Even the reliably dhimmi Wall Street Journal, while sniffing at "conservative hawks," can't help but report on the many holes in the NIE claims. "Group Says Iran Resumed Weapon Program," by Marc Champion and Jay Solomon in the WSJ (thanks to DFS):
The Iranian opposition group that first exposed Iran's nuclear-fuel program said a U.S. intelligence analysis is correct that Tehran shut down its weaponization program in 2003, but claims that the program was relocated and restarted in 2004.The claim, to be made public today by the National Council for Resistance in Iran, joins a broad pushback by conservative hawks who say the U.S. analysis has wrongly given the impression that Iran's nuclear-fuel program doesn't present an urgent threat.
...resumed?.....they never stopped...
The C.I.A. is extremely fallible about these things. Remember Pakistan or North Korea? The leadership in Iran is an urgent threat. The U.S. has already ignored this at great peril. It will become apparent in the next thousand years that one of the worst mistakes of the west in its history was to allow Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran is further enabled as a foe to western civilization, history will judge the west feeble and decadent in that it inconceivably ignored the clear announcement of certain islamic barbarians and savages to destroy it.
"The claim, to be made public today by the National Council for Resistance in Iran, joins a broad pushback by conservative hawks...."
- from the article above
I see. So the only people who have raised an eyebrow, and more, about the assumption that Iran has not, in four years, despite all the evidence to the contrary (start with those 3,000 centrifuges that have only one possible explanation), are not only "conservatives" or "hawks" but "conservative hawks." The intelligence services of Great Britain and France are, presumably, hotbeds of "conservative hawks." The I.A.E.A., that until yesterday was always being criticized by those same "conservative hawks" has been quoted as not merely surprised but taken aback, by the NIE report.
All of them, all "conservative hawks"? Would it have been impossible for the tendentiousness to have been removed?
Here's how it could so easily have been done:
For "The claim, to be made public today by the National Council for Resistance in Iran, joins a broad pushback by conservative hawks who say the U.S. analysis has wrongly given the impression that Iran's nuclear-fuel program doesn't present an urgent threat."
Read "The claim, to be made public today by the National Council for Resistance in Iran, joins a broad pushback by those who say the U.S. analysis has wrongly given the impression that Iran's nuclear-fuel program doesn't present an urgent threat."
Not so hard, was it?
For "...I think, therefore -- I am ..."
Read " ...I say so, therefore -- it is ..."
So reductionist and so simple that even a simple mind can grasp it.
All you have to do now is wish upon a star and all your dreams and delusions will come true.
Never mind what the ape says he will do when he gets his paws on a few more nukes (I think he has a few tactical battlefield types, but not enough to take out an entire city -- which is why he hasn't actually used them yet) -- believe instead what you wish he said.
Think "Peace in our time!", "Pleasant dreams!"
Yeah, sure.
David England, I often wonder if the Americans should have worked in support of India to destroy the Pakistan military at the moment of that nuclear test. Would have been horrible, perhaps with a nuclear exchange; but it would have ended with a rule established (for however long it could have been maintained): no nukes for Muslim states.
Allen Dershowitz wrote a piece last week that was pretty interesting regarding the NIE report.
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/stupid_intelligence
"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, "[i]f we can't fix it, it ain't broke"??"
Something is definately not right with this report, the timing and the complete upside down conclusion......and to add more of a belly laugh to this conclusion by the "Intelligence Community" is that yesterday the IAEA and Iran were restarting discussions on the weapons grade uranium found in their university.
Mass confusion at it's finest.
Just boggles my mind. Iran has said that they are going to be a nuclear power. They have admitted to it.
http://memritv.org/subject/en/121.htm
Here we go again with the "you don't mean it" BS.
I wonder what a NIE report will say in five years or less when Iranian nuclear missiles are pointed at Europe or even the US? That those missiles are no threat because Iran could not have made that much progress so quickly after they shut down their nuke program in 2003?
Forget it-Iran has worked virtually nonstop on nukes for a long time. They won't stop working on it until they can create a Cuban missile type crisis involving Israel or Europe. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
"It will become apparent in the next thousand years that one of the worst mistakes of the west in its history was to allow Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons. If Iran is further enabled as a foe to western civilization, history will judge the west feeble and decadent in that it inconceivably ignored the clear announcement of certain islamic barbarians and savages to destroy it." - David England
I share your sentiments about not enablig Iran, but I fear our wilfull ignorance of Islam more than Iran obtaining Nukes. One is something we can control and change, the other is much less so. Over the next thousand years, even the next hundred or less, Iran and every other Islamic state could get nukes if they are determined. Or Iran could just buy a few from Pakistan or N. Korea. Currently, our military spending is unsustainable, the dollar is sliding, public support against the Iraq War is at 70%. Will the country go along with attacking Iran if sanctions fail?
We need an ideological affront against Islam first, and a militarily decisive (not ala Iraq) if necessary. It is just not affordable or practical to manage the Muslim world, especially when we have no realistic expecations about them. Instead, let us and Israel say to Iran, "Launch one nuke against us and we will decimate every one of your cities. YOU will be erased from the map." Unfortunately, I have more faith in deterence than in our political leaders (Left or Right) when it comes to Islam. Until we have a strategy that doesn't assume Islam is inherently peaceful or 'reformable' that won't change.
If one is to believe that Iran will ever freely give up the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, one must also believe in the Easter Bunny. The fact is that the assessment created by The CIA denying Iran's goals for joining the A-bomb club was constructed by former State Department personnel.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NATION01/112070100/1008
According to the editor of the Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, the guys' names are Thomas Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill. When the first Iranian Jihad nuke goes off, be sure to call them up and thank them. This just one more sign that if you're not pissed-off, you're just not paying attention.
Shalom,
Theosebes
But wait, there's more!!!
Hugo Chavez is caught trying to buy uranium for Iran! That and the news that Bolivia is making over 400 changes to its constitution in an overnight session, well, you just know that can't be good.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071211/FOREIGN/112110065/1001
Article: "Bush's NIE vindication"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0252D73A-C822-4CC9-B1CB-BFAA0443FC12
Am-a-dinah-jacket cannot stand being ignored.
Remember what country was building these reactors?
Russia. They were getting a little testy towards us and now it looks like they are cooperating a smidgen better.
As in business, in foreign policy there always has to be trade offs.
Off topic: Did we all see the traitor ex-CIA guy that ABC had on today about water boarding? They described him as having TV star good looks. (Jack Bauer actor is in jail for DUI, so maybe they need a replacement).
He said the AL-Quiada guy gave up after only about 37 seconds. See it works.
He also said the terrorists testimony prevented about 12 or 15 'acts'.
The MSM cruised right past that part. No good news there.
Gosh when I was a kid we often held our breath under the ocean for longer than that. Shucks, my bratty little brother used to hold my head under for longer. Heap brave warriors these guys are.
I prefer the term
Conservative eagle
The problem as I see it is 1) that we can't trust the intelligence apperatus to give us the straight info (as we discovered in Iraq), and 2)we can't necessarily believe everything the Iranian opposition tells us (as we discovered with Chalabi in Iraq), and 3) it's obvious they are still enriching, since they keep telling us, and we have a nasty history of not believing muslims when they tell us they want to kill us.
What to do, what to do.
Sneakyzionistcrusader quoted Allen Dershowitz:
I respect Dershowitz, and Fitzgerald, and all the other extremely conservative hawks who question this report.
But some here claim that the CIA and NSA and all the other myriad of intelligence agencies (known and unknown to the public) are filled with people who are disloyal to Bush (if not their country). It would take just one of them to show us the hidden evidence and get Bush impeached.
It would be a big thing to hide evidence of impending nuclear doom to your own country - whomever is doing the hiding. We're not talking about fudging the estimate of sorghum that will be grown in Sri Lanka this year.
The full article is here without needing to subscribe:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13519
-XRDC
walterc said
- Secure the borders.
- Limit immigration.
- Monitor religious groups that promote violence.
- Teach the public what the true core beliefs of mainstream Islam are.
- Limit foreign governments from funding and promoting ideologies that are hostile to the U.S. and its Constitution.
- Develop alternative energy sources.
- Continue monitoring Iran for any signs of their nuclear weapon program. If found, destroy it.
And so on.
What not to do:
- Invade Iran and promise that we won't leave, no matter how many of our soldiers are killed and no matter how much of our money it costs, until Iran becomes a tolerant multi-cultural paradise of peace and democracy.
Is there a legitimate reason that the MEK should remain listed as a terrorist organization? If they are the most equipped to oppose the current Iranian regime, wouldn't getting them off "the list" open the door for private funding (Ebay founder et al) to really turn up the heat?
From what I can tell, Willie Clinton did Iran a favor by putting them on the list to begin with.
Then again, how far can they be thrown anyway...
-XRDC
Aunt Bea,
From my personal experience, “water boarding” has been used by the U.S. military, on our own troops, since at least 1968.
This technique was used on some of my fellow classmates at the “Jungle Warfare School” in Panama prior to our deployment to Viet Nam. Water boarding was 100% effective on my fellow troopers. They revealed “everything” that was asked of them, including such things as girlfriends addresses and phone numbers, checking accounts, mother’s names and addresses, etc.
These men were determined to reveal only “name, rank and serial number” they not weak or cowardly – water boarding works.
Davegreybeard -
Funny thing, part of training in the military also involves "experiencing" pepper gas sans protective gear. This was an invaluable experience but could also be perceived as torture by PC standards.
-XRDC
I respect Dershowitz, and Fitzgerald, and all the other extremely conservative hawks who question this report.
But some here claim that the CIA and NSA and all the other myriad of intelligence agencies (known and unknown to the public) are filled with people who are disloyal to Bush (if not their country). It would take just one of them to show us the hidden evidence and get Bush impeached.
It would be a big thing to hide evidence of impending nuclear doom to your own country - whomever is doing the hiding. We're not talking about fudging the estimate of sorghum that will be grown in Sri Lanka this year.
Posted by: special_gues
Indeed CIA is hostile to Bush, and the former state dept. officials that constructed the politically crafted reports conclusions most definately are against tough policies and were doing what they can to throw a wrench into the planning of military strikes in Iran. Nobody is denying that. However, that said, how can Bush lend support to something potentially so damaging?
That report did exactly that. It just sabotaged any chance of getting strong sanctions on Iran. It made Sarkozy of France look like a fool for even threatening force over continued Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Germans and Brits will now resume financial ties, foreign investers can start up in Iranian energy again and you can forget about getting Russia and China to ever go along with sanctions now.
With the reports conclusions, how can Bush justify war with Iran now? How could Bush get congressional approval for attacking Iran? How could Bush put together any coalition of foreign countries to support a strike when he's just backed a report that says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons?
Special guest....Bush supported the conclusions of this report. If it affected his policies toward Iran, why would he back it? Regardless if he influenced the report or not, whether it was by the usual undermining state department lefties, anti Bush, pro appeasement crowd......Bush supported it's conclusions.
Something was very wrong with this report, and Bush signed off on it way too easily.
Bush seems to be wrong if he's right and wrong if he's wrong.
Please someone show me concrete evidence that President Bush signed off on the first report. I was only half listening to the press conference that day so maybe I missed something.
Please someone show me concrete evidence that President Bush signed off on the first report. I was only half listening to the press conference that day so maybe I missed something.
Posted by: Aunt Bea
I recall seeing a very uncomfortable looking Bush strenuously protesting that despite the NIE report, “Iran is still a threat”. I saw NOTHING to indicate he “signed off on it”.
So perhaps I also “missed something”.
"It will become apparent in the next thousand years that one of the worst mistakes of the west in its history was to allow Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons." David England ;
We did not allow it, they did what every other country has the right to do based on the "Atoms fo Peace" platform. We have no way to stop this type of action at present.
"Continue monitoring Iran for any signs of their nuclear weapon program. If found, destroy it." Special_Guest;
All Iran would have to do is state it is indeed seeking a weapon, that they have the right to do so. How could anyone do anything then? If they come clean and admit all, what could the world really do?
A u.n. based freeze of ALL nuclear construction and programs would just about do it. There is no other way.
The only people I saw signing off on the first report was the drive by media. They were real excited!
"I respect Dershowitz, and Fitzgerald, and all the other extremely conservative hawks..."
And the evidence that "extremely conservative hawks" is a fitting description?
For god's sake, I'm not an "extremely conservative hawk." I'm just a vagabond lover, and someday I know I'll discover the girl of my vagabond dreams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb36JID2jRA&feature=related
davegreybeard;
Just to be sure I wasn't misunderstood.
I am sure it works.
I was just making fun of how brave the Jihadist aren't. I feel I can't do enough to build their lack of self esteem. After all they read this site and even post here.
But one thing I want to make plain, as an American who is old enough to remember when our country was loved by most of the people in it and appreciated by them, I have no problem with doing ANYTHING it takes to keep Islamics from destroying it from within or without. Call it torture if you have to, I prefer extreme persuasion.
If you break into my house I will without hesitation pick up the shotgun and dispense with you.
I will only stop stirring dinner in the pan long enough to cock it for a second shot. Just to make sure you don't get up mad. After all it takes two hands.
Besides, I only want one story when the Sherif gets there, so much easier that way.
The NIE report was Iran's reward for ratcheting down the violence in Iraq on the heels of the surge.
Robert Spencer makes it clear he does NOT agree with Hugh Fitzgerald's contention that an immediate, preciptious withdrawal from Iraq is in America's best interests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9DCQFAvD5A
precipitous
"With the reports conclusions, how can Bush justify war with Iran now? How could Bush get congressional approval for attacking Iran? How could Bush put together any coalition of foreign countries to support a strike..."
Hidden within your long rant.
Sneaky is this what you are offering for sale?
Not working for me.
We are still a superpower, in spite of a do-nothing Congress. And we still carry the biggest stick.
May he rest in peace there was only one pilot on the Enola Gay.
Hugh said
You're blogging on JW/DW, an extreme right-wing evangelical Christian website. Q.E.D.
For G*d's sake, are you going to force me to put those annoyingly explicit "" and "" tags around everything I write? Calling Alan Dershowitz an extreme conservative should have been a subtle clue.
It was a joke. Perhaps poorly conceived and poorly delivered, but a joke nonetheless.
[The part above about JW/DW being a right-wing Christian website was also said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.]
PS - Thanks for the Rudy Vallee interlude, it was very enjoyable.
Ha. It stripped out the tags. They said "begin sarcasm" and "end sarcasm". There was an additional "end sarcasm" tag after the "tongue in cheek" statement.
Oh well, I guess we're back to using context to determine which statements are jokes.
Oh, sorry. What a dope I am.
Well, I told you. I'm just a vagabond lover, and someday I know I'll discover the girl of my etc. Do click on the link. Rudy Vallee, with a sleepy delivery, strangely winning, and looking, also strangely, like a singing Harrison Ford.
Maybe we can ask Iwannajihad on his blog?
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
He's wishing us all a Merry Christmas, of course it takes 10,000 words to do it, but he is.....
We are on the same page Aunt Bea.
One of the reasons for relating my knowledge of water boarding is to point out that this alleged “torture” has been used by the U.S. military on our own troops in training for many years.
Water boarding is the issue of the day for the treasonous Left in this country to use as a cudgel to bash Bush. In the process, they do real damage our country for their own (perceived) political gain.
At present, water boarding must be extensively justified, approved at the highest levels of government and used only on “high value” individuals. This is a very reasonable and humane policy that has produced invaluable knowledge of the enemy, yet Liberal Democrats would have you believe that Bush has instituted the new Spanish Inquisition. They thus proclaim to the world, that America, not Islamic terrorists, are the enemy – as I said, such behavior is treasonous.
Hugh said
You may or may not be an addictive narcotic substance, but the dulcet tones of Rudy Vallee definitely have a pleasing narcotic effect.
But what's up with the annoying "It's Rudy Vallee" whispering before the music starts? It had all the subtlety of a scene from an Indiana Jones movie.
Cornelius,
I am not going to watch that thing. That is 15 minutes of me speaking, and I can't bear to look at myself speaking.
Suffice it to say that I don't have any disagreements with Hugh about Iraq, although we have disagreements about many other issues, and I never hesitate to make my position clear on this issue when I am speaking.
I would not characterize Hugh's position as "immediate, precipitous withdrawal," but I do not think American troops are aiding American interests by being there, at least in the way and for the purposes they are there now: I do not have any confidence in the Wilsonian democracy project, and wrote opposing it in 2003 before we had any troops in Iraq. Here is the article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_19/ai_100111653
It's a two-parter: "Does President Bush Have a Realistic Plan for Bringing Democracy to the Middle East?" I wrote the "No" part.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Whew. My boyfriend's back to save my reputation.
Robert,
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry to distract you from your important work...but I think the issue needs further clarification.
On the tape, you do indeed go through a litany of reasons why you were opposed to the invasion in 2003 and why you are opposed to the new Iraqi Constitution now.
But then you say the following:
"All that said, does that mean I'm opposed to - as its called - cutting and running and so on, unilateral withdrawal. Obviously not. I think that would hand the mujahadin a great victory. And we understand it would."
This is clearly at odds with Hugh's repeated advocacy for immediate withdrawal, and his repeated expressions of contempt for phrases such as "cutting and running"..."premature withdrawal"...etc.
I'm sorry to revisit the issue, but as all are aware, this is an area of intense disagreement between Hugh and myself and I feel that to an extent, your statement here indicates at least a degree of difference between you and Hugh on Iraq.
Sorry guys...frigg'n typo.
Should read...
"All that said, does that mean I'm IN FAVOR OF - as its called - cutting and running and so on, unilateral withdrawal. Obviously not. I think that would hand the mujahadin a great victory. And we understand it would."
The statement comes at around 8:20 into the clip.
Cornelius,
This just demonstrates that you don't grasp Hugh's position. He is not a cut-and-run Cindy Sheehan appeasement type. And that is what I was referring to.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert,
I DO happen to grasp Hugh's position very clearly. I agree, he's not a Cindy Sheehan-type. His motives are far more Machiavellian.
Unlike yourself, he DOES NOT view an American withdrawal from Iraq as "a great victory for the Mujahadin." He sees it as an opportunity to exploit Shia-Sunni fissures in the Muslim world.
Robert, I have the utmost respect for you, you have to know that. But this is rare instance when I believe you're wrong. Your statement - as recorded above - does NOT conform to Hugh's oft-stated - and enthusiastic - advocacy for withdrawing from Iraq.
Actually, Cornelius, Hugh has written on several occasions at some length about how the mujahedin would indeed view a withdrawal from Iraq as a great victory, but that that would not outweigh the strategic benefits of doing so for the U.S.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Of course they resumed their weapons program. It is doubtful they ever stopped.
If we are ever going to get anywhere with this Issue, we need to deal with the Enemy within. A concerted effort needs to be made to bankrupt the MSM By refusing to view their programing. Like all of it. Not just their news programs. Not to mention boycotting the products advertised. No better time than the present. The Broadcasters are already under pressure by the writers strike.(like they write anything worth while as it is) Toss in a viewer strike to compound their misery. The networks who slant the news are already suffering a decline in ratings. It is time to compound their problems.
Do we not already know what they will say on any issue they present? So what is the point of actually listening or viewing their mindless dribble?
Are the American People interested in the News or Propaganda. Vote with your remote control.
That's a fair assessment of Hugh's position Robert. But you didn't qualify your own statement as such. Your point was not how the Mujahedin would see our withdrawal, but that the withdrawal itself would be "a great victory for the Mujahedin"...a sentiment Hugh has NEVER expressed.
There's a very real difference here.
In the hopes of avoiding irritating you oh fearless leader, I'm going to stop here...(providing Hugh doesn't enter the fray). You're free to have the last word.
Thanks for your time Robert.
Cornelius,
You are grasping at straws, trying to find a difference between Hugh and me on this issue, when there is not one.
Why you would want to do that, I don't know. What purpose you think it would serve, I can't fathom. I've seen you here before trying to stir up antagonisms in other contexts, between people of actually differing but compatible views -- people who are working together.
Why do you want to do that? There are few enough of us resisting the jihad as it is. I have no problem working with people with whom I am not in 100% agreement. I am not in 100% agreement with Hugh, although we do agree on this particular issue. I have a tremendous distaste for those who insist on their own narrow position and anathematize everyone and anyone who deviates from it to the slightest degree.
And I also have a tremendous distaste for those who try to stir up antagonism between friends and allies. If the shoe fits, as they say.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert,
I feel the need to defend myself here in lieu of your last post.
I happen to feel that the issue of Iraq is one of tremendous importance for the security of the country (and the world). Hugh's repeated and enthusiastic advocacy for withdrawal is - in my mind, a strategic mistake with profound implications.
I've always seen JW as a sort of invaluable think-tank for the anti-Jihad and therefore have felt the responsibility to present the other side of the Iraq issue, particularly considering the almost unanimous support here of Hugh's position.
My attempt to point out the obvious - (to me at least) - difference between your comments at DePaul and Hugh's comments here...was done so for one reason and one reason only: To perhaps compel Hugh and his supporters here into a rethink on Iraq. It was always about the issue.
I happen to completely agree with you that a cut-and-run US withdrawal from Iraq would be a "great victory for the Mujahedin." I don't believe Hugh feels that way at all...and I believe his repeated and lengthy offerings about Iraq on these pages will bear that out.
I'm sorry you seem to feel that I'm some sort of interloper trying to stir up trouble here. I respect you enough to attribute at least some of the blame for this (mis)perception on myself.
I grew up in a large family with lots of older brothers...and I developed a certain chip on my shoulder, just to be able to find my voice above the din. I guess I've never outgrown it. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused.
For the record Robert, I think you're the single most effective advocate for our cause in the world...and I've learned so much from you over the years.
I have nothing but gratitude towards you.
Errata Sheet:
For "I feel the need to defend myself here in lieu of your last post."
Read "I feel the need to defend myself here in light of your last post."
The Real Errata Sheet would be so long that I don't think it could fit in this or any other conceivable posting. So I'll limit myself, in light of the fact that Robert is, in lieu of my doing so, defending my position on Iraq, to that single ex-ungue-leonem example.
"The Real Errata Sheet would be so long that I don't think it could fit in this or any other conceivable posting."
No question about it Hugh...I'm only semi-literate.
I'm trying hard to take my lumps here with humility and equanimity. It's a bit painful, both because I think I'm right on this issue and because I hold Robert in such high esteem...but I certainly acknowledge that I've much to learn about diplomacy and tact (not to mention basic grammar).
Cornelius said
I agree 100% with Cornelius on this point. Well, except for the last sentence; I have admiration for, and gratitude towards, Robert.
The CIA would do better to help erase the Iranian nuke program than some irrelevant waterboarding videos.
Their focus on CYA and believe-the-best-about-Iran
endangers the rest of us.
We're trying to survive as a Civilization.
Not defend inter-office turf.
Bush should have cleaned house after 9/11.
The rot within continues.
Cornelius,
Don’t feel so all alone, your perception is correct, a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for our country and a boon for our Jihadi enemy. Some of us here see this very clearly – some not so.
I believe that Hugh and maybe Robert are seriously mistaken in their view of the consequences of ANY overt withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq. So, we disagree on the vision of our future. However -
Hugh and Robert are both superlative in their knowledge of Islam and at exposing it to fellow Infidels. At the present time, THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT TASK THAN EDUCATING OUR FELLOW INFIDELS as to the truth and the danger of Islam. At this both Robert and Hugh excel. As a wise old man once said “Keep your friends close – keep your enemies closer”.
I believe WE ALL AGREE on what must be done FIRST – shine the light of the sun on all of Islam and expose it for the entire world to see, in every detail.
We may then quibble over tactics and consequences of “what ifs” but it is not worth expending a significant amount of time or energy on this – first things first.
Cornelius -
Although I personally view a withdrawal as a victory for the mujihadeen as well, who am I to say I am 100% right? That is what I think...it is my opinion.
If Hugh & Robert disagree with us...well, they disagree. If they don't, they don't. We won't know until we leave Iraq whether it's a mistake or not...or if the timing was right.
But that's the difference between those who make hard decisions and live with them, and those who make no decision at all. The Cindy Sheehans will get the "right" to complain all they want...at least they think that right will last ad infinitum.
I think we're all a little tired of the indecisives getting the free ride, and will begin to tell them to STFU.
Wear those "bruises" with pride, man! I've been "beaten down" by lesser men. :D
"The Bush administration reacted swiftly Monday, arguing that while the latest intelligence report is "positive news," they won't abandon their strategy of applying "intensified international pressure" on Iran."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/nie-report-iran.html
That sounds like he's not opposed to it. Bolton came out on CNN and said the opposite. He wasn't "positive" about it at all, infact he was anything but pleased with the assesment and for good reason. Wolf Blitzer said to Bolton in response to Boltons displeasure with the report that Bush said he agrees with the findings and Bolton sharply said that he himself certainly doesn't. In my opinion Bush should have taken a similar stance on it, questioned the report, launched a non partisan group to examine the report, and how that conclusion was come to in the first place. There's some ugly stuff going on behind the closed doors at CIA and the "intel community".
That's what I meant when I said "signed off" on it. I'm not saying that for certain Bush went for this report so he wouldn't have to do anything with Iran for 14 months, but you can't rule out the possibility. Nobody knows that, but what we do know is that NIE report was a complete snow job for any hope of American intervention on Irans nuke program, for the reasons I already stated above. Sanctions you can forget about, and how would Bush muster up US support for an attack on Iran after this intel report is out?
The report was dangerous, and it makes an Israeli strike on Muslim Iran more likely and imagine the response to a Jewish attack on a Muslim country....especially while US troops are there.
Regarding Dershowitz I never said he was a conservative hawk that statement was copy and pasted from his article, and he ripped that NIE report a new strip. Not just him either. I don't remember how many articles I've read about how destructive that report has been to US policy towards stopping Iran. Caroline Glick has written some good stuff on it also the past week or so.
On another note, Jihadists would claim victory in Iraq if the US pulled out even if there was nobody left there but one Jihadist. They're always like that, you can't be afraid of leaving there just because they'll claim victory......let them howl all they want and start with some sensible counter measures to the most pressing issues, foreign and domestic.
I don't understand how you can understand Islam and support nation building in Iraq. It's not just Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Spencer that have that opinion on Iraq, others that understand Islam very well have similar takes.
Why is it that those that have a great deal of knowledge regarding Islam, that aren't constrained by Political Correctness...have doubts and objections to current US utopia chasing in Iraq?
US foreign and domestic policy is almost insane. Rice going wild in the middle east, blaming Israel for everything, and then the pro kosovo breakaway......to the lashing out at Ethiopia for trying to protect itself from the same enemies that the US and Israel are fighting themselves. Bush and Rice are continuing to weaken their own allies and strenthening their enemies, and their allies enemies. I just want to know what is this admin thinking? They're acting like how I'd expect politically correct democrats to act.
Just looks to me like a state of confusion on a mass scale.
If bringing Democracy to Iraq is a waste of time, then hoping for the population of Iran to take those steps is an even bigger waste.
The report was dangerous, and it makes an Israeli strike on Muslim Iran more likely and imagine the response to a Jewish attack on a Muslim country....especially while US troops are there.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader
Were you asleep when Israel took out Syria's nuke facility?
I feel like you are trying to convince the rest of us of something. Care to be a little bit more clear?