If you’re trying to make the case for not taking Iran at its word, you are going about it in exactly the wrong way.
Every time you say “know’,instead of the more accurate ’suspect’, your arguments lose credibility.

Overstate the case, and you lose the audience, thus making it easy to scoff at legitimate concerns you raise.
Every time there is an attenmpt to pass ’suspect’ off as ‘know’, the likelihood for ’suspect’ to be taken seriously is reduced., and the best way to ensure that Iran’s role in destabilizing the region is overlooked is to keep on making the mistake of overstaing the case re it’s nuclear program.

That’s how the terrorism warning system came to fail.
That’s how the US lost it’s credibility internationally.
That’s how the threat of terrorism in the US lost the attention of the public.

There is a consistent lesson in be learned from past experiences. The smart thing to do would be to take that lesson to heart.

> Google “HEU Iran pakistan” and diregard the
> Pakistanis papers to see about the HEU.

I know about the contamination; thanks just the same. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that Iran is enriching uranium on its own (and it’s only a matter of time before it does plutonium extraction or acquires plutonium from elsewhere, which may have been what the recently bombed Syrian site was about). It is no longer trying to so totally in secret. But it has been trying so secretly for a long time (and note the centrifuges were secretly obtained). Why secretly? It’s not for civilian purposes. It was perfectly reasonable and predictable to suspect Iran had been enriching uranium more than it had admitted(!) (And, again, why were the centrifuges secretly obtained? Why didn’t the Iranians announce what they wanted to do and ask for Western assistance?)

And does anybody sensible really believe the Iranian regime has now, suddenly, (or suddenly as of 2003) gained its senses and decided to behave itself, and only to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes? The civilian program game is a sham, even if a civilian reactor is built and runs someday. Have you ever heard of “diversion” of fissile material from civilian to weapon programs? That the civilian program is now being done openly is not due to sudden reform, but deliberately to defy the USA and the rest of the West. Why else?

(Iran probably learned something from North Korea: Shake down the West for goodies, especially if Westerners want to be more friendly to and to try to understand and even sympathize with the Poor, Sweet, Innocent Iranians So Badly Misjudged and Treated By the West [tm]. And they’ll continue working on weapons-related items if they can get away with it.)

In kindness I can try to concede sometimes and just refer neutrally to Iran’s currently publicly-revealed activities as its “nuclear program.” But we all know, and admit if we’re honest and also stylish, that it is its “nuclear (weapons) program.”

It always was implausible that a country without a single working nuclear-power reactor would spend so heavily on, and be so secretive about, uranium enrichment. The IAEA still wants to know more about unexplained traces of highly enriched uranium found by inspectors and a document Iran had for years, but claims never to have made use of, showing how to shape uranium metal into hemispheres, a technique useful only for weapons. Inspectors also want Iran to account for drawings dated 2003 from a laptop provided to America by a defector the following year that show design work on a missile cone that could accommodate a nuclear warhead. Iran dismisses such evidence as “baseless”.

The HEU is from centrifuges purchased illegally/secretly from Pakistan. The laptop info was in ENGLISH, not FARSI and isn’t mentioned as a source by NIE, US intel or IAEA. Google “HEU Iran pakistan” and diregard the Pakistanis papers to see about the HEU.

I think it’s become amply clear in the 21st century that we don’t have anywhere near enough bullsh*t meters to go around for everyone.

The same sources now make my bullsh*t meter go off again in regards to the imminent Iranian threat. Maybe people need to look beyond the American media more often.

Plenty of us do, even if we don’t unconsciously or consciously distort what we encounter abroad as well as at home.

“When intelligence types talk of Iran’s weapons programme, what they mean is work to design a nuclear warhead, master the mechanics to make it go bang and covertly produce the highly-enriched uranium or plutonium for its explosive core. … Yet, as a leaked speech by a senior Iranian nuclear official later made clear, Iran was not abandoning enrichment, only ducking and weaving to get the world off its back. … Does that matter if all the other work has stopped? Producing enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium (power reactors use the low-enriched sort, but this can be enriched to weapons grade by running it through the centrifuges a few more times) is the chief obstacle to building a bomb. … Iran claims never to have had any intent to build weapons. The NIE disagrees. America is even more firmly convinced on the evidence it has obtained—some of it quite recently—that until 2003 Iran’s government was trying to build a nuclear weapon. … It always was implausible that a country without a single working nuclear-power reactor would spend so heavily on, and be so secretive about, uranium enrichment. The IAEA still wants to know more about unexplained traces of highly enriched uranium found by inspectors and a document Iran had for years, but claims never to have made use of, showing how to shape uranium metal into hemispheres, a technique useful only for weapons. Inspectors also want Iran to account for drawings dated 2003 from a laptop provided to America by a defector the following year that show design work on a missile cone that could accommodate a nuclear warhead.”

That didn’t come from a US source, but elsewhere, and no, not from Israel, either (who is in no way discredited among normal people).

The same sources now make my bullsh*t meter go off again in regards to the imminent Iranian threat. Maybe people need to look beyond the American media more often.

On another note, what if we think of Iran as a strange dog on the street and you’re a father out walking with your daughter. As you walk closer to the dog, he growls a little and then stops. He does not advance nor does he back away.

What if the dog were known, not strange, and were known to have attacked many other children in the past, and growled at and approached many others? (in part by having other dogs doing the attacking and threatening under the direction of this dog)

What if the foregoing is true (it is, in the case of Iran), you’re an Israeli father and this is a talking dog, it is known to have attacked and threatened others in the past, and this talking dog says, “I’m going to kill you and your kid! You don’t deserve to live! I hate you and everything about you and your kind, including your home!”

Saddam Hussein was believed to have a vast arsenal of WMD’s by everyone.

This is a narrative by the lazy MSM, both Liberal and Conservative, prior to the Iraq invasion. But much of the “mushroom cloud” and aluminum tubes BS was debunked by arms control experts.

When Bush and Cheney repeated the same arguments again about Iran skepticism was warranted, but few questioned the WWIII hyperbole prior to the NIE release. The Iran BS was working, polls indictated Americans were willing to consider an attack on Iran.

But that is another topic for another time.

[saluting] So is “job lock” with health insurance, which didn’t go away in 1992 with Bush Sr., as I could easily remind people.

I just take exception when I point historical fact and am told its right wing Spin.

I dont abide liars and I wont be called one.

That is why I do not support this administration. I only support The Iraqis whom we have put in harms way.

Normal people know there is no “crisis” [sic] with the subprime mortgages, and don’t have sympathy for those who made bad decisions (both the borrowers and the lenders). We also don’t care about a drop in home prices; the earlier bubble and behavior associated with was disgraceful, and homes still cost far too much!

I agree with that statement 100%. My sympathy is with regular folks, working regular jobs, living in regular homes, who lost their regular jobs (not by their fault), and are losing their regular homes due to lack of income. But that is another topic for another time.

You are right. A lot of people believed Saddam had WMD.
The spin and bull part was that we couldn’t wait for the inspectors to finish their job and, instead, had to invade Iraq NOW.

The mushroom cloud of Iraq is the WWIII of Iran.

Any administration has to entertain worst case scenrios. It would be negligent in the extreme if it didn’t. Good judgement, instead of hyping fears is what separates competent leaders from the
hysterical idologues who are ready to jump off a cliff without checking how far down the bottom is.

Sorry Trufalo you have bought into the antiwars version of the truth so long that you have forgotten many facts.

Hillary did in fact give a speech caught on camera saying “Yup. They got em.” Israel passed out gas masks prior to the invasion. Our troops wore chemical suits during the entire run into Baghdad. Bill Clinton himself stated that he did not doubt that Iraq had WMDS.

What part of that is As per usual, spin and bull from the shrunken right.

will be silent, will cheer this, and will

(…or…or…)

A five-year freeze on some subprogram mortgage interest rates? What a Democrat! Does Bush really believe this will convince more people to vote GOP?

This is more Democrat-like, and worse, than Clinton’s releasing oil from the Strategic Reserve to boost the economy in an effort to aid Gore’s chances in 2000.

(The Bush people like high oil prices. When oil prices went down under Bush Sr., he went to talk to the producers to stop the fall, because “We have to have stability…” This is a small reason why he was not re-elected in 1992.)

Normal people know there is no “crisis” [sic] with the subprime mortgages, and don’t have sympathy for those who made bad decisions (both the borrowers and the lenders). We also don’t care about a drop in home prices; the earlier bubble and behavior associated with was disgraceful, and homes still cost far too much!

The Wall Street Journal provides the proper view of this idea.

I bet the Usual Suspects here and elsewhere will be silent, will cheer this, and will bash Bush even if they cheer his action.

Once again we are in a dilemna. Saddam Hussein was believed to have a vast arsenal of WMD’s by everyone.

As per usual, spin and bull from the shrunken right. Hans Blix maintained right up to the point he was told to leave, that there was no credible evidence of WMD.

Time after time he followed up on information passed on by the Bush Administration to search such and such a location for such and such weapons. Nothing was found, ever.

The fact that there was serious debate and dissent within the intelligence agencies over the statements being put out by the administrations’ most senior officers was hidden and those who did express well known doubts were instantly punished.

Literally everywhere other than in the media, the Bush administration and the dining rooms of his supporters, questions were being asked by highly qualified people about the validity of the information spewing forth from the neocon talking heads.

Sy Hersh has it right, I think: bad shit was being planned by bad people and on this occasion those who would be charged with carrying it out decided enough was enough. Hence, the new estimate, and the truth

However, if a report like this comes out and is ignored or discredited because it doesn’t fit the agenda of people who wanted it to bolster their position, then we’re now not only living in a world where “fact-based journalism” is ailing, but where “fact-based” foreign policy formulation is truly on life support.

Nothing can be “fact-based” when we are not able to see what the facts are ourselves. If past estimates were wrong, which they obviously were in regard to Iraq, what level of confidence is there that any future reports are right, given the past?

On another note, what if we think of Iran as a strange dog on the street and you’re a father out walking with your daughter. As you walk closer to the dog, he growls a little and then stops. He does not advance nor does he back away. Not knowing whether the dog is aggressive or not, how do you react? Do you consider the dog to be harmless and walk carelessly close with your child or do you take the opposite tack and carry your child until your far enough away from the dog that it is no longer a threat? If nothing happens, are you wrong in taking the more protective approach? If something happens, are you wrong in taking the more careless approach? What would your wife say if your child had been attacked while you walked carelessly past the strange dog without taking any precautions?

In the context of Mr. Bush, how would history or the American people treat him if Iran becomes a nuclear power under his watch? Would the explanation, “well, the NIE report stated that they had discontinued their nuclear program in 2003 absolve him of any responsibility?

Bolton is such a wild-eyed demogofure, it’s hard to distinguish between him and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Again, If someone wants to be seen as credible, he has to talk like a credible person.

That concept appears to be out of reach of the ‘bomb Iran now’ crowd..