSCOW (AFP) — President Vladimir Putin has urged Iran to freeze its controversial uranium enrichment programme, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday, Interfax reported.

In a meeting Tuesday with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, Putin repeated his "call for freezing work on uranium enrichment," Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.

24champ

12-06-2007, 01:15 AM

:bs:

That's a lie.

Is it?

For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document.

The Clinton biography, written by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., summarizes the intelligence estimate, which combined reports of U.S. intelligence agencies about Iraq.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, was briefed on the intelligence report multiple times, a spokesperson told CNN.

Clinton is one of six presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 who voted for the resolution to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Candidate and then-Sen. John Edwards "read and was briefed on the intelligence" while sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a spokesman said. Edwards has called his vote for the 2002 resolution a mistake. Another Democratic candidate, Sen. Joseph Biden, said he read the report.

A spokesman for presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd said the Connecticut Democrat did not read the document, either.

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona also voted in favor of the resolution without reading the report.

A spokesman for McCain told CNN his boss was briefed on the document "numerous times, and read the executive summary."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html

Face it LABF, nobody gave a shiat about the intel and greenlighted the invasion to get political points.

And hmmm what do you know when you scroll down the page on this article....Little something about the NIE-

Misleading report

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

That was wrong, but that wasn't established until after a U.S. -led army toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003.

The intelligence report did contain passages that raised questions about the weapons conclusions, said John McLaughlin, then deputy director of the CIA.

"I think if someone read the entire report, they would walk away thinking the intelligence community generally thinks he has weapons of mass destruction, but there are quite a bit of differences," he said.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 01:36 AM

Is it?

Yes, it is a claim that has already been exposed as bullsh*t...

How long will we have to hear this lie repeated by the MSM?

How long will Bush and his cronies keep droning on about how Congress had the same intel they did?

Fact: Bush pulled Congressional security clearances just after 9/11.

DIRECT LINK: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/u...ictedintel.pdf

Only an extremely, extremely limited number of Congressmen and Senators (we're talking a max of 8 people, committee chairmain and the top minority party people in those committees for instance) had privileged access to the "more secret intel". Everyone else in Congress didn't. Those 8 people were sworn to secrecy and the rest of Congress (like for instance, John Kerry) were not privileged to receive those reports. Even those 8 did not receive intel before it was pre-packaged for their consumption from within the Executive Branch, so they couldn't see the CIA's warring with the OSP and Cheney's office unless those disagreements made it into the final product. I say this in general; the National Intelligence Estimate case is a particular, documented case and I defer to people who know the really tiny details about it.

The access most certainly was not anywhere near the same.

LINK: http://www.thinkprogress.org/2005/07...pulls-security

MORE HERE:

Administration had access to intel that wasn’t shared with Congress

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus

Updated: 12:30 a.m. ET Nov. 12, 2005

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

Continued: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10009710

24champ

12-06-2007, 02:03 AM

Only an extremely, extremely limited number of Congressmen and Senators (we're talking a max of 8 people, committee chairmain and the top minority party people in those committees for instance) had privileged access to the "more secret intel". Everyone else in Congress didn't. Those 8 people were sworn to secrecy and the rest of Congress (like for instance, John Kerry) were not privileged to receive those reports. Even those 8 did not receive intel before it was pre-packaged for their consumption from within the Executive Branch, so they couldn't see the CIA's warring with the OSP and Cheney's office unless those disagreements made it into the final product. I say this in general; the National Intelligence Estimate case is a particular, documented case and I defer to people who know the really tiny details about it.

The access most certainly was not anywhere near the same.

I understand how it works, but even then you have someone like Biden who had access to the intel and still voted for the war. Whether you buy his lame argument that he voted for the resolution to prevent war (does that even make sense?) or not. As the article I linked, stated that Biden "spoke to the ones who dissented" about going into Iraq, yet he still voted for it. Then Hillary didn't read into the 90 page report either whether it was "pre-packaged" or not, voted yes anyway.

John Edwards was on the Intel committee and didn't bother to read it. I don't buy the "I was briefed on it" garbage. McCain didn't bother to read the reports and it just shows that nobody cared enough about the intel because all they cared about was getting the votes. So yeah I stand by my comment that they had access to the reports and didn't give a ****.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 02:09 AM

:laugh:

How funny is it to watch the Bush WH and its few remaining supporters spin and do damage control in the wake of this intel report?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 02:11 AM

From Champ's quote:

Only an extremely, extremely limited number of Congressmen and Senators (we're talking a max of 8 people, committee chairmain and the top minority party people in those committees for instance) had privileged access to the "more secret intel". Everyone else in Congress didn't. Those 8 people were sworn to secrecy and the rest of Congress (like for instance, John Kerry) were not privileged to receive those reports. Even those 8 did not receive intel before it was pre-packaged for their consumption from within the Executive Branch, so they couldn't see the CIA's warring with the OSP and Cheney's office unless those disagreements made it into the final product.

cutthemdown

12-06-2007, 03:59 AM

This report wouldn't have come out unless Bush wanted it to IMO. If you ask me Bush maybe thought about military action against Iran because of the enriching. But at the same time he knew the actual weapons program that would be the smoking gun at this time wasn't there anymore. That coupled with the fact he's just not strong enough right now in terms of public and political support to pull it off.

Therefore the smart move is to let this report come out. Scoff at it a little and say Iran needs to be watched carefully and still needs to be coerced into halting enrichment.

Then in the end they will probably try and say it was there pressure all along that made Iran stop and call it a diplomatic victory.

24champ

12-06-2007, 04:21 AM

From Champ's quote:

Pre-packaged or not, they didn't look at it and didn't care to.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 04:26 AM

Pre-packaged or not, they didn't look at it and didn't care to.

Who is "they?"

Where is the proof?

And how does this exonerate Bush for taking the U.S. to war on false pretenses?

24champ

12-06-2007, 04:41 AM

Who is "they?"

The people I just linked in one of my above posts. Hillary, Edwards, McCain etc.

Not making it to be a party thing, just in my opinion that elected officials do not take intel reports very seriously.

Proof? There is none other than the washington post report. I don't think you have any proof whatsoever that the elected officials read all 90 pages of the report.

Bronco_Beerslug

12-06-2007, 07:24 AM

Hey, if they really stopped pursuing WMD's , GREAT!!!!!! I'm all for it, and have at it building your new power plant. Just stay away from nuke weapons, if you don't, you'll get torched...dmanI love this tough talk!! But bad news for all you warhawks, there is nothing that will happen to Iran no matter how bad you want to start dropping bombs on them and their people. And you better get use to the idea that other countries besides us are going to develop nuclear weaponry.

Do you understand what it takes to make a nuclear weapon...dman
I do but I'd like to hear your version.

How to Build a Nuclear Bomb (http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+build+a+nuclear+bomb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/images/nuke_build.jpg

Documentation and Diagrams of the Atomic Bomb (http://www.serendipity.li/more/atomic.html)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 04:49 PM

Not making it to be a party thing, just in my opinion that elected officials do not take intel reports very seriously.

http://www.bartcop.com/petulant-monkey.jpg

Breaker

12-06-2007, 04:56 PM

Yep.

Bush's Iraq debacle is a lot like Vietnam in that respect. That was another war for profit that was meant to be sustained as long as possible - not "won."

Yep and you can thank the Dems for that one huh.

Breaker

12-06-2007, 05:04 PM

I love this tough talk!! But bad news for all you warhawks, there is nothing that will happen to Iran no matter how bad you want to start dropping bombs on them and their people. And you better get use to the idea that other countries besides us are going to develop nuclear weaponry.

I do but I'd like to hear your version.

How to Build a Nuclear Bomb (http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+build+a+nuclear+bomb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/images/nuke_build.jpg

Documentation and Diagrams of the Atomic Bomb (http://www.serendipity.li/more/atomic.html)

So by your logic since everyone is going to do it anyways we should just open up our stockpiles and give them a "seed nuke" or two, just to help their little programs huh. Yep, thats it let Syria, Iran, and anyone else who wants a nuke to just get one, really that would help the world out so much. I know lets even send an advisor team over there to make sure they get it right, just so they can make sure they have a cost effective and efficient program.

Then we can let terrorists who buy these weapons to use parts of the US in order to make sure they work, that would be a great idea huh BB. You ever stop to think that the only reason that only two bombs have been dropped on civilian populations is because certain people have not been allowed to develop these programs. In your world Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and every other violent murdering bastard in the world could have a nuke to murder with, then you would be a happy guy huh.

24champ

12-06-2007, 05:22 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/petulant-monkey.jpg

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Whatever suits your agenda LABF.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 05:34 PM

Whatever suits your agenda LABF.

Oh, the irony. Ha!

http://www.bartcop.com/iranian-nukes-wise-men.jpg

24champ

12-06-2007, 05:37 PM

Oh, the irony. Ha!

So what makes the NIE report on Iran believable? How come inspectors aren't allowed to visit Iranian nuke sites?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 05:42 PM

Yep and you can thank the Dems for that one huh.

That's a simpleton historical take if I ever saw one.

Actually, U.S. military involvement in Vietnam began during Eisenhower's watch.

Before he was assassinated, JFK wanted to end American involvement in Vietnam.

LBJ was a POS who cannot be defended.

I didn't know Tricky Dick was a Dem. ;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 05:49 PM

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had "compelling evidence" that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

That was wrong, but that wasn't established until after a U.S. -led army toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003.

Not established until 2003?

That's false. (See David Kay and Scott Ritter.)

Crushaholic

12-06-2007, 05:52 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/petulant-monkey.jpg

That can't be an accurate depiction of what happened. First of all, it's nooc-U-lar. Get it straight, LABF! SHEESH...;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 05:58 PM

So what makes the NIE report on Iran believable?

Sounds like someone read his RNC talking points. :D

The CIA did eventually produce a National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq, but only in October 2002, after Bush had already decided on war. The title of the NIE, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," is reflective of a predisposition that was not supported either by the facts available at the time, or by the passage of time.

Stu Cohen, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, wrote in a statement published on the CIA Web site on Nov. 28, 2003, that the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate "judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles in excess of the 150-kilometer limit imposed by the UN Security Council. … These judgments were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and a wide array of intelligence services - friendly and unfriendly alike."

Cohen said the October NIE was "policy neutral" - meaning it did not propose a policy that argued either for or against going to war. He also stated that no one who worked on the NIE had been pressured by the Bush White House.

Cohen is wrong in his assertions. The fact that a major policy decision like war with Iraq was made without the benefit of an NIE is, in and of itself, policy manipulation.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0206-06.htm

How come inspectors aren't allowed to visit Iranian nuke sites?

Iran has stated on numerous occasions that it welcomed inspectors.

TheDave

12-06-2007, 06:05 PM

So by your logic since everyone is going to do it anyways we should just open up our stockpiles and give them a "seed nuke" or two, just to help their little programs huh. Yep, thats it let Syria, Iran, and anyone else who wants a nuke to just get one, really that would help the world out so much. I know lets even send an advisor team over there to make sure they get it right, just so they can make sure they have a cost effective and efficient program.

Then we can let terrorists who buy these weapons to use parts of the US in order to make sure they work, that would be a great idea huh BB. You ever stop to think that the only reason that only two bombs have been dropped on civilian populations is because certain people have not been allowed to develop these programs. In your world Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and every other violent murdering bastard in the world could have a nuke to murder with, then you would be a happy guy huh.

Same question...

How are you going to stop it?

The raw materials are available... 60+ year old physics is available...

I'm listening...how do you stop it?

cutthemdown

12-06-2007, 07:13 PM

That's a simpleton historical take if I ever saw one.

Actually, U.S. military involvement in Vietnam began during Eisenhower's watch.

Before he was assassinated, JFK wanted to end American involvement in Vietnam.

LBJ was a POS who cannot be defended.

I didn't know Tricky Dick was a Dem. ;)

Eisenhower was the one that came up with the Domino Theory. It stated once one country in a region fell to communism, others would follow. In many ways he was right because after N. Korea went N. Vietnam, Then Laos, Then Cambodia. Millions were killed by the Khmer Rouge in a horrid genocide by pol pot because we lost Vietnam. Eisenhower was right IMO and it was the Presidents Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon that blew it.

Kennedy had about 1300 advisors in Vietnam when he took over, that number went to 13, 000 soldiers very quickly so it's hard to say he didn't escalate the war. More then anything Kennedy left us after he died a Vietnam where we had one foot in the door but had not really broke it down yet.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 07:14 PM

Watch him squirm

Look at the expressions on Bush's face and the evident discomfort
as he gets ready to fib and weave about when he knew the intel on Iran.

Pay particular attention to when he says he was told there was new information back in August but supposedly didn't ask what the 'new information' was.

And then: "He didn't tell me what the information was."

Right....

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/boGw3VciDig&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/boGw3VciDig&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Breaker

12-06-2007, 07:46 PM

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN;1809144]That's a simpleton historical take if I ever saw one.

Actually, U.S. military involvement in Vietnam began during Eisenhower's watch.

Before he was assassinated, JFK wanted to end American involvement in Vietnam.

LBJ was a POS who cannot be defended.

I didn't know Tricky Dick was a Dem. ;)[/QUOTE

Kennedy led the biggest escalation in Vietnam, LBJ was a nice solid Dem and Nixon ended the war and brought the troops home. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, par for the course I suppose.

cutthemdown

12-06-2007, 08:03 PM

Breaker

12-06-2007, 08:05 PM

Same question...

How are you going to stop it?

The raw materials are available... 60+ year old physics is available...

I'm listening...how do you stop it?

Are you serious? You act as if building one of these things is so easy a high school science prof and his class could do it. It requires solving several very difficult problems simultaneously. Acquiring the fissionable material to generate a nuclear explosion is the single most difficult step. But other daunting problems remain, including recruiting scientific experts in a broad array of disciplines, obtaining specialized industrial equipment, and avoiding the chemical and radiological hazards inherent in working with nuclear materials and high explosives.

So you put up roadblocks to block getting the control rods, the reactors, the stuff that you must have to make a nuke. You can take hundreds of steps to make it HARDER on people to do it. If someone is that hell bent on doing it, they probably will, but that doesn't mean you just roll over and let them take the easiest route to creating one of these things.

I guess you are with BB, lets just roll over and stick our heads in the sand, let anyone who wants one develop a nuke, then pray we don't all just die in the future.

Breaker

12-06-2007, 08:10 PM

[QUOTE=Breaker;1809263]

Even though I'm a republican I wouldn't characterize Nixons Vietnam history as one of bringing the boys home. He tried to win the war, but his policy failed and he lost support at home and in Congress. Sound familar?

Not even close to accurate. In July of 1969, his first year in office he advocated replacing American troops with South Vietnamese troops, thus reducing the number of Americans in Vietnam. Every single month until 1973 he brought more and more troops back home. He never tried to "win" the war that was started by Kennedy and continued by LBJ, and the only impact Congress had on the situation was reducing funding for the arms that we sent the S.Vietnamese after 1973.

Nixon DID end the war in Vietnam and never tried to do anything but get us out of there.

Bronco_Beerslug

12-06-2007, 09:09 PM

So by your logic since everyone is going to do it anyways we should just open up our stockpiles and give them a "seed nuke" or two, just to help their little programs huh. Not hardly but reading comprehension plays an important part when reading posts around here.

Yep, thats it let Syria, Iran, and anyone else who wants a nuke to just get one, really that would help the world out so much. I know lets even send an advisor team over there to make sure they get it right, just so they can make sure they have a cost effective and efficient program. Yep, let's bomb any country we suspect of trying to secure nuclear weapons, "really that would help the world out so much".

Then we can let terrorists who buy these weapons to use parts of the US in order to make sure they work, that would be a great idea huh BB. Newsflash you and others who don't seem to get out very often, if "terrorists" want to obtain a nuclear weapon, they will at some point.

You ever stop to think that the only reason that only two bombs have been dropped on civilian populations is because certain people have not been allowed to develop these programs. In your world Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and every other violent murdering bastard in the world could have a nuke to murder with, then you would be a happy guy huh.This is complete ignorance. The only reason third world countries haven't developed them yet (besides Pakistan) is because of money and technology, that problem has come to an end for many countries now.

Your lack of knowledge on world affairs is pretty deep as evidenced by the tripe in this simple post of yours.

TheDave

12-06-2007, 10:22 PM

Are you serious? You act as if building one of these things is so easy a high school science prof and his class could do it. It requires solving several very difficult problems simultaneously. Acquiring the fissionable material to generate a nuclear explosion is the single most difficult step. But other daunting problems remain, including recruiting scientific experts in a broad array of disciplines, obtaining specialized industrial equipment, and avoiding the chemical and radiological hazards inherent in working with nuclear materials and high explosives.

So you put up roadblocks to block getting the control rods, the reactors, the stuff that you must have to make a nuke. You can take hundreds of steps to make it HARDER on people to do it. If someone is that hell bent on doing it, they probably will, but that doesn't mean you just roll over and let them take the easiest route to creating one of these things.

I guess you are with BB, lets just roll over and stick our heads in the sand, let anyone who wants one develop a nuke, then pray we don't all just die in the future.

Oddly you seem to think a country and a highschool are similiar... Keeping some rag-tag terrorist group from building nuclear weapon is one thing. Keeping a country (like say Iran) is completely different. Especially a country who states they want to build nuclear power plants. Once a country begins the necessary steps towards building a reactor the fissionable materials are a natural progression... as is everything else you mentioned. Any country that begins down this path can easily convert their knowledge over to weapons...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-06-2007, 11:54 PM

Not even close to accurate. In July of 1969, his first year in office he advocated replacing American troops with South Vietnamese troops, thus reducing the number of Americans in Vietnam. Every single month until 1973 he brought more and more troops back home. He never tried to "win" the war that was started by Kennedy and continued by LBJ, and the only impact Congress had on the situation was reducing funding for the arms that we sent the S.Vietnamese after 1973.

Nixon DID end the war in Vietnam and never tried to do anything but get us out of there.

Wow - that's some serious revisionist history you've got going on there!

(Although I expected no more from you.)

Nixon won the '68 election in part because he claimed to have a “secret plan” to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In fact, Nixon expanded the war, and its unpopularity grew.

During the same time that he was reducing ground troops, Nixon resumed and expanded the bombing of North Vietnam (suspended by President Johnson in October 1968) and expanded the air and ground war to neighbouring Cambodia and Laos.

Under Nixon's policy of "Vietnamization," combat roles were transferred to South Vietnamese troops, who nevertheless remained heavily dependent on American supplies and air support.

cutthemdown

12-07-2007, 12:59 AM

Wow - that's some serious revisionist history you've got going on there!

(Although I expected no more from you.)

Nixon won the '68 election in part because he claimed to have a “secret plan” to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In fact, Nixon expanded the war, and its unpopularity grew.

During the same time that he was reducing ground troops, Nixon resumed and expanded the bombing of North Vietnam (suspended by President Johnson in October 1968) and expanded the air and ground war to neighbouring Cambodia and Laos.

Under Nixon's policy of "Vietnamization," combat roles were transferred to South Vietnamese troops, who nevertheless remained heavily dependent on American supplies and air support.

That quote wasn't mine you idiot.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-07-2007, 01:23 AM

That quote wasn't mine you idiot.

You're calling the wrong person an "idiot."

It was Breaker who screwed up the formatting so that his post appears to be yours.

Try to reply to his previous post (i.e., the one that starts with "not even close to accurate") and you'll see what I mean.

I tried to make this clear by nesting the original, incorrectly-attributed quote inside an "originally posted by Breaker" tag, but I guess you didn't notice.

24champ

12-07-2007, 01:24 AM

Iran has stated on numerous occasions that it welcomed inspectors.

Linky?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-07-2007, 01:30 AM

Linky?

Iran: Tehran Ready To Accept Full IAEA Inspections Under Certain Conditions

Tehran, 30 May 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi says his country is ready to allow full inspections of its nuclear facilities, but only under certain conditions.

Kharrazi said today that Iran is ready to sign the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allowing tougher inspections. But he said "sanctions, restrictions, and pressures" exerted by the United States and other countries must first be lifted.

Kharrazi also said nuclear technology for peaceful purposes should be put at Tehran's disposal before Iran signs the additional protocol.

The United States has accused Tehran of using its atomic energy program as a cover for the illicit development of nuclear weapons. Iran has always denied the charge.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-030530-rfel-175324.htm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-07-2007, 01:33 AM

IAEA says verification of nuclear activities in Iran making ‘good progress’ UN News centre 31 Oct 2003 -- The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency said today that its verification work in Iran is making “good progress” a week after Tehran turned over a dossier on its nuclear activities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2003/iran-031031-unnews01.htm

Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the United Nations. We have allowed more than 1,700 person-days of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures. Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor program have been resolved.

Even the presence of highly enriched uranium contamination — an issue that some say proves the existence of an illicit weapons program — has been explained satisfactorily. Don't take it from me. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, its findings tend "to support Iran's statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed H.E.U. contamination."

It's worth noting, too, that Iran has gone beyond its international obligations and allowed the atomic agency to repeatedly visit military sites — and to allow inspectors to take environmental samples. The agency did not observe any unusual activities; the samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations.

Most important, the agency has concluded time and again that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06zarif.html?pagewanted=print

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-07-2007, 01:34 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/rove-insanity.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-07-2007, 01:34 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/bush-1207-responds.jpg

24champ

12-07-2007, 01:52 AM

MOSCOW -- With a sense of vindication and a touch of suspicion, Iran's embattled defenders absorbed the news this week: U.S. intelligence services no longer believe the Islamic Republic has an active nuclear weapons program.

Russia and China have struggled to stave off new United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran, and both were quick to turn the latest U.S. intelligence report against the Bush administration. Any attempts to impose additional sanctions should be reconsidered in light of the latest findings, the two countries suggested.

Russia feels it has always been right and now it has been confirmed, and it was even confirmed by the opposite side. exander Umnov, Senior researcher at Moscow’s Institute of World Economy and International Relations

What we are seeing is not a change in the U.S. strategy of reshaping the Middle East, but rather a change of tactics.

Moscow and Beijing have long argued for diplomacy and negotiation instead of sanctions. Both countries also have flouted conventional American wisdom with repeated arguments that, in fact, Iran's nuclear program didn't pose a serious threat.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov told reporters Wednesday that even this latest U.S. assessment is off the mark: The U.S. assertion that Iranians were pursuing nuclear weapons until 2003 is false, he said.

"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 program," Lavrov said.

At the same time, Lavrov said, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin this week had again entreated Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program, which Iran says is only for civilian energy purposes.

Western Europe, meanwhile, remains openly leery of Iran's intentions. A defiant Tehran is still ignoring two Security Council orders to halt uranium enrichment, Europeans pointed out, and new sanctions still can't be crossed off the list of possible repercussions.

"Our concerns are still there," German government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said Wednesday. "That's why we recommend a certain restraint of German companies in their business with Iran.

"It is still necessary to put Iran under pressure, combined with the offer of cooperation."

The new U.S. intelligence report, made public Monday, marked a fundamental retreat from the Bush administration's repeated accusations that Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons. Hounded by international pressure, the Islamic Republic dropped its weapons ambitions in 2003, the report said, but could resume the program at any time.

News of the report was gladly received in Russia, which stands to win or lose billions of dollars in business depending on whether Iran is further sanctioned.

A Russian firm won the contract to build Iran's first civilian nuclear power plant, and the government was to sell Tehran the needed fuel to operate the plant. But the project has been slowed amid international pressure and squabbles over whether Iran has paid its bills.

Russia and Iran also have a strategic alliance and shared interest in preserving stability in the Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union.

"Russia feels it has always been right and now it has been confirmed, and it was even confirmed by the opposite side," said Alexander Umnov, senior researcher at Moscow's Institute of World Economy and International Relations. "The pressure of possible and existing sanctions prevented Russian companies from going deeper into cooperation with Iran. Now, because of the report, there is a chance to expand cooperation."

Yet despite Russia's repeated insistence that Iran's nuclear program is civilian in nature, even some officials in Moscow harbor underlying doubts, said analysts familiar with Russia's nuclear discussions.

Like their counterparts in Washington, Russian officials believe the technological groundwork in Iran could be used to quick-start a weapons program if Tehran felt the need, the analysts said.

As long ago as 1993, a Russian intelligence report suggested that Iran was conducting nuclear research that could have military applications.

"The Russian official statement on this issue has been there is no evidence that Iran is creating nuclear weapons," Anton Khlopkov, a nonproliferation expert at the PIR Center for Policy Studies in Moscow, said in a recent interview. "But I would say there is some concern, including in Russia. We don't have evidence, the U.S. doesn't have evidence, the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] doesn't have evidence. But we have concerns."

Still, there was a pervasive sense of hope in Russia and China that the report, coming from the U.S. government itself, would slow the rush to sanctions and buy extra time for negotiation.

Wang Guangya, China's U.N. ambassador, told reporters that moves to impose sanctions on Tehran should be reconsidered.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-worldreax6dec06,1,6956384.story?coll=la-headlines-world

24champ

12-07-2007, 01:57 AM

ON Monday the United States intelligence community issued what everyone agrees was blockbuster news: a report stating that in the autumn of 2003, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program. The National Intelligence Estimate has been heralded as a courageous act of independence by the intelligence agencies, and praised by both parties for showing a higher quality of spy work than earlier assessments.

In fact, the report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

During the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

For years these expensive projects have been viewed as evidence of Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons. Why aren’t they still? The answer is that the new report defines “nuclear weapons program” in a ludicrously narrow way: it confines it to to enriching uranium at secret sites or working on a nuclear weapon design. But the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications.

That work includes the centrifuges at Natanz, which bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon every day — two to seven years away. To assert, as the report does, that these centrifuges are “civilian,” and not part of Iran’s weapons threat, is grossly misleading.

The new report has also upended our sanctions policy, which was just beginning to produce results. Banks and energy companies were pulling back from Iran. The United Nations Security Council had frozen the assets of dozens of Iranian companies. That policy now seems dead. If Iran is not going for the bomb, why punish it?

No company or bank will agree to lose money unless a nuclear threat is clear. Likewise, is it fair for the United Nations to continue to freeze the assets of people like Seyed Jaber Safdari, the manager of the Natanz plant, or companies like Mesbah Energy, the supplier of the reactor at Arak, because of links to a program that American intelligence believes is benign? One European official admitted to us that he and his colleagues were flummoxed. “We have to have a new policy now for going forward,” he said, “but we haven’t been able to figure out what it is.”

This situation is made all the more absurd by the report’s suggestion that international pressure offers the only hope of containing Iran. The report has now made such pressure nearly impossible to obtain. It is hardly surprising that China, which last week seemed ready to approve the next round of economic sanctions against Tehran, has now had a change of heart: its ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday that “we all start from the presumption that now things have changed.”

We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won’t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, “If we can’t fix it, it ain’t broke”?

In any case, the report is an undoubted victory for Iran. Even if it opens the way for direct talks, which would be a benefit, it validates Iran’s claim that efforts to shut down Natanz are illegitimate. Thus Iran will be free to operate and add to its centrifuges at Natanz, accumulate a stockpile of low-enriched uranium customary for civilian use, and then have the ability to convert that uranium in a matter of months to weapons grade. This “breakout potential” would create a nuclear threat that we and Iran’s neighbors will have to live with for years to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/opinion/06milhollin.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin

baja

12-07-2007, 06:19 AM

LOL ...Bushhater extraordinaire....freaking hilarious...Hilarious! ....and you wonder why the far-left is scary? This is a perfect example...dman

I'll tell you what is scary, the thought that all military people reason as you do. ie not at all.

defenseman

12-07-2007, 09:17 AM

Rohirrim

12-07-2007, 09:47 AM

TailgateNut

12-07-2007, 09:56 AM

What I find funny is how many times during Bush's term in office we have had the same argument:
He's lying.
Prove it.
It's obvious.
No it isn't. If you can't prove it, blah, blah, blah.

Let's rephrase that:
There's smoke. There must be a fire.
No there isn't.
Yes, there is. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Prove it.
:rofl:

That sums up the "LoneBolt's" responses to a tee!

.....sort of like Bush and his responses. If he were to get an x-ray showing a fracture bone in his arm, he would insist it isn't fractured because that's what he "believes" and wants others to believe!

baja

12-07-2007, 10:39 AM

I'll tell you what is scary, the thought that all military people reason as you do. ie not at all.

How do you know? You sure about that? Trust me, it's a little scary? No, it's alot scary to tell the truth, I'd be REAL WORRIED if I were you there pal.<b> Most despise the likes of you</b> and the illegal s**theads who attempt to cross the border. And if given the opportunity, and I would gladly step up to the plate on this one, we would defend the border from the hordes of drugrunners and coyotes. Lots of dead drug runners and coyotes down there. That is , EXACTLY what they deserve. And that is where it is headed presently unless our politicians shut the SOB down, and hard. It will get there.........dman

*You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Hope you are worried, you should be. Lots of pissed off military about the mexican invasion.

Yep that's right Dman everyone of the 100,000 million Mexicans is either a drug runner or a coyote.

Cut out the illegal work force in the USA and watch how far your retirement check goes. Then you will whine like a baby.

My wish for you Dman is that some day you figure out the solution to all problems is not killing people.

So now you can add racist bastard to your list of charming human attributes.

defenseman

12-07-2007, 10:55 AM

[QUOTE=defenseman;1809527]

Yep that's right Dman everyone of the 100,000 million Mexicans is either a drug runner or a coyote.

Cut out the illegal work force in the USA and watch how far your retirement check goes. Then you will whine like a baby.

My wish for you Dman is that some day you figure out the solution to all problems is not killing people.

So now you can add racist bastard to your list of charming human attributes.

Nah, if you are illegal, then, you are illegal. Simple as that. You just don't want to enforce the laws of the land, or don't have the guts for it. I've got no problem with LEGAL aliens in the country. Charming enough for you? Killing people does not solve everything. But in some cases, it is entirely justified. Those who do not recognize this, are in fact the greatest threat to the country, not those willing to fight with deadly force what should be...drug runners and coyotes deserve one thing, a buttet behind the ear followed shortly thereafter by a shallow grave. End of story..dman

*You've swallowed the popular mantra of the far left wrt the affects of booting the illegals vs. cost of goods and services. Not denying some minor % increase in costs, however, not nearly to the excess as the far left would have you believe. Whining? I never whine. I do however, get even. Or change what needs to be changed, one way or the other.

W*GS

12-07-2007, 11:01 AM

Doves find fault with Iran report too

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran7dec07,1,6656317.story?coll=la-headlines-world&track=crosspromo

Rigs11

12-07-2007, 11:02 AM

TailgateNut

12-07-2007, 11:06 AM

Yeah usually when someone tells you that they have information you ask what it is?Right mr president?:rofl: These bush apologists just can't admit to themselves that they voted for an idiot. bad for their ego.

Everytime I see his mug, I just feel like "tossing my cookies". He is a ****ing embarrassment to our country.

Lying, cheating, FOS, POS!

Rohirrim

12-07-2007, 11:40 AM

Yeah usually when someone tells you that they have information you ask what it is?Right mr president?:rofl: These bush apologists just can't admit to themselves that they voted for an idiot. bad for their ego.

If I voted for this embarrassing bozo, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anybody about it. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't do business with anybody who still had a "W" sticker on their car because it would mean they have no sense of shame. ;D

baja

12-07-2007, 11:56 AM

There is a real good possibility that he didn't win, see Ohio.

W*GS

12-07-2007, 11:58 AM

What's the name of that group and website?

MoveOn.org

Correct?

defenseman

12-07-2007, 12:09 PM

What's the name of that group and website?

MoveOn.org

Correct?

Yep, that's it, aka...Soros's sissies..dman

Bronco Bob

12-07-2007, 12:27 PM

No matter what you think about Bush, or the intelligence community
this was, quite possibly, the most assertive, surprising and rebellious act
in the history of the U.S. intelligence community. The Administration
seemed to have lost control of its secrets. Gone were the days when
spymasters would come to the White House for morning coffee and whisper
the latest intelligence to the President, and the rest of the world would
find out decades later, only after numerous Freedom of Information requests
had pried the buried treasure from the CIA vault. Now the latest
intelligence evaluations are being announced worldwide, nearly in real
time. It's just mind-boggling. The impact of the Iraq WMD fiasco is coming
home to roost. The intelligence community was badly burned by that.
And the various players never want it asked of them again why didn't
you stand up to the Administration and tell it the truth?
The truth about Iran appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of
the White House's bomb-Iran brigade — and especially that of Vice President
Dick Cheney, who had been stumping haughtily for war.

TailgateNut

12-07-2007, 12:44 PM

If I voted for this embarrassing bozo, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anybody about it. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't do business with anybody who still had a "W" sticker on their car because it would mean they have no sense of shame. ;D

:notworthy I've actually "dumped" a few bidders for the same reason.
My motto is: You back this moron, I don't do business with you.

When I estimate projects these idiots don't get a phone call! **** it, if I end up paying a bit more for the services.

24champ

12-07-2007, 02:03 PM

Doves find fault with Iran report too

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran7dec07,1,6656317.story?coll=la-headlines-world&track=crosspromo

Nice read.

"The halting of the weaponization program in 2003 is less important from a proliferation standpoint than resumption of the enrichment program in 2006," said Samore, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Anthony Lake, who was a national security advisor to President Clinton, found no fault with the intelligence report. But he said a key message was the importance of taking action.

"While we've got more time, we've got to use the time, because the enrichment activities are continuing," Lake said in an interview.

The new report repeats a number of the same cautions and conclusions in its last major assessment, in 2005, when the agencies reached the vastly different conclusion that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. But the new report stresses the more recent findings that cast doubt on Tehran's determination to build a bomb.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-07-2007, 08:17 PM

If I voted for this embarrassing bozo, I sure as hell wouldn't tell anybody about it. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't do business with anybody who still had a "W" sticker on their car because it would mean they have no sense of shame. ;D

:yep:

Every once and awhile I have to stop and shake my head in disbelief that some of these people actually have the audacity to show their faces here (let alone continue to defend the disaster monkey) after all that has transpired.

Just like their *president, they would rather die than admit they were wrong, apparently.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2007, 11:22 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/cheney-cia-shotgun.JPG

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-09-2007, 11:25 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/condi-did-know.jpg

TailgateNut

12-10-2007, 09:18 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/condi-did-know.jpg

LOL Funny, but sadly, true!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-10-2007, 09:23 AM

LOL Funny, but sadly, true!

Yep. :yep:

Final disgrace for Bush & Co.: New intelligence report a devastating, humiliating blow to U.S. president and his neocons

"Merry Christmas, Mr. President," hissed the men in cloaks as they plunged a dagger into George Bush's back.

America's spooks finally had their revenge. After being forced by the White House in 2002-03 to concoct a farrago of lies about Iraq, and then take the blame for the ensuing fiasco there, the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies struck back this week.

U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell made public a bombshell National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that concluded "with high confidence" Tehran had halted its rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2003.

If restarted, Iran is unlikely to produce any weapons before 2015.

The new NIE is a devastating, humiliating blow to Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocons who have been fulminating for war against Iran. Only two months ago, Bush warned Americans that Iran's secret nuclear program threatened to ignite World War III.

A 2005 NIE report that billed Iran as a major nuclear threat was based on fabricated evidence supplied to the CIA, just like the bogus Niger uranium story used to justify war against Iraq. Who, one wonders, is behind this disinformation?

Bush was given the new NIE on Iran last August. But for the past four months, Bush, Cheney and Condoleezza Rice have been beating the war drums over Iran when their own massed intelligence agencies have been telling them there was no danger from that country. The White House hid its own intelligence community's findings from the public until the spooks threatened to leak the report.

AHMADINEJAD TRUTHFUL

Ironically, Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was telling the truth all along when he said Iran was not working on nuclear arms, while Bush & Company were lying through their teeth, just as they have over Iraq and Afghanistan.

This column has been reporting for two years the growing opposition at the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department to Bush/Cheney's plans to launch a war against Iran. I repeatedly heard the term "fifth column" used to describe the fanatical neocon ideologues pressing America into a second Mideast war.

Now, America's national security community is telling the White House to cease and desist before it drags the nation into another foreign catastrophe. While not a coup as in "Seven Days in May," it was the next closest thing.

At the heart of this drama lies the disturbing fact that Bush/Cheney & Co. were simply ignoring their own $40-billion-plus-a-year intelligence community.

TRY ANOTHER SOURCE

When the White House didn't get the answers it wanted on Iran, it turned to Israel, whose renowned intelligence agency, Mossad, became a primary source. Mossad still insists Iran will have a nuclear bomb by 2008.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak declared the NIE report a "blow to the groin." Israel has been straining every sinew to get the U.S. to destroy Iran's growing nuclear infrastructure. Whether Israel, which has a large nuclear arsenal, will attack Iran on its own is uncertain.

This is the final disgrace for Bush & Cheney. Their war propaganda and efforts to suppress the new NIE should constitute grounds for immediate impeachment.

If Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about oral sex, shouldn't Bush and Cheney face trial for attempting to lie and deceive Americans into yet another war of aggression? Alas, Congress, many of whose members also have been howling for war against Iran, lacks the guts for such action.

CONFIRMED

America's intelligence has been lousy in the past, and might be wrong again. But UN nuclear inspectors confirm the U.S. findings.

So does SVR, Russia's intelligence agency. Iran's civilian nuclear power program eventually could produce highly enriched uranium for weapons, but there is no sign of Iran developing any long-range delivery capability.

The NIE is likely to release Iran from U.S.-imposed isolation, and undermine the anti-Iran coalition the U.S. was assembling.

It should put the kibosh on Bush's idiotic plans for an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Sanity is slowly returning to Washington.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11471

http://www.bartcop.com/facts-attack.jpg