http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7125701.stm



Bush caught exagerrating the threat posed by a Arab nation?? Surely not!!

US spies give shock verdict on Iran threat

Intelligence agencies say Tehran halted weapons programme in 2003

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Tuesday December 4, 2007
The Guardian

US intelligence agencies undercut the White House yesterday by disclosing for the first time that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the past four years. The secret report, which was declassified yesterday and published, marked a significant shift from previous estimates. "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," it said.

The disclosure makes it harder for President George Bush, to justify a military strike against Iran before he leaves office next year. It also makes it more difficult to persuade Russia and China to join the US, Britain and France in imposing a new round of sanctions on Tehran.

Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney have been claiming without equivocation that Tehran is bent on achieving a nuclear weapon, with the president warning in October of the risk of a third world war. They were briefed on the national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Wednesday.

The White House national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, at a press conference yesterday, denied there were echoes of the intelligence failure over Iraq's phantom weapons of mass destruction. He said that Iran was "one of a handful of the hardest intelligence targets going" and the new intelligence had only arrived in the past few months. As soon as it did, both the president and Congress had been briefed. He warned that there would be a tendency now to think "the problem is less bad than we thought, let's relax. Our view is that would be a mistake."

The NIE, which pulls together the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies, is entitled Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. It concluded: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme." It had not been restarted as of the middle of this year.

In a startling admission from an administration that regularly portrays Iran as the biggest threat to the Middle East and the world, the NIE said: "We do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." That contradicts the assessment two years ago that baldly stated that Tehran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons".

The British government, which is planning to discuss the report with its US counterparts during the next few days, has also repeatedly said it suspects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government of seeking a nuclear weapons capability. It will claim that the weapons halt shows that diplomacy - in particular the threat of sanctions - can work.

The weapons halt roughly coincided with a visit by British, French and German foreign ministers to Tehran in October 2003.

The Iranian government has insisted throughout that it is only pursuing a civilian nuclear programme.

Although a halt to the nuclear weapons programme is significant, the NIE is far from a clean bill of health for Iran. Tehran is pushing ahead with its uranium enrichment programme, which has only limited civilian use and could be quickly converted to nuclear military use. The NIE warned that Iran could secure a nuclear weapon by 2010. The US state department's intelligence and research office, one of the agencies involved, said the more likely timescale would be 2013. All the agencies concede that Iran may not have enough enriched uranium until after 2015.

The White House will continue to try to intensify international pressure on Iran. Russia and China, two of the permanent members of the UN security council, have scuppered attempts by the US over the past six months to impose tough new sanctions on Iran.

The decision to publish the NIE is aimed at trying to recover the public credibility lost when the agencies wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the years leading up to 2003.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2221486,00.html

That wont matter. Bush has never been able to Justify any of his military plans. We had these same kind of reports before he sent thousands of troops into Iraq and yet he still gave a huge to congress and the U.N



How can you claim that there is a risk for a third world war when all the info you get from spies or other sources state otherwise?

Do you think Bush was seriously contemplating attacking Iran?

I don't think it matters. When the leader of a certain country even hints to the fact of invading another country or accuses another country of doing something like this it creates a hostile situation and makes the U.S look like war hungry tyrants. If he is not seriously contemplating it then why mention it and say that Iran could be responsible for a world war?

another good read on iran:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... rint.story

President Bush and leading Democratic presidential candidates have said a military attack on Iran is a viable option. According to the president, Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology puts the Middle East "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

Yet the 1981 Algiers Accords, backed by Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, prohibit such an attack.

The Bush administration has defended the validity of the Algiers Accords in court, and the courts agreed, so there can be no doubt of the documents' legality.

Issued Jan. 19, 1981, and brokered at the end of the Carter administration, the accords declared, "It is now and will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."

The accords mostly dealt with potential legal disputes arising out of the 1979 hostage crisis. They prohibited individual lawsuits against Iran and established a procedure for the resolution of future disputes between the two countries.

A group of former hostages challenged that agreement in 2000 and sued Iran for subjecting them to 444 days of captivity. Iran never responded to the lawsuit, and the former hostages won a default judgment. They wanted $33 billion in damages. But the State Department invoked the Algiers Accords, arguing that individuals suing sovereign governments would interfere with U.S. foreign policy. A federal appeals court agreed in 2004 and upheld the Algiers Accords.

The hypocrisy is obvious. The administration supported the dispute resolution portions of the accord while ignoring the nonintervention provisions. Barry Rosen, a former press officer at the U.S. Embassy in Iran who was part of the 2000 lawsuit, put it bluntly: "This administration has not been shy about breaking international agreements," he told The Washington Post last year. "The administration appears to be in contradiction of itself. "

The situation has only gotten worse. Two years ago, the Bush administration initiated a covert program of military attacks against Iran by disaffected ethnic minority groups, as Seymour M. Hersh documented in The New Yorker.

Last year, I interviewed leaders of PJAK, a branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. As I reported in Mother Jones this year, PJAK receives money and arms from the United States in a program designed to destabilize northern Iran. The PJAK guerrillas claimed they killed more than 100 Iranian Revolutionary Guards last year. Iran retaliated by shelling Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.

Turkey says it captured PKK guerrillas possessing U.S. arms. In recent weeks, because of PKK attacks, Turkey has sent helicopters to attack the PKK in northern Iraq. U.S. policy is destabilizing the entire region.

According to the ABC Evening News, similar covert actions are under way in Baluchistan, a province near the Pakistan border. ABC reported that the U.S. is funding Jondollah, the insurgent group behind the February 2007 bombing in Baluchistan that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards and wounded several civilians. Jondollah is headed by a former Taliban member turned freedom fighter against Iran.

These proxy troops are similar to the Afghanistan mujahedeen that the U.S. armed and funded to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. Some of those fighters, including Osama bin Laden, later attacked the U.S. Will history repeat itself?

By engaging in this covert war and selectively ignoring the Algiers Accords, the U.S. undermines efforts to make Iran follow United Nations resolutions and international law. To support the Algiers Accords and reject them at the same time is consistent with the general illogic of the Bush administration. But to allow this backdoor war to continue is to court disaster.

God, I really hope it doesn't come down to another war.

Bush: Nuke-less Iran remains dangerous

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran remains a danger to the world even though it stopped a program to develop a nuclear weapon four years ago, President Bush said Tuesday.

"Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," Bush said, pointing out that Tehran continues to try to enrich uranium for civilian purposes and therefore develop technology that could be used for a weapon.

A declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate released by the U.S. government on Monday said Iran had stopped working toward a nuclear weapon in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until at least 2010.

The estimate is less severe than a 2005 report that judged the Iranian leadership was "determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure."

Earlier Tuesday, Iran ripped the Bush administration for rhetoric that came before Monday's release of the estimate.

"U.S. officials have so far inflicted ... damage on the Iranian nation by spreading lies against the country and by disturbing public opinion, therefore, they have to pay the price for their action," Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham is quoted as saying on the Web site of the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

In another posting, IRNA called the updated estimate "a necessary and positive step in Tehran-Washington relations, but undoubtedly is not sufficient."

"The U.S. administration should know that only admitting a mistake is not enough," the IRNA report said.

But Bush said Tuesday he saw the latest estimate on Iran as "a warning signal." Video Watching why Bush sees danger in report »

"What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?" Bush asked.

The latest estimate shows "Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace," Bush said.

U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley expressed hope after Monday's announcement of the estimate, but he also said Iran remains a serious threat.

"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he said. "In the words of the NIE, quote, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so."

Hadley said U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed because of the new report.

"If we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran ... with a path to a nuclear weapon, or the possibility of having to use force to stop it, with all the connotations of World War III -- then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure, to get Iran to stop their so-called civilian uranium enrichment program," he said. "That's our policy going forward -- no change."

Britain on Tuesday also called for continued pressure on Iran.

"The report confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and it also shows that the sanctions program and international pressure were having some effect," a spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said.

"But it also tells us that the intent was there, and the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons remains a very serious problem.

"While this report seems to show the Iranians have moved away from producing weapons-grade uranium, the real worry is that they still may be continuing to move forward with enrichment and processing."

Enriched uranium at low concentrations can be used to fuel nuclear power plants, but much higher concentrations are needed to yield a nuclear explosion.

"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the new estimate says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes. Video Watch what new report says about Iran's nuclear ambitions »

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is strictly aimed at producing electricity, and the country has refused the U.N. Security Council's demand to halt its enrichment program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, has reported that Iran is cooperating with inspectors by providing access to declared nuclear material, documents and facilities. However, the agency also said Iran is withholding information in other areas, and as a result, the IAEA's knowledge about the status of the program is "diminishing."
advertisement

Iran says its uranium enrichment work is allowed under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.N. Security Council has passed two rounds of sanctions against Tehran, but Washington missed its goal of reaching consensus on tighter restrictions by the end of November, the State Department said last week.

The report comes amid widespread accusations that the Bush administration is attempting to maneuver the United States into a conflict with Iran, which it accuses of meddling in the war in Iraq. In October, the United States designated elements of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as supporters of terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/ ... index.html

You know in school we all learned that the U.S goverment is set up with checks and balances.Yet we have a president who over and over again craps on the constitution and on the efforts to create peace that former presidents and other leaders fought for.



Really thats the best excuse hes got to start a unfounded war?

We really need to kick the crap out of these guys before they get their Cylon program up and running. They look like us, now.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/5/71540/5747

Scarborough and Buchanan want hearings over NIE
by BruinKid
Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:34:08 AM PST

So this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough had Pat Buchanan on the phone to discuss the recent NIE revelations about Iran, and Bush's pathetic performance yesterday in saying that he didn't find out about it until just now. Both Pat and Joe were absolutely incredulous at that statement.

Buchanan went one step further. He said Joe Biden needs to get back to Washington and HOLD HEARINGS on who knew what, and when. He actually called on Biden to haul Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ask them if they knew about the NIE report, and if they had ever told Bush. Pat and Joe were both adamant that if either of those two knew about this report, and didn't let the President know about it, they should be fired immediately. And if they DID tell Bush, and yet Bush still went on warmongering with the knowledge that Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003, then, well... they didn't exactly define what the consequence should be then.

But it was very clear watching this morning that Joe Scarborough has had it with this administration. Same with Buchanan. I about fell out of my chair when Buchanan actually mentioned the Downing Street memos on the air.

Something's happening with the release of the NIE, and I don't think we've seen anywhere near the end of the story with these recent revelations, no matter how much the neocons and their water carriers (like Cliff May) try to spin it. As Joe put it, and he's no liberal, these people are simply not believeable.

It will be quite interesting to see what the fallout is from this report, because this time, I don't think the media is going to let it go away. I made it a point to see how the media was covering this, and the reactions seemed to range from great skepticism of the administration to sheer disgust. Last night, Chris Matthews was on fire on this subject, with an awesome interview of Joe Biden on the subject, and continually saying how close we came to WWIII. Keith Olbermann was again awesome on this subject. Anderson Cooper had some good discussion with Christiane Amanpour and Reza Aslan showcasing how Bush has no credibility on this anymore.

Are we seeing another tipping point in the media here?

Okay. So let me get this straight.

NIE says the Iraq war is a slam dunk. It's a sure thing that Iraq has WMD's. We start war based on said intelligence from the NIE, it's wrong, and Bush loses credibility.

NIE comes out and says something condradictory in nature to what Bush has been saying, and they are suddenly a pearl of wisdom, a viable, trustworthy organization that just MUST be right. And consequently, Bush loses credibility.

And of course, the facet that's glossed over is the reported timing of Iran's stoppage. 2003. Gee. I wonder what geo-political international pressure caused this. I wonder if it was the same thing that coerced Libya to disarm.

Couldn't be. Absolutely couldn't be...

The issue today is whether the President was beating the war drums the past few months when he KNEW from the NIE that his justifactions were lies. Either that or his advisors are keeping him in the dark and letting him say stupid things at press conferences. I'd lean towards number 1.

Now, I'll be the first to admit, I really haven't been keeping up on the Iran stuff all to well.

If I may say so though...what war drums? I haven't heard anything that could be concieved as war drums coming from anywhere. I've heard keeping diplomatic pressure on Iran talked about. I've heard about possible war plans drawn up (which is a duh, sorta thing.) I don't ever recall any sort of overt advocation of war on Iran coming from anyone but the extreme right.

Knowledge is now a grounds for war

Or perhaps new intel has shown that previous assessments were wrong or that, like in Iraq, the intel community was being mislead by it's sources to try and move the US towards a military action that benefited those sources. I think it's a mistake to assume that Bush knows the up-to-the-minute details on what spies gather from Iran and it's a safe bet to assume his speech writers know less than he does.

Plus Iran will hit peak oil in about 7-10 years. Why bother?

yeah, why should the Leader of the free world be up to date on intelligence

THE INTELLIGENCE DID NOT SAY ITS A SURE THING THAT IRAQ HAD WMDS! AND IT WENT AS FAR AS TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN AL-QUEDA AND IRAQ. THE ADMINISTRATION QUOTED OLDER REPORTS THAT IT KNEW HAD BEEN UPDATED AND WERE NOW DIFFERENT, NOT TO MENTION COMPLETELY FABRICATING OTHER THINGS. so hell friggen yes he loses credibility. Him and every pathetic Senator who was too friggin lazy to actually read the intelligence reports. Too scared to vote against something that was popular. Yeah they lose credibility. And the news media. "Journalists." Your leftist liberal conspiracy media sat on the sidelines as cheerleaders not offering any kind of counter-arguments. Just cheering on the war, reporting the official White House line which turned out to be a load of crap. The "intelligence" indicating that Sadaam had WMDs? You got a couple Iraqi folks who were staunchly opposed to Sadaam and they played the administration and the media like a drum. They clearly had an agenda and noone was smart enough to stop and think for even a second...hmmm these guys left Iraq...anti-Sadaam. They're assuring us of all these absurd things like Sadaam has the WMDs hidden underneath his palace. I wonder if they have an agenda? Nah...lets go get em!

\rant.

Because sometimes information is so fresh that it can't be authenticated and it's the responsibility of hundreds of people with billions of dollars to try and get this stuff straight before it gets to the President, especially this President. The biggest lesson that US intel needs to take away from Iraq is that we can't rely on a single source for insider information just because it's the answer we (the president & congress in this case) want to hear.

IMNSHO, this assessment seems a little to well timed to not have been politically manipulated.