Bush: "Nothing's Changed" On Iran

Says Intelligence Report Shows Need To Stay Vigilant About Iran's Nuke Ambitions

(CBS/AP)  In Kabul, Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reinforced the U.S. position that the new U.S. intelligence assessment shows Tehran remains a possible threat. He said it shows that Iran has had a nuclear weapons program and that as long as the country continues with its uranium enrichment activities, Iran could always renew its weapons program.

The U.S. intelligence assessment "validated the administration's strategy of bringing diplomatic and economic efforts to bear on Iran," Gates said Tuesday, speaking at a news conference with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.

One nuclear non-proliferation expert told CBSNews.com that the new intelligence findings on Iran represent an "astounding assessment, so sharply different from previous assessments, so sharply in contrast to the policy line" of the Bush administration.

Mark Fitzpatrick, the senior fellow for nuclear non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the intelligence estimate was delayed for months as analysts poured over every detail to ensure the best information was put forward - crucial given the striking departure from Washington's previous claims.

Fitzpatrick said the new report "indicates that the intelligence agencies took some lessons from the Iraq disaster."

Fitzpatrick added that, in light of the extremely cautious atmosphere in the intelligence community, some observers have even expressed concern that analysts may have "erred in the opposite direction" with this report, underestimating Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Democrats quickly criticized Mr. Bush's Iran policy in light of the new intelligence assessment.

"President Bush's heated rhetoric on Iran - including comments about a potential World War III - is even more outrageous now that we know the intelligence community had informed him that it believes Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"This is the latest in a long line of inaccurate and misleading comments that got us into the Iraq war to begin with. They further diminish the credibility of a president with a dangerous record of overstating threats," he said.

Reid called on Mr. Bush to conduct a thorough review of his Iran policy.

On another matter, Mr. Bush was asked about a rape victim in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her - a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes. Saudi Arabia has faced enormous international criticism about the sentencing.

"My first thoughts were these," Mr. Bush said. "What happens if this happens to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been, I'd of been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."

Mr. Bush, however, said he has not made his views known directly to Saudi King Abdullah, an ally. But he added: "He knows our position loud and clear."

The president said the U.S. economy is strong, though he acknowledged that the housing crisis has become a "headwind." He said administration officials are working on the issue, but he is wary of bailing out lenders.

"We shouldn't say, 'OK, you made a lousy loan so we're going to go ahead and subsidize you.'"

Asked about the 2008 election, Mr. Bush steered himself back out of commenting on politics. "I practiced some punditry in the past. I'm not going to any further."

[samsel3]

Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which goes through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan,India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through part of Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghasnistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way and is now in the crosshairs. China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control!!! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios. Greed & gain as they worship the god of money.

[countyboy21]

What is Iran going 2 doo with these "stock piles" tones of enriched uranium they claim 2 have been producing? "They don''t even have "one" *** powerplant"!!

"If I lay in bed one more time,with my flashlight chanting.
Luke,Luke I am your Father!
Feel the power of the force?
Feel the power of the darkside!
Give into the darkside!
I''m going 2 screem!

P.S. "Rockets & Weapons may shoot me down,but only fine cuisine will feed me"!

[benf5]

To recap to those who haven''t read report:

Intelligence has "high confidence" that until fall 2003 Iranian military was running a nuclear weapons program that began in late 1980''s. Followed immediately with something to cover their butts by stating with only "moderate confidence" that this means Iran''s entire nuclear program has halted.

Also highly believed: Iran has no nukes currently and hasn''t imported material. Iran has uranium enrichment, technology, and industry to make nukes. But shouldn''t be able to until 2015.

More with only "moderate confidence": Covert activites would be used in nuclear weapon production and previous covert activities were "probably" stopped in fall 2003. Iranian leadership can be persuaded from the eventual develolpment of nuclear weapons.

Report doesn''t have "sufficient intelligence" to make any judgement that Iran will not restart or already has plans in place to restart.

Finaly, the new October 2007 report also states Iran is less interested in nukes than what intelligence community has believed since 2005 because of international pressure.

Based on the actual complete report, I see no reason for ending the current US and international policies and pressure regarding Iran.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by dogband at 02:28 PM : Dec 05, 2007


If you read back into the posts from last night, you will see I was saying the same thing.

If Bush is as bad as they say, someone should start impeachment procedings.

[dogband]

Would someone please start impeachment proceedings on this poor delusional man?

Absolutely beyond belief how stupid one per can be, and unbelieveably stupid are the American people, including myself, for not marching in the streets brings traffic and business to a halt until this warmongering idiot is lawfully removed by impeachment proceedings.

[ajmarine1]

What is clear, on the other hand, is that the path of negotiation led by China and Russia remains the best option. Since Bush will now find it almost impossible to find an excuse to attack Iran, the poison of the threat has been removed from negotiations. The responsibility now rests with Tehran to honor its international treaty obligations and let IAEA officials perform the full range of inspections they are entitled to make. Diplomatically, there is probably not a finer moment for the Iranians to do this. Bush has suffered yet another blow to what little remains of his credibility. Iran can drive the point home by yielding fully to the inspection regime to which it earlier agreed.

If it refuses to do so, it may give Bush another albeit weak opportunity for renewed belligerence. Tehran should not, at the same time, forget this president%u2019s well-known ability to act with catastrophic consequences on the basis of lies.

Part2

http://arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=104296&d=5&m=12&y=2007

[ajmarine1]

The blustering that has come out of the White House in the wake of the release of the NIE assessment would almost be amusing if the subject were not so serious. A Bush spokesman has insisted that pressure on Iran must be maintained. Predictably, the British government has echoed this stance. It is more of a surprise that France%u2019s President Sarkozy has delivered a similar judgment. Why has he chosen to rubberstamp the risky Bush policy when the facts on which it is based have been shown to be wrong? The NIE estimates that if Iran resumed its atomic weapons program today, the country could not build its first bomb until 2015. This may, however, itself prove to be as wrong as its 2005 assertion that the program was continuing.

Part 1

http://arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=104296&d=5&m=12&y=2007

[actornaught]

Posted by bizzzz at 12:15 PM : Dec 05, 2007

hahaha... w has been "diplomatic" with Iran. I would NEVER call a death threat even slightly "diplomatic"...

[bizzzz-2009]

WHY ARE THE DEM''S, AND ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER, BLASTING BUSH OVER IRAN? BUSH HAS ADDRESSED IRAN SOLELY DIPLOMATICALLY, WE HAVEN"T CONFRONTED THEM MILITARILY. THEIR LEADER HAS REPEATEDLY SAID HE WANTS TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP. IRAN DOES HAVE A COVERT NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND THEY ARE ENRICHING URANIUM.
THE REPORT STATES IRAN STOPPED THEIR WEAPONS PROGRAM AFTER WE INVADED IRAQ. WHAT HAS BUSH DONE WRONG REGARDING IRAN?

IF BUSH PLANTED A TREE, THE DEMOCRATS WOULD BLAST HIM FOR ABUSING THE DIRT.

[jncc1701]

Did you also notice why Iran stopped its program in 2003...because of international pressure, namely a huge show of force just across their border. The reality is that this country has intimidated our enemies into backing down

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

Which enemy backed down? The same one funding Hezbollah, Hamas and Shiite''s in Iraq? Or the North Korean''s who were sneaking around giving nuclear technology to Syria?
Yep that is how I defined backing down - W style.

It it amazing that our Ivy League President can be made to look like such a fool. Especially given that he is in essence debating an Iranian president who is CLEARLY not a intellectual heavy weight.

come to think about it.

Why are we paying billions of dollars for intelligence when they cannot get very basic analysis done correctly or quickly?

[b-easy63]

hy should Bush, or anyone else, assume this intelligence report is fully accurate. The WMD report on Iraq was wrong. We''''re all wise to take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by jandj6488 at 12:03 AM : Dec 05, 2007


You''ve made some good points but that is not the only thing to be taken with a grain of salt. Whenever the NIEs have disputed Bush, he has buried that information under "National Security" cherry picked the parts that forwarded his agenda and forged on full steam ahead.


About the only thing we can be certain of is that Bush and Cheney will deflect, lie and hide information from the American People and Congress to keep war going. It is obvious that our actions in 2003 affected Iran--but those actions against a country that could not harm us and our continual actions there, will never justify the rape and slaughter of Iraq--that our actions caused.

For similar effect in WWII, we would have had to decimate Mexico after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared what we did made Korea stop and reconsider their actions. Pitiful, deceitful and very ugly approach it would have been--esp for those who died because of Bush''s continual lies.*


* Bush also lied and cherry picked the effects of the Iraq war including 3 years of reports that said it was going badly and that we had lost the minds and hearts of the Iraqi people by the beginning of 2004.

[b-easy63]

What a warmongering, conniving little liar. Always an "I meant that to happen" moment for the professional liars--no matter what.

[samsel3]

Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''''s energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which goes through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan,India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through part of Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghasnistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way and is now in the crosshairs. China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''''t care they are in control!!! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios. Greed & gain as they worship the god of money.

[heartlight3]

jandj6488, I thought we attacked Germany because they were overpowering our allies in Europe who we had promised to help support, that they were attacking our ships in the Atlantic, and that they were allied with Japan who attacked us in 1941. We did not get into that war until after Pearl Harbor. It was not an unprovoked attack. I don''t think it was because they might hurt us someday years in the future. If we were to attack anyone who might get the capacity to hurt us someday, pretty soon we would be at war with everyone.

[dmhphils]

Did you also notice why Iran stopped its program in 2003...because of international pressure, namely a huge show of force just across their border. The reality is that this country has intimidated our enemies into backing down. And in doing so, we''''ve avoided war in Iran and North Korea. The continued pressure on Iran is a good idea for that very reason. I think we all would rather see us pressure Iran than fight them. Nobody wants another war, and that is why Bush is doing what he''''s doing.

Posted by jandj6488 at 12:03 AM : Dec 05, 2007
----------------------------------------------

Well said! Fresh perspective too. Thanks

[liferocks3]

I dont understand US forgien policies, first of all since when they started Military rulers like Musharaf, oh I forgot they supported Saddam Hussain too. as far as Iran''s nukes are concerned, I dont know why US lawmakers and thinktank cant think of the root cause of Iran''s nukes, reports published in several intelligence agencies showed how Pakistan was involved in nuclear profilation with Iran, Libya and Sirya. If US is so concerned about Iran to get nuclear why they let pakistan became nuclear power which in turn spreading nuclear technology with other extremist countries.

[klifton2-2009]

About seven years ago, the American public went to the polls to pick a new president. They picked up rubbish instead. The world would have thought the American public had brains enough to recognize rubbish when it was served to them the second time around, but no, they picked up the same rubbish again. Why Bush is still in office without any effort at all to impeach him tells the world a lot about the American voting public. The American public deserves Bush but certainly not the world. He is a bloody disgrace!

[jandj6488]

Heartlight...I appreciate your sincerity, but I must point out that we attacked Germany over 60 years ago because they might have the capacity to hurt us. That is seldom mentioned in this debate, yet few people today question the justification for that.

It is okay to be a pacifist...nothing wrong with that. But it''s good to be consistent, too.

[jandj6488]

Why should Bush, or anyone else, assume this intelligence report is fully accurate. The WMD report on Iraq was wrong. We''re all wise to take it with a grain of salt.

Did you also notice why Iran stopped its program in 2003...because of international pressure, namely a huge show of force just across their border. The reality is that this country has intimidated our enemies into backing down. And in doing so, we''ve avoided war in Iran and North Korea. The continued pressure on Iran is a good idea for that very reason. I think we all would rather see us pressure Iran than fight them. Nobody wants another war, and that is why Bush is doing what he''s doing.

[heartlight3]

If this country attacks another country because they "might" develop nuclear weapons someday, we deserve all the bad things that are being said about us over there. We will just be validating the widely held opinion that we are the most dangerous country around. If we do that, how are we any different than those who attacked us? Is this who we are? I can''t believe the President of the United States is even having this conversation. A country that would pre-emptively attack another country because they might have the capacity to hurt us someday is not the country that I grew up in. This should be a wake up call to all who care about democracy.