Keep in mind that EVERYONE who jumped on this single finding (that Iran has shut down their nuke bomb program) were the same people that were the most vehemently opposed to believing all previous National Intelligence.

Keep in mind that EVERYONE who jumped on this single finding seems to only care about it to the extent that they can club Bush with it (including out friend SF)

But now it seems that the top-level authors are ALL Ex State department officials whose credibility and motives should be questioned. They have a pro nuke Iran stance in the first place (energy not weapons). There are several other areas worth looking into if you’re so inclined.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/the_suspect_provenance_of_the.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/the_key_question_about_the_nie.html

http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010944

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20071203_release.pdf

NIE: An Abrupt About-Face
As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar (one of the three State department authors) gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee:

"Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons."

Of course even though it was a quote, it did appear in a Murdoch rag, so it must be a fabrication.

I really hope they are right about Iran not on the path to Nukes.. And if they obtain Nukes I can only hope they do not unleash on Israel.. I have no fear of Iran as they are impotent against me but I don't want to see the greatest tragedy of modern times if Israel was to get wiped out.

Absolutely no need to be concerned about Iran having nukes as long as they are "impotent to you." Who gives a damn about them blowing up Israel and sparking WW3...just so long as they are impotent to you- that's what matters.

Iran is a signatory nation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under the terms of that treaty they are allowed to enrich uranium for civilian use, which according to the US and IAEA is exactly what they are doing. I'd be more concerned with the only two countries that have not signed the treaty that already have nuclear weapons: India and Pakistan.

"I have no fear of Iran as they are impotent against me but I don't want to see the greatest tragedy of modern times if Israel was to get wiped out".



 Try again george impotent Sorryass

This is when people get confused and believe me to be just another rabid right winger.

But to stick to the subject matter, Israel has always been reluctant to discuss their own nuclear abilities..preferring the ambiguity. But let's face it, we all know they have 'em. We all know the only reason there hasn't been more United Arab efforts against Israel ie 49,56,67,73 is precisely BECAUSE of that retaliatory possibility.

Israel took out the Osirak reactor in '81, and we know now they recently took out a budding nuclear facility inside Syria.

Israel has said that it "would not be the first country in the Middle East to formally introduce nuclear weapons into the region." But that quote is often cut short, because in Hebrew, it ends "V'Gam Lo Hashlishi - We will also not be the Third."

While the public facade indicates they are not capable of single handedly carrying out a pre-emptive strike against Iran the way they did in Iraq or Syria, let there be no doubt if push comes to shove, the Israeli's can and will act to defend themselves. Including a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

Let me write slowly--

1- you have no fear of Iran because they are impotent against you.

2- But they are not impotent against Israel.

3- ergo, they could very well nuke Israel.

4- Thus begins WW3

5- Enter the stage right, the good ole USA

6- We nuke em right back

7- Others decide to give us a taste of our own medicine

8- Bye bye quad

9- Impotence is a bitch isn't it...

Try to keep up...it's kind of embarrassing to have to explain how silly your logic is...you must be another fine product of the public education system.

"I have no fear of Iran as they are impotent against me but I don't want to see the greatest tragedy of modern times if Israel was to get wiped out".



  When you say we you are not talking of me ..Like I said I don't want to see the greatest tragedy of modern times if Israel was to get wiped out...What that means George sorryass is I know Iran can not nuke us as they don't have the range even if they have the Nuke..I am certaily not one for advocating attacking Iran{at this point} because certainly that could also start WW111..

George, how slow are you?  At what point will you finally understand that Bush simply refuses to accept his plethora of error, self-interested malfeasance and that he remains just plain dumb Texas cowboy?

Have any concept of the damage he has personally wrought on the US, the Constitution, the environment, the military (I mean the actual soldiers and their families), the economy, child safety, religious liberty, personal liberty,  . . . you name the principle or goal and W has perverted or destroyed it.

With the exception of blind loyalty to his friends and ideology.

Rockmeat-- That must be a reference to the head on your shoulders as opposed to the head on your dick. This current discussion is about the illogical point Quad attempted to make. And judging from his response, logic is a subject that clearly eludes him and, obviously, you. But that's about par for this forum.

So, just for the sake of discussion, let's say that Bush sucks in every way you mentioned and a few more you forgot. His father sucks- Jeb sucks- both his daughter's suck and every generation of Bush forever and a day sucks.....And after all that, Quad's original point is still illogical- and you still have rocks for a brain. But then deep down, you already knew that.