Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 04-14-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

One giant spoke on a worn wheel? I'd say Bush and the neo-cons make up an entire wheel.

Seriously what have these people accomplished? What have they done to make this country better? What has turned out the way they told us it would? Why would anyone still believe anything they say.

It isn't only that they have not gotten anything right....they don't seem to even want to get it right.

The 2005 and 2007 NIEs refute the core claims of their "prime source", and they're pissing off the Iraqi government as they coddle these terrorists who worked closely with Saddam....terrorists who the administration linked to Saddam in 2002 as a reason to justify invading Iraq!

Quote:

BAGHDAD -- For three years, thousands of members of a militant group dedicated to overthrowing Iran's theocracy have lived in a sprawling compound north of Baghdad
under the protection of the U.S. military.

American soldiers chauffeur top leaders of the group, known as the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK, to and from their compound, where they have hosted dozens of visitors in an energetic campaign to persuade the State Department to stop designating the group as a terrorist organization.....

.....U.S. officials say they are in no hurry to change their policy toward the MEK, which has been a prime source of information about Iran's nuclear program........

There was no coherence in Bush's statement the other, day, accusing Iran of supporting "militants", as the US supports MEK on the ground, but brands it as a terrorist organization, Bush quotes it's former spokesman's propaganda, and his government permits the man to live here and work for Foxnews, posting new pro-Mek/NCRI "reports" on Fox, several times per month.

Bush talks of reducing Iranian government influence on Iraqi shi'a, even as his policies refuse to recognize the strength of the ties, and deliberately aggravate our own government's relations with the shi'a majority and it's government. MEK has not provided accurate information on Iranian nuclear weapons development, according to two NIEs in a row.....both fiercely challenged by Cheney and his staff....suppressed, delayed, altered....but finally realeased.

So, why not comply with Iraqi demands, and stop supporting MEK?

Bush has come right out and discredited the latest NIE...he has his "own intelligence".....is he fucking nuts?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401233_pf.html
Bush Chooses What to Believe By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Monday, January 14, 2008; 2:06 PM President Bush has apparently found a way to reconcile his bellicose views of Iran with the recent National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program four years ago.<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673" target="">Michael Hirsh</a> writes for Newsweek that "in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. 'He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views' about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity. . . ."A source close to the Israeli leader said Bush first briefed Olmert about the intelligence estimate a week before it was published, during talks in Washington that preceded the Annapolis peace conference in November. According to the source, who also refused to be named discussing the issue, Bush told Olmert he was uncomfortable with the findings and seemed almost apologetic."Bush's Fresh Round of Sabre Rattling <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011300342.html?hpid=topnews" target="">Michael Abramowitz</a> writes in the Washington Post from Abu Dhabi: "President Bush on Sunday accused Iran of undermining peace in Lebanon, funding terrorist groups, trying to intimidate its neighbors and refusing to be open about its nuclear program and ambitions."In a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080113-1.html" target="">speech</a> described by the White House as the centerpiece of his eight-day trip to the Middle East, Bush urged other countries to help the United States 'confront this danger before it is too late.'. . ."Bush is trying to persuade Arab countries to join U.S. efforts to pressure Iran, though many appear ambivalent about the administration's campaign following a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded Iran stopped a nuclear weapons program in 2003."About That NIE <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120027737099687613.html?mod=blog" target="">Jay Solomon and Siobhan Gorman</a> write in the Wall Street Journal: "The December report by the U.S.'s top spy office stating Iran had abandoned its effort to build nuclear weapons was one of the biggest U-turns in the recent history of U.S. intelligence."Behind the scenes in Washington, it marked a reversal of a different sort: After years in which Bush appointees and White House staff won out on foreign-policy matters, career staffers in the intelligence world had scored a big victory. . . ."In the case of the Iran report, the about-face was made possible in part by a 2004 restructuring that gave intelligence chiefs more autonomy."Solomon and Gorman write that the result of "new procedures for vetting and authenticating reports" was that "the White House was essentially locked out of the process. This marked a big change from the years leading up to the Iraq war, when Mr. Cheney and his top aide, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, made repeated visits to Langley to query analysts about their findings on Iraq's weapons capabilities."Through the summer and fall of 2007, as rumors leaked, officials in Mr. Cheney's office and on Capitol Hill grew increasingly concerned about the report's possible conclusions, according to people working at the White House and on Capitol Hill. . . ."People in Vice President Cheney's office saw the Dec. 3 announcement as a death blow to their Iran policy. The report's authors 'knew how to pull the rug out from under us,' says a long-time aide to the vice president, referring to the way the key judgments were presented."Cheney's Options But what if Cheney is still intent on taking military action against Iran before leaving office? (See, for instance, my June 4 column, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/06/04/BL2007060400819.html" target="">Cheney, By Proxy</a>, or my Aug. 10 column, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/10/BL2007081001161.html" target="">Cheney's Secret Escalation Plan?</a>)With the nuclear argument diminished, he could push for an attack in response to some other Iranian provocation -- real or embellished. Or he could get Israel to make the move.Provocation Watch Twice last week, Bush criticized an encounter between three enormous U.S. warships and five tiny Iranian motorboats as provocative and warned of "serious consequences" if it happens again. But the U.S. version of events continues to unravel.<a href="http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/" target="">Andrew Scutro and David Brown</a> write in the Navy Times: "The threatening radio transmission heard at the end of a video showing harassing maneuvers by Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz may have come from a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the 'Filipino Monkey.'"And <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103730.html" target="">Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson</a> write in The Washington Post: "The small, boxlike objects dropped in the water by Iranian boats as they approached U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf on Sunday posed no threat to the American vessels, U.S. officials said yesterday, even as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff charged that the incident reflects Iran's new tactics of asymmetric warfare."Emboldened Israel And there's certainly no sign that Bush tried to dissuade the Israelis from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Quite the contrary.<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3493934,00.html" target="">Amnon Meranda</a> writes for Yedioth Aharonot: "Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran and all options are being considered in this regard, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday during a meeting of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. . . ."'Despite what has been said in the US National Intelligence Estimate, Iran was a danger and continues to be a danger. There is room to act in order to remove this danger, and the US is definitely aware of this,' the prime minister said Sunday during the weekly cabinet meeting. . . ."According to Olmert, although the US intelligence report concludes that Iran had halted its nuclear program, 'Our conclusions are not necessarily similar to what may be understood from the report's wording."'As far as Israel is concerned, the Iranians are continuing their efforts to create unconventional abilities, and we must therefore use all means to stop them.'"The prime minister added that he had discussed the issue with President Bush. 'He too said, in the sharpest way, that Iran was and still is a danger in terms of its desire to create nuclear abilities, and this is where the conclusion on what should be done is derived from.. . . ."'I made it clear that Israel would not be able to accept a nuclear Iran, and there is no option being rejected in advance. Anything that could lead to the prevention of Iran's nuclearization is part of the legitimate context of dealing with the issue,' Olmert said."Bush's Democracy Talk <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302848.html?hpid=topnews" target="">Michael Abramowitz</a> writes in The Washington Post about "the sharp disappointment with Bush among democracy advocates and dissidents in the region, who were buoyed by Bush's clarion call in 2005 for freedom and democracy in the Middle East. They say the White House has backtracked because of a need to cultivate an alliance against Iran with the region's autocratic leaders and, perhaps, because elections in the Palestinian territories did not go the way it had wanted."Bush is ostensibly placing the promotion of democracy and freedom at the top of his agenda as he makes his way through the Middle East. Writes Abramowitz: "At every stop, from Jerusalem and Ramallah to Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, Bush has discussed the issue, although he has done so with politeness and courtesy to his hosts in a region where most of the countries practice some form of monarchy, or rule of one."In his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080113-1.html" target="">speech</a> in Abu Dhabi yesterday, Bush described the promotion of freedom as a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy and asserted that "stability can only come through a free and just Middle East."But, writes Abramowitz: "The reaction in the region to Bush's speech appeared at best mixed, if cynical in some quarters, owing to a widespread belief that the president has practiced a double standard in refusing to recognize Hamas, the armed Islamic movement that won free elections in the Palestinian territories before seizing power in the Gaza Strip last summer. The U.S. government considers Hamas a terrorist group."Many activists, meanwhile, say they believe the White House has flinched from aggressively challenging Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. . . ."Oraib al-Rantawi, director of the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies in Amman, Jordan, said reformers have lost faith in the White House, while governments in the region believe they can crack down on the opposition without fear of a stern reaction from the administration."'Nobody believes anymore what Mr. Bush is saying,' he said."<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24721.html" target="">Hannah Allam</a> writes for McClatchy Newspapers: "Bush appears unlikely, based on the regional reaction to his address, to find many Arabs to heed his alarms against Iran, a powerful neighbor and trading partner. Nor did many endorse his speech's other theme -- a vision of 'free and just society' featuring broad political participation and a voice for moderate Muslims in a region where money and family are common keys to leadership."Even political analysts here who share Bush's democratic vision said that his speech painted over the daily reality for most inhabitants of the Middle East, an oil-rich region where power is largely inherited and human rights violations abound."Whether chastising Iran or praising Palestinian elections, analysts said, Bush left out key facts that would have offered a messier -- and more true-to-life -- portrait of the modern Middle East. . . ."'You have all types of contradictions,' [Manar Shorbagy, an associate professor who teaches a course on U.S. politics at the American University in Cairo] said. 'Talking about freedom when you're occupying two countries in the region: Afghanistan and Iraq. Talking about justice while you're against the (Palestinian) right of return. Talking about democracy while you're against elected groups you don't like. . . . Was he listening to himself?'"What Bush Has in Mind for Iraq In a short interview with <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22607102#22607102" target="">David Gregory</a> on Friday, Bush indicated that he intends for U.S. forces to be in Iraq for the long term.Gregory: "John McCain has been saying on the campaign trail that the American people would accept U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years. Do you agree with that?"Bush: "I -- I don't know if 100 years is the right number. That's a long time."Gregory: "Sort of long-term presence?"Bush: "It could very well be. But it's going to be on the invitation of the Iraqi government. A long-term presence -- and again, I'm not exactly sure how you would define long-term, but it's --"Gregory: "Ten years?"Bush: "Yeah, it could easily be that, absolutely."The president's cavalier attitude aside, what makes him so confident about what will happen long after he leaves office?Newsweek's <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651" target="">Michael Hirsh</a> writes from Kuwait on Saturday: "In <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080112-2.html" target="">remarks</a> to the traveling press, delivered from the Third Army operation command center here, Bush said that negotiations were about to begin on a long-term strategic partnership with the Iraqi government modeled on the accords the United States has with Kuwait and many other countries. [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C.] Crocker, who flew in from Baghdad with [Gen. David] Petraeus to meet with the president, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080112-6.html" target="">elaborated</a>: 'We're putting our team together now, making preparations in Washington,' he told reporters. 'The Iraqis are doing the same. And in the few weeks ahead, we would expect to get together to start this negotiating process.' The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House -- in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions."Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. . . ."Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact. . . ."The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."For background, see my Nov. 27 column, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/11/27/BL2007112701239.html" target="">Locking Us Into Iraq?</a>And here's Bush <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080112-3.html" target="">talking</a> to U.S. troops in Kuwait: "There is no doubt in my mind that we will succeed. There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world; that by doing the hard work now, we can look back and say, the United States of America is more secure, and generations of Americans will be able to live in peace."Benchmark Watch......

....and Ottopilot, considering the record of the administration since August, 2001, further aggravated by all of the lies they publicly told about the threat from Iran....right before they knew that the NIE would be released, your attempt in your response to make me look like I'm lowering the level of the discussion here, when you add nothing in your post but vague...."big picture", "higher level", nuances.....is amusing and quite telling.