Iran's Nuclear Weapons and the Conservative Media

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00801220071204?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could undermine U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.
Click to expand...

AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=MITRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Iran welcomes new US intelligence report

Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Development in 2003

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's foreign minister on Tuesday welcomed the U.S. decision to "correct" its claim that Tehran has an active nuclear weapons program, state-run radio reported.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was referring to a U.S. intelligence assessment released Monday that reversed earlier claims that Iran had restarted its weapons program in 2005 after suspending it in 2003.
Click to expand...

And now, an example of the terrible liberal media, the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
Click to expand...

And, finally, FOX News. Notice the sudden change in tone, as well as the reframing of the problem and hastening of the time frame (by 1-6 years) within which Iran could possess a nuclear weapon by this article's estimate:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314782,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/executivebranch

WASHINGTON — The intelligence community has high confidence that Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program that it never acknowledged and continues to deny, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Monday, but the program is currently halted although perhaps not indefinitely.

The assessment, outlined in the latest National Intelligence Estimate, states that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 under international pressure, but is continuing to enrich uranium and could be capable of developing a weapon as early as late 2009.
Click to expand...

So, we have two issues here:

1) The Bush administration should be championing Iran's lack of a nuclear development program as a success of theirs diplomatically, rather than stepping up the "World War III" rhetoric in light of the knowledge that Iran is not, as they claim, actively seeking nuclear weapons. Here we have proof positive of the neocon/Bush warmongering. See this logic:

Before yesterday: Iran is actively seeking the development of nuclear weapons, and we must consider military options in order to prevent World War III.

Today: It's good that Iran is not actively seeking the development of nuclear weapons, and we must consider military options in order to prevent World War III.

We find, yet again, that the intelligence has changed, but the response to the intelligence has not. This, ladies and gents, is how international relations have been handled by this administration since the start.

2) The blatant reframing of the issue by FOX to step up the implicit support for #1. Even though Iran's nuclear weapons development has not been active for 4 years, as estimated by the most highly-regarded of the US' spy agencies, Iran could have a nuclear weapon in its hands in less than 2 years, according to FOX.

Discuss.
 
Damnit, at this point the only way to prevent World War III would be to assassinate Bush and Cheney. Or Impeachment. Considering that previous presidents have been killed for less, I'm surprised it hasn't happened by now.

Look's like "World War III" is the new "September 11th", if you know what I mean.

~HotShotX
 
This is the problem with neocons. There's no problem with using diplomacy or even the threat of military intervention when there's an actual crisis or threat to national security (ex. Afghanistan), but because of potential national security threat, especially considering that diplomacy worked and they're less of a security threat...that's wherein the problem lies. The shoot first, ask questions later mentality of the current administration has done a bit of harm. I was hoping that in their last year or so we'd see them tone down the rhetoric and focus in on fixing the blundered Iraq War -- or maybe actually tout when they've accomplished something in Iraq, as they have lately under General Paetraus, but instead they're ramping up the rhetoric about Iran and ignoring any positive progress they can actually point to.

Not only are they neocons and warmongerers...they're terrible at selling it!
 
[quote name='Richlough']I don't worry about things I cannot control .[/QUOTE]

You can control it...

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

People only become powerless by abdicating their own power willingly.

It's much easier to feel like you can't make a difference, but when individuals get together and act as a group with a unified sense of purpose, things get changed.... sometimes.

Did anyone see Bush's speech today? To sum up he basically said...

"Yeah...? AND?"

He doesn't care about this report any more than he cared about the IAEA inspectors' reports or the opinion of the generals he's fired.

No matter the source of the information, if Bush doesn't agree with it he will just call it B.S. and lecture down to everyone as if he's the ultimate authority on whatever subject he's discussing.

But to read those bits of the story, and then to think of Bush mentioning World War III... makes me really think that he's fiending for Armageddon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."

- Bill Hicks
 
I don't know why Bush bothers trying to hide the fact he wants to start WWIII, Hitler never bothered trying to hide it. Although actually maybe he did try for a while, invading Poland was a bit of a dead giveaway.

Perhaps he told people the Polish were trying to develop the A-bomb or something.
 
If I understand it correctly, enrichment of uranium is a key part of a nuclear weapons program, and Iran's steadfast insistence on continuing in this track--in the name of non-military energy needs--is some cause for continuing concern (and thus provides some basis for maintaining the U.S.'s hardline stance.)

That being said, I think these articles show one thing very clearly: President Geoge W. Bush has not changed at all. The man has not--in my opinion--learned anything from the horrendous fiasco's which have resulted from his blunders. It seems to me, that he continues to make up his mind in a "tunnel vision" -like fashion...and he's determined to stick to his chosen course of action, regardless of changing conditions.

He's like a guy who ignores everyone else in the car who insist that they've taken a wrong turn...and just keeps gunning the engine, because he's convinced that he's right (regardless of cacti or icebergs appearing outside the windows.)
 
[quote name='RBM']He's like a guy who ignores everyone else in the car who insist that they've taken a wrong turn...and just keeps gunning the engine, because he's convinced that he's right (regardless of cacti or icebergs appearing outside the windows.)[/QUOTE]

More like a "Death Proof" analogy, as he has never been at any personal risk of loss of life, liability, or responsibility for anything that happens. Because he has no accountability, and the congressional Democrats are sissies, he suffers nothing. If there's no risk, why not do something fun?

Blowin' shit up is a helluva lot more fun, and less headache inducing, than all that "diplomacy" crap.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Go watch the documentary "Why we fight" it explains everything.

Basically, we are following a plain laid out by a thinktank and adopted by the Bush Admin to make the USA an uncontested world superpower.
 
well, if congress grows a pair we might be able to avoid war with iran until we get a new administration in next year. too bad we couldnt get a report like this before we invaded iraq to get their WMDs.

as for the bias in the media... i mean we already knew it was there right? is anyone surprised by the wording, i wasnt.

[quote name='t0llenz']. I was hoping that in their last year or so we'd see them tone down the rhetoric and focus in on fixing the blundered Iraq War [/QUOTE]

nope, they just wanna make you think about something else, like iran, then maybe youll forget about iraq.

[quote name='pittpizza']I've said it before and I'll say it again: Go watch the documentary "Why we fight" it explains everything.

Basically, we are following a plain laid out by a thinktank and adopted by the Bush Admin to make the USA an uncontested world superpower.[/QUOTE]

that doesnt make sense, id say we were more of a world superpower before the wars. since the iraq war started id say weve falled considerably.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']well, if congress grows a pair we might be able to avoid war with iran until we get a new administration in next year. too bad we couldnt get a report like this before we invaded iraq to get their WMDs.[/quote]

Congressional Democrats having a "pair"? Shit, Ron Paul stands a better chance of winning every electoral vote in the country next November.

as for the bias in the media... i mean we already knew it was there right? is anyone surprised by the wording, i wasnt.
Click to expand...

Normally people point to bias and find that they're pointing at the blurred line separating "op-ed" from "news." Whether O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, or Jack Cafferty, it has become harder and harder to separate "story" from "opinion on story." This is showing how differential framing and telling of the same "story" produces two different scenarios (and in particular, how the FOX News story still pushes the "Iran as Doomsday Scenario" angle).

that doesnt make sense, id say we were more of a world superpower before the wars. since the iraq war started id say weve falled considerably.
Click to expand...

I agree. If there was such a grand "superpower" plan in place, someone in the dark, smoky room where all the conspiring and planning went down would have been wise enough to think that $7+ trillion in debt and mounting borrowing from China, Japan, and India has made us economically dependent such that we cannot feasibly be a superpower militarily, as the moment this is attempted, we will be crushed economically.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']well, if congress grows a pair we might be able to avoid war with iran until we get a new administration in next year. too bad we couldnt get a report like this before we invaded iraq to get their WMDs. [/QUOTE]



actually there was a report like that for Iraq, but no one read it. It was called the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and said there were no WMDs, but no one reads these big reports anymore.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']More like a "Death Proof" analogy, as he has never been at any personal risk of loss of life, liability, or responsibility for anything that happens. Because he has no accountability, and the congressional Democrats are sissies, he suffers nothing. If there's no risk, why not do something fun?

Blowin' shit up is a helluva lot more fun, and less headache inducing, than all that "diplomacy" crap.[/QUOTE]

Ya know that is just too
2241360724747782.JPG
'in perfect.

Stuntman George.

It describes him perfectly.

It's astute socio-political mashups like this that make me tend to forget your considerable lack of personal hygiene, Myke
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
that doesnt make sense, id say we were more of a world superpower before the wars. since the iraq war started id say weve falled considerably.[/quote]

I'm guessing it has something to do with installing yet another America freindly puppet Government in the middle of the oil-rich Middle East. Yeah, lets go with that. Btw, I didn't say it was working.
 
On Lou Dobbs (CNN) last night while they were talking about this subject, the bar on the bottom said Iraq instead of Iran. I had just turned on the TV and was confused as to what they meant until they changed it to Iran after a few minutes. I thought it was funny :D.
 
This is another one of those rare hale/bopp moments when I actually agree with Myke's point of view.

The seeming ambivalence to the intelligence report belies the so-called "preparedness" for war. If the report is true, it certainly reflects badly upon us and makes us appear to be the instigators in another middle east conflict.

Somehow, though, I find it hard to believe that Iran, while continuing to purchase materials, centrifuges, and advice from The russians and chineese, isn't currently working on a nuclear device. Is all their talk just smoke and mirrors? I'm not sure what they have to gain by alienating the occidental world and living with economic sanctions if they really have nothing to hide. Of course, I'd say the same thing about Saddam Hussein.

Obviously, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking we are getting the full story about anything, at anytime, from any government, whether friendly or our own. We certainly don't have the skinny on the full nature of Iran's nuclear program either, regardless of what "reports" have been released.


I don't know about the "conservative" media comment, though. Even the conservatives like scarborough are questioning the contradictive nature of the administration regarding this report. It must be like gravy to all those Democrat voting, supposedly "objective" reporters and news anchors.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']This is another one of those rare hale/bopp moments[/QUOTE]

I got you a present. A nice tracksuit and Nike sneakers.

marshappl.jpg

;)
 
Baer Suggests Saudis Could Stage Terror In America to Instigate Iran Attack

Former CIA veteran Robert Baer has suggested that a withdrawal from the possibility of striking Iran could be reversed if a terror attack was to take place in America - and he fingered America's ally Saudi Arabia as the most likely perpetrator of any such attack. Baer also questioned why the U.S. and its allies continue to protect individuals who consorted with the alleged mastermind of 9/11 before the attacks.

Baer was labeled "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East” by Seymour Hersh and his astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana.

Baer served as a clandestine CIA officer in Madras and New Delhi, India; in Beirut, Lebanon; in Dushanbe, Tajikistan; and in Salah al-Din in Kurdish northern Iraq. While in Iraq, Baer tried to persuade the Clinton administration to back a coup to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

During a June 2006 radio interview, Baer said that the evidence points to 9/11 having an inside job aspect.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120707_stage_terror.htm
 
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict
 
They won't read these intelligence reports, because everyone in the Bush administration hates anything that is foreign. If there is one thing that is foreign to them, it's intelligence.
 
[quote name='AlexZello']What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?[/QUOTE]

I don't actually know a tremendous amount about him. "Samson, Blinded" is easy enough to find on the web, but I can't see myself reading it, considering all the bits I'm familiar with suggest I'll probably disagree vehemently. Can you suggest an abbreviated source of info?

EDIT: This is off topic enough that if you find some links, you could probably just make a new thread about it.
 
1. These reports are probably not worth the paper they are printed on.

2. Is it really so far-fetched to think there are people inside the NIE that don't like Bush and are attempting to outfox him by preemptively setting this report out there to attempt and handcuff him?

3. I'm not a big Bush fan. But I also happen to feel that he (and frankly, anyone that would be in his position) is in a no-win situation. The islamo-fascist threat is very, very real. And if they get their hands on nukes, there is going to be a very, very real problem. And Bush is in the position that if he errs, and Israel or some American city(s) end up being annihilated-- history's Monday-morning quarterbacks are going to blame this administration. Heck, if I was the pres and that happened I'd prolly blame myself as well. Helluva lot tougher to make the calls you think you need to make when there is that much riding on what you do. At the end of the day, you just hope that your president is doing what he believes is going to protect his country.
 
[quote name='penmyst']2. Is it really so far-fetched to think there are people inside the NIE that don't like Bush and are attempting to outfox him by preemptively setting this report out there to attempt and handcuff him?[/QUOTE]

Is it really so far-fetched to think the current administration would cherry-pick intelligence (and falsify intelligence as well) to state their case that a particular country has WMD (or the capabilities thereof)?

Not as farfetched as thinking those producing the NIE would falsify a document to hinder Bush's chances at sending even more troops out to die for a false cause.
 
^ Especially since the Bush admin has already been done this before, it's not even up for debate; and there is no question the NIE motives since, well, they're not part of the military industrial complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top