Iran’s president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a “declaration of surrender” by Washington in its row with Tehran.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.”
It is too far-fetched,” he said when asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran following two such resolutions since last December.Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, told a rally earlier this month that the December 3 publication of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate was a “victory” for Iran.
He said on Sunday: “It was in fact a declaration of surrender … It was a positive action by the U.S. administration to change their attitude and it was a correct move.”
Way to go, jackasses.
Well this is ok as long as it hurts Bush and stops him from a “mad rush into war” with another country right????????????
A “declaration of surrender”?
Yup. I think that about covers it.
How could we have ever thought that we have free will? The Iranians (and others) will be here soon to diabuse us of that notion.
How dare anybody lobby for individual rights? How could you possibly be happy when “not my fault” people are suffering?
Hasn’t it sunk in yet, that when you work your ass off, that is really Ass hojinead and Al Sharpton’s money? If you don’t believe that, just ask any leftist. They will tell you that smoking crack is just as honorable as working for a living, and if you work for a living, WE WANT YOUR MONEY!.
Silly Capitalists. You’re money is MINE!
“Well this is ok as long as it hurts Bush and stops him from a “mad rush into war†with another country right????????????”
Yeah, more or less. When you start a war with a country under false pretenses and it’s a disaster, trying to start another one with it’s neighbor using the exact same claims becomes tougher because you have no credibility. When the NIE told everyone “yeah – same deal as last time”, that was it.
It would be nice if Bush had a big stick to wave foreign policy-wise, but the fact of the matter is no one trusts him with that power because he misused once already.
errrr, how was that again? what pretenses might those be? are you perhaps confused about why the U.S. invaded Iraq?
maggie, it’s a waste of time to question anyone who has decided that finding out the facts won’t make any difference.
Bush is a dick, and that’s that. I don’t know why we have so much trouble seeing eye to eye with Ted Kennedy – a shining paragon of virtue, if there ever was one.
“Way to go, jackasses.”
Maybe you shouldn’t let the Iranian president dictate your mood so much.
“The Iranians (and others) will be here soon”
with their weirdo movies. Ever tried Iranian cinema? woah. Don’t let that dictate your mood either.
“…are you perhaps confused about why the U.S. invaded Iraq?”
What, you really believe that Iraq invaded Kuwait?
When you start a war with a country under false pretenses
A member of the Trooofer Auxiliary … oh joy.
Of course. Andy thinks that’s his job.
Andy has a job?
“what pretenses might those be? are you perhaps confused about why the U.S. invaded Iraq?”
No. I’m not lost in an endless cycle of lying to myself to ensure I’m never out of lockstep with any particular political party.
Suffice to say: if the specter of mushroom clouds over American cities was not raised, there would have been no Iraq war. That many other ‘reasons’ were also mentioned does not make said ‘other reasons’ prime movers for the war, and there is no way to make them so retro-actively.
“A member of the Trooofer Auxiliary … oh joy.”
It’s astonishing…
With today’s marketing approach to politics, things can happen – right in front of everyone – and then just be utterly denied. The notion that, to you guys, the fact that there were no WMDs is no big deal is quite amazing.
My favorites ways of dealing with the cog dissonance:
1. There WERE WMDs! I mean, even the the Bush administration denies this (must be the liberal WH bias).
2. We didn’t invade Iraq because of WMD!
“A member of the Trooofer Auxiliary … oh joy.”
It’s astonishing…
With today’s marketing approach to politics, things can happen – right in front of everyone – and then just be utterly denied. The notion that, to you guys, the fact that there were no WMDs is no big deal is quite amazing.
My favorites ways of dealing with the cog dissonance:
1. There WERE WMDs! I mean, even the the Bush administration denies this (must be the liberal WH bias).
2. We didn’t invade Iraq because of WMD!
-Saddam helped plan 911
-Saddam was a real bad dude, and we just wanted to liberate them. Ya know, to be nice.
-We were spreading Democracy! Becasue the average American would have backed that war…
-Next hot real estate market: Fallujah!
3. Point out something some liberal did, call them all commies. It doesn’t make sense, but then again neither do 1 or 2.
So what’s YOUR reason to a posteriori justify invading Iraq!
I’m sorry, steve. What does this have to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and programs? I can guarantee it came as quite a shock to Iran’s government to discover that they have no operative nuclear weapons program.
um, some of us believe that Iraq should have been dealt with in 1998 when Hussein kicked the inspectors out. Clinton thought it was enough of a problem to send a few missiles, but just because he was half assed about it didn’t mean that Bush had to ignore his duties as well. or perhaps we should just disband the UN security council as it’s useless.
see, it goes back to that whole “breaking the ceasefire agreement” thing.
maggie . . . but disbanding the UN Security Council would put some well-meaning profiteers out of business. It’s not very Christmassy.
Well Steve. I’ll just go with the stated one. GWT. Had to start somewhere, I suppose. And uh. you lfet out the word potential when stating WMDs and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence. You know. gas me once shame on you. Gas me twice, shame on me. Say. What do you suppose Saddam was gonna do with those other 500 barrels of uranium oxide? You know. The ones that the US Army found that were a complete surprise the IAEA. That’s a shitload of yellow paint.
sorry Dan. I guess they do write some pretty sternly worded letters. so. there’s that.
Funny, Steve, Conress listed 23 reasons in 2002:
1. The Gulf War was not fully concluded
2. Iraq lost and had agreed to a number of conditions to cease hostilities among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism
3. We believed that Iraq had more and more advanced WMDs than now appears to be the case
4. Iraq had attempted to stymie verification of the peace conditions at every turn unless under threat of immanent use of force
5. The Congress had already found Iraq to be in material breach of its obligations in 1998
6. Saddam Hussein represented a continuing danger to global stability and to his neighbors by, among other things, failing over twelve years to verify the status and inventories of his WMD programs and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations
7. Saddam Hussein represented a continuing danger to his own people and refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait
8. Hussein had used WMDs before
9. Iraq demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, attempted in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and fired on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council
10. Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, were known to be in Iraq
11. Iraq continued to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens
12. Even unaccounted for WMD materiel could end up in the hands of those who would use them for terrorist attacks
13. Any number of combinations of the foregoing could plausibly result in a terrorist attack on the United States
14. UNSCR 678 authorized force, subsequent resolutions required further actions and Iraq refused at every turn except under threat of immanent use of force
15. Congress had authorized force in 1991 to achieve many of these same goals
16. Congress recognized in December of 1991 that the use of force was or would be consitent with enforcement of UNSCR 687 and 688
17. It has been the policy of the US Government since 1998 that the US should pursue courses that would result in the change of regime in Iraq.
18. The UNSCRs should be enforced
19. The United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary
20. Congress has authorized other actions in the Global War on Terror
21. It doesn’t matter whether terrorists be directly involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
22. The President has the authority to take proactive steps against terrorism
23. It is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region
Not to mention that in 1998, at the behest of then-President Bill Clinton, Congress made reigme change in Iraq the stated policy, under law, of the United States.
The actual existance of WMDs was never the issue. In fact, perhaps if you think real hard you’ll remember, one of the things that Prsident Bush was taking flack over was the great laundry list of reasons for going into Iraq. To please the political marketeers that you excoriate, he focused on the WMD question, in hindsight a mistake, not though, “because there were no WMDs,” rahter because it allowed the public perception to become that we would marchin a and find saddam astride a nuke tipped rocket ready to lauch.
The much more mundane fact was simply that Iraq had never adequately accounted for the materials it was known to have between 1991 and 1998. If you read the IAEA report a repeated phrase is that the Iari arms declaration was “not materially different from that submitted in 1998.” The only way to know for sure was going to be to go in and find out, and that wasn’t going to happen unopposed, or not without further shell game antics on Hussein’s part.
No one ever likes to hear this, becasue it’s just not sexy or exciting, whether we’re talking international politics or wearhouse managers, but, it is not and never was a matter of inventory, it is and was a matter of accounting.
Now don’t disappoint me here; go ahead and show me a new way to dismiss everything I’ve just said.
“I’m sorry, steve. What does this have to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and programs? I can guarantee it came as quite a shock to Iran’s government to discover that they have no operative nuclear weapons program.”
Well, nothing except the whole crying wolf thing…
dude – did you work in a psychology lab at CU?
Hillarious replies!
You guys can state all of those reasons now. But let’s be real: that war wouldn’t have happened w/o the claim that Iraq had nukes. There’a all kinds of countries with despots who are in violation of all kinds of UN resolutions – and let’s say that Iraq was the WORST on all of those fronts. Super. But the American people aren’t sending their kids to die en masse to enforce UN resolutions or spread democracy in some ideological campaign. They WILL send them if that country can kill a million if us at a clip, though, and that’s what they thought.
So that’s the dif, folks. No nukes, no war. All of he other reasons are “gravy”. Maybe Bush knew the intel was BS, maybe he didn’t. I don’t know and I make no claims to know. But I know this: 1. the people were behind it becasue they thought there were nukes and 2. there were no nukes.
And to tie into the thread, we can probably name 1000 reasons why Iran is ‘ripe for regime change’. But do you think your average fellow citizen wants their military going in there for anything less than Iran having a nuke? No, they don’t. And that’s the real story, even if it doesn’t retro-actively make it so y’all were right-all-along. No one’s right about everything – no shame there.
yeah, just keep ignoring all the UN resolutions….. and Congress….. and previous administration’s actions…. the whole thing was tewtelly made up!!!!one!!!eleventy!!!!
uh, WMDs are not exclusively nukes.
“yeah, just keep ignoring all the UN resolutions….. and Congress….. and previous administration’s actions…. the whole thing was tewtelly made up!!!!one!!!eleventy!!!!”
See my post above for the answer to this non-sense.
Like Bush won public support on the grounds of UN resolution violations and not nukes. Come on now – we were all there.
“uh, WMDs are not exclusively nukes.”
OK, but this was th big fear.
Ya know, you can always almost obfuscate a big point with a bunch of comparitively small details, and that’s all anyone here has done.
what’s to obfuscate? we’re laying it out for you and you keep saying, “nuh uh” well, okay, you’re entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may be.
“we’re laying it out for you and you keep saying, “nuh uh†well, okay, you’re entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may be.”
Maybe you guys are up for war at the drop of a hat – but the rest of the country sees war real different-like. And people backed Iraq becasue they thought they had WMD – and more specifically nukes. Do you really thik that the US populace would have been for the war with Iraq over that list of 23 reasons above, which I don’t dispute for the most part, if Bush et al. said that we didn’t think they had any WMD capability? Do you?
what would be the point then? but who didn’t think he had the capability or the intent (still a violation) at the time? The only way to know for certain would be invasion so long as he was hindering inspections. should have happened years before.
did Yugoslavia or Bosnia or Kosovo have nukes?
So, steve, this report gives you an opportunity to stick one in Bush’s eye. Perhaps you should read past the newspaper headlines that say that Iran gave up its nuclear program.
Aside from the fact that they could restart it at any time, the report also states that they have continued uranium enrichment during this time. With sufficiently-enriched uranium it can only be a matter of months before a bomb could be produced.
The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. One was plutonium and one was enriched uranium. But the scientists of the Manhattan Project only tested one – a plutonium bomb. So certain were they of achieving the chain reaction from a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium that they didn’t even bother to test a uranium weapon before deploying one.
After failing to foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union, underestimating Saddam’s WMD programs in the early 90’s, overestimating them in the late 90’s, completely missing Iran’s nuclear program for 18 years and issuing a contradictory report just two years ago are we to believe that this time the intelligence agencies have it exactly correct. Because you believe that Bush has “cried wolf” you are willing to put your trust in the misogynistic, homophobic theocrats of Iran, two of the main pillars of whose foreign policy strategy is the global export of the Islamic Revolution and the destruction of the Great Satan.
Just because we are skeptical of Iran’s actions and motives it does not follow that we believe that war with Iran is justified. But already Russia and China have used this report as a basis to claim that they will not support further UN sanctions against Iran. So now we approach them with only carrots and no sticks.
well, and let’s not forget they were kinda surprised by Pakistan and Libya’s nuke programs. but I’m sure they got this one right.
“did Yugoslavia or Bosnia or Kosovo have nukes?”
Did we put on a major land invasion and occupation that killed 4000 Americans there? Degree matters.
I was not for that action either, BTW.
And you still haven’t answered my question…
“But let’s be real: that war wouldn’t have happened w/o the claim that Iraq had nukes.”
You want to be real, steve? Then show me a link where anybody in the US government claimed Iraq had nukes and that is why we were invading. Shut up with all the fucking nonsense and bring a quote, because you telling me what I was thinking 4 years ago just ain’t cutting it.
because it’s a stupid premise. You would have to show that ANYONE thought that at the time.
no, it doesn’t. you’re requiring some mighty supernatural abilities there.
OK, MIke C – so if the intel says they don’t have nukes they still may, but if it says they do that probably means they do, so we need to go to war in all cases?
Of course it’s not good that the NIE was made public in the sense that it takes diplomatic power from Bush. But his track record matters, and it’s not good. What if we invade iran and there’s no nukes? What then? I think it was worth it to stop any hopes of an invasion of Iran.
And this pre-supposes that Iran would use a nuke if they got it, which I don’t belive for second. No, I don’t want them (or anyone) to have one – but i think they know that they may as well set it off in their own country if they were to decide to use one.
I suggest dodge-ball for a past time Maggie.
okay, but the “US public” for the most part seemed okay with it and there were no WMDs involved.
so yes, I think they might have been for it anyway. there you happy?
“You want to be real, steve? Then show me a link where anybody in the US government claimed Iraq had nukes and that is why we were invading. Shut up with all the fucking nonsense and bring a quote, because you telling me what I was thinking 4 years ago just ain’t cutting it.”
Ahhh…one of my favs. Bush never said they had nukes. it’s the Bush-backers version of ‘depends on what your definition of “is” is’. Becasue sending your Sec of State around talking about mushroom clouds to congress, or saying in the State of the Union that Iraq getting Nukes is close or sending every offical in the exec to talk shows to say that “we’re pretty sure they’re close to a nuke” is NOT the same as saying they’ve got a nuke. there is a definite TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE here, and we need to acknowledge that. The technicalities matter, and it’s all ball berrings these days. What a load of shit.
“Of course it’s not good that the NIE was made public in the sense that it takes diplomatic power from Bush. But his track record matters, and it’s not good. What if we invade iran and there’s no nukes? What then? I think it was worth it to stop any hopes of an invasion of Iran.”
So its okay to hamstring Bush diplomatically, because in you opinion he sucks at diplomacy so that means the best thing to do is impede him even further, because somehow hampering diplomatic efforts lowers the chance of war. That is not a particularly intelligent train of thought, steve.
“And this pre-supposes that Iran would use a nuke if they got it, which I don’t belive for second. No, I don’t want them (or anyone) to have one – but i think they know that they may as well set it off in their own country if they were to decide to use one.”
Seriously, you guys act like these people are suicide bombers or something.
uh, you care to cite that steve?
“okay, but the “US public†for the most part seemed okay with it and there were no WMDs involved.”
Well, it wasn’t a giant land invasion and occupation. You make it seem like the level of cost doesn’t matter, but it does. There wasn’t alot of debate about granada or panama either because they were (comparatively) cake walks. 4000 kids are gone – degree DOES matter.
“uh, you care to cite that steve?”
which part?
““we’re pretty sure they’re close to a nuke†is NOT the same as saying they’ve got a nuke. there is a definite TECHNICAL DIFFERENCE here…”
Like the technical difference between mildly delusional or a complete fucking moron? Because that is the line you just crossed.
B Moe: so Bush didn’t sell the war with nukes? What about the 2003 state of the union? CAn you remember back that far?
Well, it wasn’t a giant land invasion and occupation.
and your definition of giant would be? I think we’ve got occupation covered.
and it’s about prevention. so no, I don’t think anyone said Sadaam had nukes but that his attempts to acquire them were unacceptable, unless you can come up with something else.
“Like the technical difference between mildly delusional or a complete fucking moron? Because that is the line you just crossed.”
…try and at least be funny – ya know? This is grade E material….
“and it’s about prevention. so no, I don’t think anyone said Sadaam had nukes but that his attempts to acquire them were unacceptable, unless you can come up with something else.”
but none of it was true! the whole niger thing…hello? these are facts! Jesus…
huh? these facts you can show them to us?
Yes, I remember it perfectly. He said according to British intel Saddam was trying to purchase uranium to restart his nuclear program. That is not the same as saying Iraq as nukes. Not at all. He also said he DID NOT consider Iraq an imminent threat, but he didn’t want to wait until the threat was imminent as the price would be too high. Do you remember that?
…but none of it was true! the whole niger thing…hello? these are facts! Jesus…
No, steve. They found yellow-cake. They found documents and people who testified they were trying to buy from uranium.
OK, gottcha. And Clinton didn’t lie about the blowjob. I’ve actually had people argue with me about that. Not that i think Bush lied – but he sold the war with WMD – not UN violations. And he didn’t need to say that Saddam had them to scare everyone into backing it. The idea that he’ll have them soon and Condeleeza saying that the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud is enough to sell people on a war. Argue the technicalities all you want – it’s complete BS. No one in the country except the fan clubbers buy a word of what you’re saying.
Buying uranium is not having a nuke. It is one step on the road to having a nuke. That road was one that Hussein had agreed not to take as of 1991.
As for the “mushroom cloud” language used by Condoleeza Rice that you alude to, but do not quote, you deliberatley obscure the point. It was not a statement that Iraq would explode a nuke somewhere. It was illustrative of the point that because Hussein was unwilling ot make a full accounting of his programs and materiels, there were only two ways to find out the truth, one to go in an look for ourselves, which would not be unopposed or to wait for the day when a mushroom cloud did sprout over some city somewhere. You have to keep the context with the imagery or the resulting wounded allegory will come back to bite you, as it just did.
Matters of degree–what scale are you using to judge degree? 4000 compared to what? Somehow the many times that number in singe day enagement in other conflicts did not make us shrink form the task, yet you would declare an insuperable butcher’s bill over the course of 6 years? It takes a special kind of depraved indifference to count only the costs with no regard to the value of what is being purchased here. Especially when those costs are being borne by far better men and women than you.
Furhter, degree is a matter tahn can only be judged in hindsight, unless you now wish to place a new qualification on the Presidency of being a registered prognosticator. 4000 is a number that could easily have been reached in the former Yugoslavia. It didn’t happen that way, a happy accident of history. Similarly the Thousadns dead predicted by many in the invasion of Iraq didn’t happen either. You make no allowance for these, you simply compare arbitrary numbers, and declare one good and another bad.
“No, steve. They found yellow-cake. They found documents and people who testified they were trying to buy from uranium.”
No – that’s why they call them the niger forgeries.
I have to back to the real world – this is driving me nuts
I will say “Fuck You” to RTO trainer for his callous treatment of my degree comment.
4000 kids is alot of kids, whatever anyone’s military history fascination. It’s alot of kids.
President Bush “sold” the war on WMDs. He was criticized early on by people like you who said that the laundry list was too long, so he emphasized the item on the list that was the most dangerous. He could have sold it on UN resolutions. he could have sold it on strictly humiatarian grounds. Those were articulated reasons.
What he did NOT do is sell it on the premise that there were nukes ready to lauch, or vats of weaponized botulism sitting in a lab somewhere. The premise was that Hussein was evading answering all the questions about what he did have, and was known to be lying about steps toward nukes and bio agents, and was suspected of yet other steps on a path he had renounced in order to end the last war he’d had to fight.
It would take a degree of honesty that you have yet to display to admit the difference, let alone that the distinction is in fact the case, so I don’t expect you to be persuaded. Similarly, it’d take a degree of integrity you have not displayed to show one single citation or quote that indicates otherwise.
well, cause everyone goes to Niger for, um….
oh gee, this was sooooo hard to find. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70326w0005.htm
but they still claim Iraq sought uranium, which is what was in the SOTU
and fuck you, steve, they aren’t kids.
Your indignation is shallow and meainingless. You care only for those 4000 as a bludgeon talking point only. You also disregard that I have twice placed my own body in a position to be among that number, a fact alone that I think gives me far more license to comment on them than you.
Dump the crocodile tears. They are only camouflage to allow you to distort the discussion from the topic at hand and discredit those you falsely claim to honor.
And none of us are kids.
“No – that’s why they call them the niger forgeries.”
Yes, steve, the Niger forgeries were forgeries, and that proves that Iraq never tried to buy uranium from Niger. Ever. You are a moron, steve. Good luck with the real world, you are going to need it.
Steve. You weren’t paying attention then, and you’re not paying attention now. Go back to the house resolution that started this. Thanks for playing. Bye.
Like I said, you’re willing to trust them. Me, not so much.