US Report: Iran Not Building Nuclear Weapons

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
it doesn't seem all that different from the propaganda in the lead up to attacking Iraq. perhaps the difference so far is that Bush's claims have been discredited before an attack.

My quantification of Bushco's desperation, once again, stems from the steadily increasing stream of negative information that has been appearing more and more over t ...[text shortened]... an is a threat to the world?

and if you agree with him- what justification swayed you?

You must not have been paying attention to previous intelligence reports. This report claiming that Iran has likely stopped it's weapons program in '03 contradicts previous reports, so he has only been going against your interepretation of this report for a few days.

Also, to think that they won'restart is rather silly. They've spent a lot of money and tried very hard to hide it. North Korea being a perfect example of stopping a weapons program and restarting it. Why don;t they just come clean so the sanctions can be lifted, making Bush look like an idiot in the process?

Again, I don't think this report does much to support either side of the debate.

Originally posted by Esoteric
Does the current American administration have any credibility left at all?

No and neither does our Intelligence community.

Originally posted by Merk

Again, I don't think this report does much to support either side of the debate.

I disagree- I think it shows that Bush Co wants to attack Iran and will spin any and all information to that end, regardless of facts or truth.

it also raises serious questions about where Bush gets his information.

Originally posted by telerion
I think both the lefties and the Bush nuthuggers are doing exactly that.
They just take the opposite stance on every situation.

Nuthuggers!! Bully to you sir. I'll have to use that one in future.

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
it also raises serious questions about where Bush gets his information.

Comic books?

Originally posted by Esoteric
Comic books?

you nailed it!

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
I disagree- I think it shows that Bush Co wants to attack Iran and will spin any and all information to that end, regardless of facts or truth.

it also raises serious questions about where Bush gets his information.

You're wrong. What you're doing is proving that both sides of the issure are using this report to support their side of the debate, when it doesn't support either.

Originally posted by Esoteric
So what is your point? We should still attack based on a there being only a "moderate confidence" they are not trying to build a n bomb??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_program#The_August_2007_agreement_with_the_IAEA

"The November 15, 2007 IAEA report found that "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency," but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking due to Iran's refusal to continue voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol, as it had done in the past under the October 2003 Tehran agreement and the November 2004 Paris agreement. The report also stated that Tehran continues to produce LEU. Iran has declared it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT, despite Security Council demands that it cease its nuclear enrichment."

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_program#The_August_2007_agreement_with_the_IAEA

"The November 15, 2007 IAEA report found that "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency," but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking due to Iran's refusal to continue voluntarily implementing ...[text shortened]... gy under the NPT, despite Security Council demands that it cease its nuclear enrichment."

Not sure what that extract is trying to show?

Originally posted by Merk
You're wrong. What you're doing is proving that both sides of the issure are using this report to support their side of the debate, when it doesn't support either.

What are the two sides of this issue?

Bush has been saying that Iran is actively working on nuclear weapons.

The National Intelligence Estimate says that Iran abandoned it's program back in 2003- nearly 5 years ago.

So would "both sides" be
1) the White House position and
2) the US intelligence agencies and the NIE position?

How can this report be used to support Bush's claim that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by Merk
You're wrong. What you're doing is proving that both sides of the issure are using this report to support their side of the debate, when it doesn't support either.

Both sides maybe using this rapport to their advantage, but it clearly only supports one side of the argument dude.

Bush is so full of it there's a row of Oklahoma farmers that want to use him as manure!

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
What are the two sides of this issue?

Bush has been saying that Iran is actively working on nuclear weapons.

The National Intelligence Estimate says that Iran abandoned it's program back in 2003- nearly 5 years ago.

So would "both sides" be
1) the White House position and
2) the US intelligence agencies and the NIE position?

How c ...[text shortened]... this report be used to support Bush's claim that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons?

Hokay, let put it as simple as I can here.

I stop driving when I get to work. But when I start driving again, I'm halfway home. Nowhere in the report does it say that Iran has gotten rid of the car.

Now, my gasoline purchases continue apace (Iran enriching uranium), does that give you any reason at all to believe that I'm getting rid of my car? (Iran is scrapping their bomb program)

Originally posted by Merk
Hokay, let put it as simple as I can here.

I stop driving when I get to work. But when I start driving again, I'm halfway home. Nowhere in the report does it say that Iran has gotten rid of the car.

Now, my gasoline purchases continue apace (Iran enriching uranium), does that give you any reason at all to believe that I'm getting rid of my car? (Iran is scrapping their bomb program)

What else are you gonna be doing with that there gasoline then?

Whereas Iran is going to create nuclear fuel.

Originally posted by Merk
Hokay, let put it as simple as I can here.

I stop driving when I get to work. But when I start driving again, I'm halfway home. Nowhere in the report does it say that Iran has gotten rid of the car.

Now, my gasoline purchases continue apace (Iran enriching uranium), does that give you any reason at all to believe that I'm getting rid of my car? (Iran is scrapping their bomb program)

using the muddled logic of your "simple as I can" metaphor, BushCo has ignored the fact that you're still at work and is telling people that you're driving home fast.

so where are you, you little metaphorical Iran?

Originally posted by shavixmir
What else are you gonna be doing with that there gasoline then?

Whereas Iran is going to create nuclear fuel.

Maybe I'm going to use the gasloine to run a generator so I dodn't have to use electricity from the power company.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2007/December/middleeast_December80.xml§ion=middleeast&col=

There still is the issue about them continuing to expand enrichment despite UN resolutions to the contrary. (Note: Your buddy Chomsky is a regular columnist there)

Getting back to the NIE and its flip-flop since intelligence testimony just this summer.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/06/stories/2007120652581500.htm

Washington: The U-turn on Iran by U.S. spy agencies, the biggest since the Iraq debacle five years ago, is the result of “physical” intelligence, probably a defector, according to various diplomatic and security sources in Washington.

One of the main figures in the frame is General Ali-Reza Asgari, a former Deputy Defence Minister and Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander.

General Asgari apparently disappeared in Turkey over the past 12 months, having either defected or been kidnapped, and may be in U.S. hands.

It may be that American intelligence, already well known for being duped by a single person, just got duped again.

Probably not though, U.S. intelligence has a long record of missing the biggest events in recent history.

While you will probably hear about how hard it is to get intel from Iran since 1979 (And I'm sure it is) Keep in mind that the CIA missed the revolution completely until it already happened. They missed the end of the friggin Cold War for crying out loud!

So that probably gives you some kind of idea of what I think of U.S. intelligence. In all honesty, if I was President, there's a good chance that I would make foreign policy decision in the ME by looking at Franch intelligence. It's better than ours in that region. From what I can tell. Not that I'd make French-like decisions mind you, but I have to give them the edge in intel quality in that region.

As far my take on this report, besides it not supporting either side and being basically worthless in my opinion, I think something stinks. Just this summer Thomas Fingar testified in front of Congress:

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Here is where it gets interesting, according to the Wall Street Journal, one of the NIEs authers is none other than Thomas Fingar

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010946

Our own "confidence" is not heightened by the fact that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency

If he really was one of the main authors there is nothing to explain his abrupt about face on this. The NIE took about a year to put together. That would mean that in the middle of the reports assembly, he testified in front of Congress something contradictory to the report that he was putting together at the same time.

I don't know about you, but when I combine that with the poor track record of U.S. intelligence, it makes me think we are onlt getting a piece or two of the puzzle. There very well could be something substantial that we haven't been told about.

As for my assessment, I think it gets Bush some politically room to soften his stance. We'll see if that happens. I don't count on that much, but I think this gives him what he needs to not strike Iran. If he does soften, the ball is in Israels court. Full disclosure: Israel is the place I would have liked the ball to have been all along. If Iran is building a bomb, it's more important to Israel than the U.S.

Edit: For even wores spelling

Second Edit:

I hate Newsmax because, but in this piece there is a section that is section that fits with the piece from the Hindu.

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes/2007/12/04/54359.html

Its most dramatic conclusion — that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure — is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

This could be Asgari. And it wouldn't surprise me if we got duped twice in a row by a source that we've never even met.

The author of the article takes a pragraph to try to sell you his book which appearantly covers two of the NIE reports authors. So it's possibly that at least two of the three main authors have been known to act at odds with the administration.