NationStates Jolt Archive

A recently released US National Intelligence Estimate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125701.stm) downplays the likelihood that Iran is making a nuclear weapon.

Begging the question, why do you think the administration chose to release this information now, in the middle of the Annapolis conference? Am I right, or am I right, that the Bush administration is taking a new, more conciliatory tack with Iran? I mean, seriously, if Bush & Co. were gearing up for war, I doubt that this would be the sort of stuff they'd be letting out.

I am right.

A recently released US National Intelligence Estimate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125701.stm) downplays the likelihood that Iran is making a nuclear weapon.


The're only a couple of years away. Which is further along than I thought.

I can't wait until I'm proven right that the US is not going to attack Iran.

Yay! Bump!

Seems yer Prez disagrees...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_My_opinion_hasnt_changed_toward_1204.html

Seems yer Prez disagrees...

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_My_opinion_hasnt_changed_toward_1204.html

Besides the fact that Bush will not be able to operate independent of a Congress that would not authorize him to use force, restrained by the predominant realists now at DoD and in CIA, the Generals of the Army and Air Force, the Atlantic allies, and other factors, I don't think he's much of a threat in regards to Iran. He can toot his horn all day, but he's restrained from action.

I am right.

That made me laugh. Nice work, sir.

Besides the fact that Bush will not be able to operate independent of a Congress that would not authorize him to use force, restrained by the predominant realists now at DoD and in CIA, the Generals of the Army and Air Force, the Atlantic allies, and other factors, I don't think he's much of a threat in regards to Iran. He can toot his horn all day, but he's restrained from action.

Oh I think we all know that reality has nothing at all to do with this Presidency...

A recently released US National Intelligence Estimate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125701.stm) downplays the likelihood that Iran is making a nuclear weapon.

Begging the question, why do you think the administration chose to release this information now, in the middle of the Annapolis conference? Am I right, or am I right, that the Bush administration is taking a new, more conciliatory tack with Iran? I mean, seriously, if Bush & Co. were gearing up for war, I doubt that this would be the sort of stuff they'd be letting out.

I am right.

Maybe the saner people in the US government can tell what a disaster a war with Iran would be. Bush, on the other hand, would love to sacrifice more children and drink more of their blood, as seen in his "more pressure" and "WW3" declarations.

Oh I think we all know that reality has nothing at all to do with this Presidency...

I'd rather like to think that the situation has begun to change.

And the moment that suggested the idiocy of the neo-conservative ideology was dead in this administration was likely the appointment of Gates as Secretary of Defense, the removal of Wolfowitz and Perl and the fact that Cheney has reverted to his realist roots.

Further, support from previously reluctant European allies such as France has bolstered the ability of the realists to impact policy and diplomacy, especially the Army generals at DoD and the careerists at DoS.

That, plus a solidly Democratic Congress and staunch public opinion, limits George W. Bush in seven ways to Sunday.

Maybe the saner people in the US government can tell what a disaster a war with Iran would be. Bush, on the other hand, would love to sacrifice more children and drink more of their blood, as seen in his "more pressure" and "WW3" declarations.

I doubt Bush particularly cares either way, as it stands, I postulate his primary role in White House policy making remains swinging naked from the chandeliers whilst the big kids formulate policy.

If the US atacked Iran it would destabilize the reigion even more I mean with the friction building up between Turkey and Northern iraq it seems the US will have to admit failiure in Iraq. So what chance would they have against a strong Iranian army with some of the best trained troops in the world?

I'm sure that Bush gets a stiffy every tiem he thinks about invading Iran, but unless something major happens congress won't let him (whew).

Downplaying indicates that Iran's nuclear capability is still in it's early stages, and thus easily preventable. Look at North Korea-it has nukes, but couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with them-our focus should be on the delivery systems and targeting capabilities. Much of this is aimed at Iran's president, who's making political hay from pulling the claws of the "paper tiger" as opposed to any threat he could credibly pose to the West. He should be watched, definately, but it would be far better to draw him into the international community and give him more to lose than to engage in outright hostilities. This seems to be something to give Hillary Clinton's campaign legs, as she considers Iran a threat worthy of invasion, and holds a position to American liberals akin to the "Annointed One". Encourage trade, slip in some CIA infiltrators to monitor, and it all plays out as political maneuvering.

I'd rather like to think that the situation has begun to change.

And the moment that suggested the idiocy of the neo-conservative ideology was dead in this administration was likely the appointment of Gates as Secretary of Defense, the removal of Wolfowitz and Perl and the fact that Cheney has reverted to his realist roots.

Further, support from previously reluctant European allies such as France has bolstered the ability of the realists to impact policy and diplomacy, especially the Army generals at DoD and the careerists at DoS.

That, plus a solidly Democratic Congress and staunch public opinion, limits George W. Bush in seven ways to Sunday.

Problem is that DoD and State are full of neocon types...many of the old hands have either gone private or retired...

Of course Bush is not able to do anything as he is a lame duck pres...I never suggested that my link was proof that he was going to war...rather that he is once more like a startled rabbit caught in the headlights of an on-coming road train...





The move by the French....well really not a ringing endorsement at all...

I'm sure that Bush gets a stiffy every tiem he thinks about invading Iran, but unless something major happens congress won't let him (whew).

They've taken steps in that direction already.

Of course, some are saying, "I was voting for diplomacy!" Apparently, given the fact that many have made that same statement about voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, it would appear that our legislators can't learn from past mistakes.

They've taken steps in that direction already.

Of course, some are saying, "I was voting for diplomacy!" Apparently, given the fact that many have made that same statement about voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, it would appear that our legislators can't learn from past mistakes.

In other words, they're politicians.

I doubt Bush particularly cares either way, as it stands, I postulate his primary role in White House policy making remains swinging naked from the chandeliers whilst the big kids formulate policy.

WHAT DID I EVER DO TO YOU FOR YOU TO MAKE ME PICTURE BUSH NAKED??? :mad: