I understand what you're saying. I guess I get a little frustrated at this.

 

We went to war in Iraq based on Intel that Bush told us was the best out there and it appears it was very wrong.

 

Then he tells us Iran is on the verge of being a nuclear threat and now intel says it is not so. But Bush is telling us that the same intel people got it wrong this time.

 

Do you understand why I'm so confused and that I'm skeptical to believe this administration?!

 

I mentioned this in another thread but during Saddam's interrogation after his arrest, he admitted that he tried to make things appear like he did have them and was working to continue with them. He wanted Iran of all people to believe he had them, so that they wouldn't attack Iraq.

 

So, he was trying to convince the intelligence that he did have them. While they were wrong, they were right with the impression that Saddam wanted.

The administration is not producing the NIE's. They are mainly coming from the Intelligence community.

 

You are right but this administration:

 

1) First used NIE reports to invade Iraq.

 

2) Now this administration is disclaiming the same people's newest reports on Iran because it doesn't seem to meet their PR need.

 

It just strikes me as convienent for some to believe when and when not to put faith in these investigations.

It just strikes me as convienent for some to believe when and when not to put faith in these investigations.

I agree. It is baffling to me why some people are so eager to believe that Bush intentionally twisted good intelligence because he wanted to go to war with Iraq, but now are eager to accept the latest intelligence on Iran's nuclear program at face value.

 

Playing conspiracists' advocate, suppose this recent news is designed to torpedo Hillary's campaign. Would it not be advantageous to Republicans' hopes in the 2008 campaign to give liberals ammunition to portray Hillary as a war monger? Democrats would be left to choose between Obama and Edwards - two candidates who are way too liberal to win the general election, IMO.

 

What if after forcing Hillary to spend her way into oblivion and putting wind in the salis of Obama's campaign, new intelligence is released just before the election that proves Iran never suspended its nuclear program - or that Iran resumed the program after Bush declared it inactive?

 

I wonder if liberals have given any thought to what conclusive proof of an Iranian nuclear program late next year would do to the election prospects of their pacifist candidates who are ripping Hillary for stating the obvious - the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization and Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

You are right but this administration:

 

1) First used NIE reports to invade Iraq.

 

2) Now this administration is disclaiming the same people's newest reports on Iran because it doesn't seem to meet their PR need.

 

It just strikes me as convienent for some to believe when and when not to put faith in these investigations.

 

What is your solution? Are you comfortable with them completely buying the report, given their past performance? What would you do in the administration's shoes?

I agree. It is baffling to me why some people are so eager to believe that Bush intentionally twisted good intelligence because he wanted to go to war with Iraq, but now are eager to accept the latest intelligence on Iran's nuclear program at face value.

 

 

 

Some people believe Bush intentionally twisted intelligence because numerous independent sources have corroborated that belief. There was the (British) Downing Street memo dating from 2002 that which stated that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the (U.S.) policy" of removing Saddam. There was the inclusion of what was known at the time to be suspect intel on Iraq's yellow cake uranium in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. There have been assertions by former administration insiders (such as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill) that Bush was seeking justification to invade Iraq long before the September 11 attacks. There were what have been kindly termed "alternative intelligence assessments" on Iraq's pre-war intentions authored by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whose office was described as "predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" by the Pentagon inspector general.

 

It's not that anyone is eager to accept the latest intelligence on Iran's nuclear program at face value. It is that we should be extremely wary of the use of Bush's "gut" in the calculations of significant policy decisions given that the intelligence has shown itself to be highly variable and unreliable. Only a fool would support bumbling into another Iraq-magnitude quagmire because the administration (once again) pulled the trigger before it had a complete set of facts.

Some people believe Bush intentionally twisted intelligence because numerous independent sources have corroborated that belief. There was the (British) Downing Street memo dating from 2002 that which stated that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the (U.S.) policy" of removing Saddam. There was the inclusion of what was known at the time to be suspect intel on Iraq's yellow cake uranium in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. There have been assertions by former administration insiders (such as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill) that Bush was seeking justification to invade Iraq long before the September 11 attacks. There were what have been kindly termed "alternative intelligence assessments" on Iraq's pre-war intentions authored by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whose office was described as "predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" by the Pentagon inspector general.

 

It's not that anyone is eager to accept the latest intelligence on Iran's nuclear program at face value. It is that we should be extremely wary of the use of Bush's "gut" in the calculations of significant policy decisions given that the intelligence has shown itself to be highly variable and unreliable. Only a fool would support bumbling into another Iraq-magnitude quagmire because the administration (once again) pulled the trigger before it had a complete set of facts.

Quagmire? I haven't heard that term to describe the Iraq War in months - but admittedly, I have not followed the Kucinich and Paul campaigns very closely.

 

Opponents of the Iraq War are accepting the latest intelligence because it is what they wanted to hear. They are ignoring the fact that Iran is continuing to refine uranium at an alarming rate. If I believed that Bush deliberately misled the country into war, I would be trying to figure out how he might benefit from making the latest intelligence public. If Democrats are not careful, they will find themselves in a quagmire before the election.

Quagmire? I haven't heard that term to describe the Iraq War in months - but admittedly, I have not followed the Kucinich and Paul campaigns very closely.

 

Iraq is a quagmire and attempts to describe it otherwise are simply not based in reality. We've been there going on five years (longer than it took to defeat the Italians, Germans, and Japanese in World War II) and even though the surge has tamped down violence, the strategic imperative of political reconciliation between Iraq's fueding factions is nowhere in sight. In fact, the Iraqi Parliament just adjourned for the rest of the year. If you think things in Iraq are going well, you're obviously too absorbed in your Christmas shopping to be paying attention.

 

Opponents of the Iraq War are accepting the latest intelligence because it is what they wanted to hear. They are ignoring the fact that Iran is continuing to refine uranium at an alarming rate. If I believed that Bush deliberately misled the country into war, I would be trying to figure out how he might benefit from making the latest intelligence public. If Democrats are not careful, they will find themselves in a quagmire before the election.

 

Oh really, at what rate is Iran enriching uranium? Be specific, please. You can't, because we don't know much of anything about what is going on inside that country's nuclear program (except what they tell us). Yet we rattle our sword wrecklessly just like we did before we plunged headlong into Iraq. Quite frankly, I find it amusing that Bush is employing a "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" response to the latest intel on Iran--that just shows that he only heeds the information that fits his preordained motives. True conservatives should be outraged that Bush has led the country down a path he said he would never use the military for--nation-building. Given the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure, I'd say Bush is the mother of all flip-floppers.

If you think things in Iraq are going well, you're obviously too absorbed in your Christmas shopping to be paying attention.

...he says as children enjoy carnival rides at a Baghdad fair and GOOD TIMES ROLL AT IRAQI BIKE RACE (in Fallujah, no less!).

Oh really, at what rate is Iran enriching uranium? Be specific, please. You can't, because we don't know much of anything about what is going on inside that country's nuclear program (except what they tell us).

Hey, I am just relying on what President Ahmadinejad has told us and upon the intelligence report so eagerly welcomed by American liberals.

Yet we rattle our sword wrecklessly just like we did before we plunged headlong into Iraq.

Really? Assuming that Iran did suspend its nuke program in 2003, as the report claims, what sort of "international pressure" might the Iranian government have been feeling at that time? Do we have economic sanctions to thank for Iran's change of behavior, or were other forces at work in their Iran's immediate neighborhood?

Quite frankly, I find it amusing that Bush is employing a "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" response to the latest intel on Iran--that just shows that he only heeds the information that fits his preordained motives.

If true, Bush seems to have much in common with his liberal counterparts.

True conservatives should be outraged that Bush has led the country down a path he said he would never use the military for--nation-building. Given the costs of the Iraq war in blood and treasure, I'd say Bush is the mother of all flip-floppers.

Thanks for the advice and concern. I cannot speak for other "true" conservatives but this one prefers that its leaders schedule as many battles on the road as possible. Their is no home field advantage when it comes to war.

....

 

I see you're still doing your shopping at the George W. Bush discount store for discredited Iraq war rationales. In fact, I had heard they're having a going out of business sale. :lol:

I see you're still doing your shopping at the George W. Bush discount store for discredited Iraq war rationales. In fact, I had heard they're having a going out of business sale. :lol:

Those who have been discredited are the people who continue to refer to the current situation in Iraq as a quagmire. Even Congressman Murtha has grudgingly admitted that the recent surge has been a success.

 

As for Iran, I choose to take its president at his word:

 

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

 

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA.

Iranian leader: Wipe out Israel

As an experienced hostage taker and successful former assassin, President Ahmadinejad has some credibility on this issue that the American left lacks.

Those who have been discredited are the people who continue to refer to the current situation in Iraq as a quagmire. Even Congressman Murtha has grudgingly admitted that the recent surge has been a success.

 

quag mire (\'kwag-,mī(-ə)r, 'kwäg-\) A difficult, precarious, or entrapping position.

 

Iraq not a quagmire? Really? So we can leave tomorrow, right? Or are you saying Iraq is not difficult? Try telling that to the families of the 3,886 U.S. military personnel killed or the thousands who have been wounded. I'm so glad we have proven to the world that our multi-billion dollar military can be an effective police force if we give them a poorly-conceived mission and leave them there indefinetely.

 

 

As for Iran, I choose to take its president at his word:

 

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

 

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA.

Iranian leader: Wipe out Israel

As an experienced hostage taker and successful former assassin, President Ahmadinejad has some credibility on this issue that the American left lacks.

 

By your flawed logic, the U.S. should have pre-emptively nuked Russia when Khrushchev gave his shoe-banging "We will bury you" speech. And here's a news flash: Ahmadinejad doesn't speak for the majority of Iranians. In fact, he has come under increasing criticism from within Iran for elevating tensions with the West rather than addressing his own country's pressing economic issues and honoring his campaign promises (sound familiar?) When we engage Ahmadinejad, we give him exactly what he wants: a degree of legitimacy for his destabilizing extremist views. The surest way to galvanize the Iranian population into backing Ahmadinejad and his hard line tendencies would be to take unilateral military action against Iran.

 

But I'm afraid that subtle nuance may be lost on the good guy vs bad guy simpletons running U.S. foreign policy.

Iraq not a quagmire? Really? So we can leave tomorrow, right? Or are you saying Iraq is not difficult? Try telling that to the families of the 3,886 U.S. military personnel killed or the thousands who have been wounded. I'm so glad we have proven to the world that our multi-billion dollar military can be an effective police force if we give them a poorly-conceived mission and leave them there indefinetely.

No, in the context that it has been used by the left, Iraq is not a quagmire. If one accepts that it is a quagmire, then one must accept that every major war in which this country has ever engaged has been a quagmire. The Iraq War is not a sequel to the Vietnam War, despite Bush's critics' efforts to portray it as such.

IBy your flawed logic, the U.S. should have pre-emptively nuked Russia when Khrushchev gave his shoe-banging "We will bury you" speech.

Extremely bad analogy. :lol: The appropriate time to have considered stronger action against the Soviets was before we ceded them all of the territory behind the Iron Curtain and allowed them time to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs. How much money did this nation spend and how many American lives were lost fighting Soviet proxies in SE Asia during the Cold War era? Iran is not the USSR and there is no reason to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy.

IAnd here's a news flash: Ahmadinejad doesn't speak for the majority of Iranians. In fact, he has come under increasing criticism from within Iran for elevating tensions with the West rather than addressing his own country's pressing economic issues and honoring his campaign promises (sound familiar?) When we engage Ahmadinejad, we give him exactly what he wants: a degree of legitimacy for his destabilizing extremist views. The surest way to galvanize the Iranian population into backing Ahmadinejad and his hard line tendencies would be to take unilateral military action against Iran.

I am much less concerned about the feelings of the Iranian population than I am the potential targets of an Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on a major American city. A surgical strike aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear program might galvanize the internal opposition to Ahmadinejad. The US should be bombarding the Iranian airwaves with appeals to the Iranian people to do something to rein in Ahmadinejad before we are forced to do so.

But I'm afraid that subtle nuance may be lost on the good guy vs bad guy simpletons running U.S. foreign policy.

Subtle nuance? Simpletons?? Maybe Senator Kerry could translate for us simpletons who believe that Iran is a real threat to our national security. :lol:

No, in the context that it has been used by the left, Iraq is not a quagmire. If one accepts that it is a quagmire, then one must accept that every major war in which this country has ever engaged has been a quagmire. The Iraq War is not a sequel to the Vietnam War, despite Bush's critics' efforts to portray it as such.

 

Iraq IS a quagmire--it fits the definition perfectly. We have no plan for extricating ourselves. Throwing unsustainable levels of troops into the mix and hoping Iraqi politicians reconcile their 1400 year-old differences is not a plan. And what happens if, as unsustainable U.S. troop levels are drawn down, the country again devolves into chaos? Iraq is in no way, shape, or form comparable to previous major wars because there is no clear military objective for our involvement there. At least once a week, I hear radio news reports featuring U.S. officers explaining their latest attempts to sweet talk and cajole Iraqis to take basic responsibility for their own country. It is bull that our military has been put into such a situation. If the situation had been reversed, and a democratic president had started this war and shifted its rationale to nation-building as Bush has done, the right wing pundits like Limbaugh would be howling about how the military was being misused. Continued support of this failed policy by so-called conservatives is disingenuous.

 

Extremely bad analogy. :lol: The appropriate time to have considered stronger action against the Soviets was before we ceded them all of the territory behind the Iron Curtain and allowed them time to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs. How much money did this nation spend and how many American lives were lost fighting Soviet proxies in SE Asia during the Cold War era? Iran is not the USSR and there is no reason to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy.

 

The doctrine of pre-emptive unilateral warfare based solely on intelligence rationales has been thoroughly discredited by Bush's Iraq debacle. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised Bush and Cheney can continue blathering about the looming Iranian threat with straight faces after their humiliating failure to find WMD's in Iraq. I'll put it in very simple terms: Think back to the fable about the little boy who cried wolf...

 

I am much less concerned about the feelings of the Iranian population than I am the potential targets of an Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on a major American city. A surgical strike aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear program might galvanize the internal opposition to Ahmadinejad. The US should be bombarding the Iranian airwaves with appeals to the Iranian people to do something to rein in Ahmadinejad before we are forced to do so.Subtle nuance? Simpletons?? Maybe Senator Kerry could translate for us simpletons who believe that Iran is a real threat to our national security. :lol:

 

Sure, and Iraq was a dire threat too until we found out that it wasn't. If you think you can prevent Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons by attempting to "surgically strike" their nuclear installations over and over and over again, you're fooling yourself. They will find a way to build a bomb regardless. The best way to radicalize the Iranian population against us and encourage them to develop nukes is to attack their country.

I am both entertained by the dialogue and proud that neither one of you have slipped over into a rules violation.

 

 

At least yet . . .