Gates, neo-cunts, Repugs on counter-attack

[boutons_]

Gates: Iran Could Restart Weapons Program 'At Any Time'
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 8, 2007; 2:00 PM


MANAMA, Bahrain, Dec. 8 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates argued forcefully at a Persian Gulf security conference Saturday that U.S. intelligence indicates Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iran.html?nav=el) could restart its secret nuclear weapons program "at any time" and remains a major threat to the region.

( specificially, why are the neo-cunts so scarded shitless of Iran? Iran's Army (about the size of Sweden)? Iran's armanents (compared to US/NATO/Israel?, Iran's nukes (M.A.D. takes care of that) ???

My guess is the neo-cunts 10 think the world will fall for the scare-mongering for eternity, and 2) the neo-cunts make $Bs from propping up the MIC with $500B/year minimum, for eternity)

Tough and at times sarcastic, Gates described the Iranian government as an ongoing menace to the Gulf region not only for its nuclear aspirations but also for supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iraq.html?nav=el) and Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el), backing the armed Islamic movements Hezbollah and Hamas, and developing medium-range ballistic missiles.

( any proof? The US is supporting the Sunnis in Iran. )


"Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents," Gates said in a speech to defense leaders from 23 countries attending the Manama Dialogue, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

( Even if the above is true, why/how is bombing the fuck out of Iran a solution? Do the neo-cunts think that bombing Iran would have no other consequences for USA ? We know, hard facts, how badly the neo-cunts throght through the invasion of Iraq. They have no credibility or competence. )

Gates acknowledged that the recent release of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which determined that the country halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, was awkward and frustrating for the Bush administration. He explained that the CIA director decides on the content and release, without influence from Congress or the executive branch. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

"The estimate clearly has come at an awkward time. It has annoyed a number of our friends, it has confused our allies around the world in terms of what we're trying to accomplish," he said.

( So the problem for the neo-cunts is that their Iran disinformation campaign has been exposed, further destroying the USA world-wide credibility with the truth? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )


International pressure is the only impediment to Iran restarting its nuclear weapons program, Gates said. "Iran is keeping its options open and could re-start its nuclear weapons program at any time -- I would add, if it has not done so already."

( so Gates has gone over to the neo-cunt dark side, where lies and bullshit hypotheticals, and Plan-B-less incompetences rule. Noted )

Gates urged countries around the world to demand that Iran "come clean" about its past nuclear weapons development and insist that it suspend enrichment, pledge not to develop nuclear weapons in the future and agree to inspections. Until it takes those steps, he suggested, engaging Iran in talks would not be productive.

( Well, the neo-cunts have as a policy NOT to engage Iran, even when Iran tried to engage the USA, so it's absolutely correct to say non-engagement is not productive )

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes.

( in the 70s, the USA + their MIC + dickhead + rummy convinced the Shah that $$nuclear energy ($$sold by US companies) was the way to go since Iran would be running out of oil. Now when Iran says the same thing, the US says no, Iran nuclear intention CAN ONLY be for WMD )

At one point, Gates, a former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, spoke mockingly of the Iranian government's agreement with the intelligence report.

"Astonishingly, the revolutionary government of Iran has this week, for the first time, embraced as valid an assessment of the United States intelligence community," Gates said. "I assume that it also will embrace as valid" U.S. intelligence showing Iran is training militias in Iraq, backing terrorist organizations and carrying out other hostile acts, he said.

( oh fuck! Iran is cherry picking US intelligence to suit itself? The US would never be so self-serving http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Iranian officials decided Friday not to attend the conference.

In questions following Gates' speech, attendees voiced both approval and suspicion. Some accused the United States of a double standard for failing to object to Israel's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html?nav=el) possession of nuclear weapons. Asked if he thought Israel's nuclear arsenal posed a threat to the region, Gates initially gave a four-word answer: "No, I do not."

To better counter Iran and other threats, Gates urged Gulf nations to shift their focus from bilateral military ties with the United States toward multilateral cooperation. Specifically, he called for a collective effort to develop regional air and missile defense systems, as well as a shared monitoring of waters in the region for terrorism, piracy, drug trafficking and smuggling.

( Iran simply can't win any hostilities they would start. They know that. Does Gates and his kick-ass military agree? )

On Iraq, Gates said that President Bush's troop increase over the past year has helped quell violence and demonstrated an enduring U.S. commitment to stabilizing the country.

( along with dubya's committment to first de-stabilizing Iraq, with the neo-cunt intention of occupying Iraq for decades. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

But he said the decline in U.S. troop levels starting this month represents "risks and opportunities for the whole region."

( well, the INCREASE in US troop levels in March 30 2003 certainly increased the "risks and opportunities for the whole region" http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Arab nations should back the Iraqi government, Gates said, because if Iraq fails as a state, the repercussions would be felt first and most profoundly in the Middle East.

( too bad the neo-cunts weren't worried about "Iraq fails as a state" BEFORE they destroyed Iraq and M/E stability. Gates is a fucking fool, same as rummy )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120800894_pf.html

[boutons_]

But here's a little context. The intel community felt it was politicized and meddled with prior invading Iraq, and then the WH smeared the intel community by blaming it for "bad intel".

Like a lot of other people, the intel community let itself get suckered into giving the WH the benefit of the doubt in 2002. Everybody got kicked in the balls by the duplicitous WH.

===================

US reversal on Iran intel reflects breaking of the ranks: analysts

AFP
Published: Friday December 7, 2007

The US reversal on Iran's nuclear weapons program has exposed a breaking of ranks within a waning administration, with US intelligence and military professionals asserting themselves on issues of war and peace, analysts said.

Senior US intelligence officials said this week they were responding to new information, subjected to more rigorous analysis than in the past, in declaring with "high confidence" that Iran halted a covert nuclear weapons program in 2003.

But their willingness to set aside all previous assumptions flowed from a determination not to repeat the errors made in 2002, when bogus intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction set the United States on a course to war, they said.

And unlike 2002, when US intelligence officials complained of administration pressure to "cherry-pick" intelligence that supported going to war, the intelligence community this time has asserted its independence.

"This is ours," a senior intelligence official said this week, telling reporters that policymakers had no input in the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate, as the assessment is called.

The US military also increasingly has taken its own tack since the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, quietly but firmly distancing itself from White House saber rattling on Iran.

The tough talk reached a peak with President George W. Bush's warning on October 17 of the threat of "World War III" if Iran acquires the knowledge to make nuclear weapons, language reminiscent of US rhetoric leading up to the Iraq invasion.

Vice President Dick Cheney followed up days later, telling a Washington think tank: "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

But Admiral William Fallon, the head of the US Central Command, complained in a newspaper interview that incessant press speculation about military action was harming efforts to bring Iran onto a more positive path.

( Fallon is fucking traitor, and lover of terrorists. Expect him to be replaced by a boot-licker soon )

"It's a fundamental reversal of civil-military relations, and intelligence and political relationships, that were obvious in 2002," said Ray Takeyh, an expert on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.

He said the new intelligence assessment was "part of a larger narrative, namely how the formal institutions of government are now determined to resist the White House, which wasn't the case in 2002."

"In many ways this narrative suggests the irrelevance of the Bush White House, the irrelevance of the president himself," he said.

John Bolton, the former UN ambassador and a hawk on Iran, charged that intelligence agencies have used the assessment to "torpedo" the administration's policy on Iran.

"Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than 'intelligence' analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it," he said in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

( too much of the 2002 WH policy formulation people were engaging in intelligence cherry picking to support their oil-grab war )

Bruce Riedel, who served as a CIA officer for 30 years, said the new intelligence estimate has turned the military option into "a dead letter," and the administration has only itself to blame.

"By politicizing the intelligence process so badly in 2002 and 2003, and by their constant interference they created a backlash -- not so much in the intelligence community per se, but in the Congress," he said.

"And the Congress I think can be credited with having forced the administration to go public with these kinds of things, and to put them out there," he said.

Bush said the new findings were driven by a "great discovery" which prompted a re-evaluation of the evidence. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

But George Perkovich, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, had reached the same conclusion as the estimate two years earlier after talks in Tehran with Iranian leaders.

In a remarkably prescient paper in 2005, he urged US intelligence to look for evidence that Iran had shut down its program in 2003, arguing that without a weapons program Iran could play by the rules while still developing a nuclear "breakout" option.

"If you think about it, it is a very, very effective strategy and it would cause us the greatest possible difficulty," Perkovich said. "It would make it much tougher for the US to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue."

US intelligence failed to see it sooner, he said, because it was intent on finding evidence to support the assumption that Iran had a nuclear weapons program.

"But if you don't take that assumption and you look for an alternative explanation, it's relatively easy to find."

[Nbadan]

specificially, why are the neo-cunts so scarded shitless of Iran?

The only way to prop up the declining dollar is to conquer gold - just like in the olden days, nothings changed....except the gold these days is dark and smelly....

[LaMarcus Bryant]

I hate to say it but the neocon angle on this is actually more defendable and logical than previous neocon positions.

The only problem is that everyone is skeptical of the administration's warhawking now, and multilateral diplomacy is still a better option.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I am incapable of independent thought so I copied and pasted my 10,000th worthless article without applying any comprehension or logic to what is being quoted. Allah akhbar.

[boutons_]

Hey Aggie found your dick, yet?

I see you're following rove's example of making black-is-white shit up out of thin air.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I have, in fact I was slapping your mom across the face with it last night.

Gates is about as straight a shooter as they come, yet you're rolling out your same tired, lame, hateful bullshit.

[boutons_]

Wasn't my face, Aggie, it must have been Whott's.

Gates works for dubya and dickhead, and is playing the "hateful" scare-the-fuck-out-of-everybody, create a straw-man threat of Iraq/Iran that dubya and dickhead have been cynically playing to ram through their non-terror bullshit programs for the super-rich and corps.

In spite of suckers like yourself thinking Gates is his own man, the rest of us know who hired him and who he works for. No matter what he may have been before, he's now just a dubya/dickhead/neo-cunt boot-licker, aka, a "good German".

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

That is such a simpleton view, but considering you have the intelligence level of a brick, not surprising.

Tell me something boutons:

Do you think Iran is a good country? Do you think that country is led by nice people who wouldn't wipe us off the face of the earth given half the chance? Howabout their thoughts on Israel. Ahmedinijad has stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map. That wasn't any Gates fear mongering, that was a stated goal in a speech Ahm. gave.

What do you think of Iran? Don't give me some bullshit cut and paste, or hate and profanity directed at the administration or me or anyone else on this board.

What do you think about Iran? I want to hear what you think.

[Mr. Peabody]

How many 9/11 terrorists were from Iran?

8?

5?

1?

Weren't they all from Iraq....?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Bush is using the NIE in such a way that it seems like it may not represent this "total backfire" some are making it out to be.
What it does look like is that the administration has changed their "Strategy" (lol)

They're trying to admit they were wrong about some things, without admitting they were wrong(the change), and at the same time proving they are right, about something which we are unsure (the same goal), in order to save face and get others to comply with their agenda.

Judging from how bullheaded they are, I think the administration is going to use this for one last ditch effort to fistfuck Iran and isolate it further.

Russia is laughing it up right now. They've positioned themselves for a win-win situation with this Iran business.

[Nbadan]

Bush is using the NIE in such a way that it seems like it may not represent this "total backfire" some are making it out to be.
What it does look like is that the administration has changed their "Strategy" (lol)

Interesting...certainly wouldn't be the first time the administration has pre-emptively released something that could possibly blow-back later on.....now that they've released it and people have digested it, they can let the wing-nut media cast doubts on its credibility or the credibility of its authors and even its findings...there's always the 30% of the wing-nut public that will buy it, and 35% is a consensus to these nuts....

[Nbadan]

The Modern World strikes again...


http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/12/10/tomo/story.jpg

[xrayzebra]

That is such a simpleton view, but considering you have the intelligence level of a brick, not surprising.

Tell me something boutons:

Do you think Iran is a good country? Do you think that country is led by nice people who wouldn't wipe us off the face of the earth given half the chance? Howabout their thoughts on Israel. Ahmedinijad has stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map. That wasn't any Gates fear mongering, that was a stated goal in a speech Ahm. gave.

What do you think of Iran? Don't give me some bullshit cut and paste, or hate and profanity directed at the administration or me or anyone else on this board.

What do you think about Iran? I want to hear what you think.

Well Aggie, I see you got all the normal "intelligent"
responses from the same crowd.

He said all those things and much more. He has told
all of us in no uncertain terms what his intentions are.
And it seems a lot, like those who responded to your
post, choose to ignore it and bash Bush and his
administration. Hell, Ahmadinejad has his backers, in spades.

[JoeChalupa]

Or course Iran can start up it's nuclear weapons program at any time. That is a no brainer.

[boutons_]

"What do you think about Iran?"

Like Iraq was, Iran, even with nukes, is no threat to US, because of M.A.D.

"balance of power" between baddest-ass-in-the-history-of-universe USA and wimpy, Sweden-sized Iran? G M A F B

The USA has no objection to India, Israel, Pakistan having nukes (none of them have any oil). But nukes in oil-rich Iraq or Iran? WMD/nukes are for neo-cunt pretexts grabbing the oil, and enriching the MIC throught bogus wars.

btw, Dr. dickhead Strangelove better attack Iran soon, because China and very probably Russia will be grabbing Iranian oil. Attacking Iran will allow the USA to cancel Iranian contracts will Russia and China, as the USA did after invading Iraq.

===========

Iran, China finalise two billion dollar oil contract

by Aresu EqbaliSun Dec 9, 4:58 PM ET

Iran and China's Sinopec on Sunday signed a two billion dollar contract to develop a major Iranian oil field, a crucial deal for the Iranian energy industry at a time of mounting international pressure.

The Iranian oil ministry and Sinopec inked the deal to pump oil from the Yadavaran onshore field in southwestern Iran, which was first agreed back in late 2004, at a ceremony in Tehran, an AFP correspondent reported.

"The initial estimation of cost of the project is about 2.0 billion dollars and the final cost of the project will be decided after the offering of the tenders," said Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari.

The field will be producing 185,000 barrels of oil a day within the next seven years, he added.

The signing came at a time when the United States has been pressuring European and Asian firms, including oil majors, to cut their business ties with Iran to exert pressure on the Islamic republic in the nuclear crisis.

"The signing shows that there is no lack of investment in Iran and we are solidifying our economic relations with China more," said Nozari.

"The second message is that if other countries are willing to invest in the big oil and gas fields of Iran they should not lose the opportunity," he added, in an apparent warning to any dithering Western firms.

The deal is one of the biggest foreign energy contracts ever signed by Iran, which holds the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves and is seeking development of its oil fields.

The contract was signed in Tehran by Zhou Baixiu, the head of Sinopec's international arm, and Iranian Deputy Oil Minister for international affairs Hossein Noghrehkar Shirazi.

The talks to finalise the contract had been long held up by disagreements on the terms of the Yadavaran deal, most notably involving the rate of return proposed by Sinopec.

Sinopec had originally asked for a 15 percent rate of return from its investment but Nozari said this had been finalised at 14.98 percent.

However he added that the period of reimbursement for Sinopec had been decreased from eight years in the initial agreement to four in the final contract.

"The development will be carried out in two phases," added Nozari.

"The first phase to produce 85,000 barrels per day will be carried out in four years and the second phase to produce another 100,000 bpd will be carried out in another 36 months."

"So in total, the field will produce 185,000 barrels a day."

The National Iranian Oil Company's (NIOC) director for exploration Mahmoud Mohades had earlier put the Yadavaran field's reserves at 18.3 billion barrels, estimating recoverable oil at 3.2 billion barrels.

The 2004 initial agreement also envisaged China's purchase of an annual 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for 25 years, beginning in 2009.

But Zhou indicated that this was not in the final contract and would be discussed at a later date.

"China is willing to buy LNG from Iran and we hope to talk about the LNG project later."

Sinopec is the sole main partner and investor in the field, although it will be employing sub-contractors, more than half of whom must be Iranian.

( willl KBR, Halliburton be sub-contractors? nuke or no nukes, I'm they'd love to be in there. )

Iran and China have significant economic ties and Beijing is the second largest importer of Iranian goods after Japan.

( oops, wasn't Japan an ally of USA at one time? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

China is a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council and has until now been reluctant to support fully a US-led drive to impose a third set of UN sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071209/bs_wl_afp/iranchinaoil_071209215502;_ylt=AmPjCIqZIbSGeBh92QC KRwOmOrgF

===========

I'm sure with his astonishing geo-petro-political brilliance, dubya will make a game-changing chess move in response. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Like bomb the fuck out of somebody http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[xrayzebra]

So boutons, you are all for some nut case to control the flow of
oil to all the world? Is that correct. Since you sorry butt
depends on that "nasty oil" for your very existence.

Well pardon me if I like the free flow of oil without some nut
case controlling the the flow.

[clambake]

get real ray. the US and China have already made it clear that nothing will stand in their way of acquiring the oil they need. so, relax. you'll get the destruction you're looking for soon enough.

[xrayzebra]

get real ray. the US and China have already made it clear that nothing will stand in their way of acquiring the oil they need. so, relax. you'll get the destruction you're looking for soon enough.

I seek no destruction, don't assume something that isn't
true.

I just want to protect the well being of our country,
including yours, and oil is what makes our world go, like
it or not. And it will be for the foreseeable future and
more than likely your and your children's lifetime.

[Extra Stout]

So boutons, you are all for some nut case to control the flow of
oil to all the world? Is that correct. Since you sorry butt
depends on that "nasty oil" for your very existence.

Well pardon me if I like the free flow of oil without some nut
case controlling the the flow.
Well, it only took you four years to arrive at that sensible conclusion. Iraq makes a lot more sense now, doesn't it?

[Extra Stout]

I don't say why boutons has his panties in a bunch about Gates' comments regarding Iran. Of course Iran is a threat to the region. Of course they are fomenting instability. Of course they could restart their nuclear program at any time. Only an idiot or an enemy of the United States would deny that.

But what does Gates recommend as a response? A pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran? No. Immediate invasion of Iran? No. Invasion of Iran in April 2008? No. Increased U.S, troop levels in the Middle East? No. Strengthening of bilateral military agreements between the U.S. and other Middle East countries? No.

Strengthening of multilateral agreements among the Gulf nations themselves? YES.

What exactly is the problem here?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

if iran has all that oil why in God's name do they want an "alternate" energy source of nuclear power. it seems like a waste of money when you already have a NATURAL resource. "we don't plan on making nuclear weapons" my mexican ass.

[boutons_]

"Of course Iran is a threat to the region."

Iran knows that any military aggression, even non-nuclear, by Iran beyond its borders, and a lot less aggressive than next-door example of Saddam-invading-Kuwait, will provoke at least equal but probably much greater military retaliation to undo the aggression and probably to punish Iran severely, taking out all the known nuclear sites and all the govt/military structures.

Iran's government is not a crazy one-man-show like Saddam was and it knows that it sits on a powder keg of discontent by heavily bought-off Iranian youth and middle class, who would probably revolt and "regime change" the mullahs in the aftermath of a retaliation. As with Communism everywhere, the mullahs used theocracy as a pretext to grab power and then install a police state to maintain power.

rummy/dickhead already convinced the Shah to go nuclear 30 years ago, with the reason being Iran's oil would run out.

btw, certain countries like MX are already considering or restricting oil exports (eg, to USA) in order to retain the oil for their domestic consumption of their expanding economies. Has already happened in smaller exporters like Indonesia.

Espuelas, Iran is looking past their current supply of oil for alternatives, just like every country in the world is doing.

[Extra Stout]

"Of course Iran is a threat to the region."

Iran knows that any military aggression, even non-nuclear, by Iran beyond its borders, and a lot less aggressive than next-door example of Saddam-invading-Kuwait, will provoke at least equal but probably much greater military retaliation to undo the aggression and probably to punish Iran severely, taking out all the known nuclear sites and all the govt/military structures.

Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents, especially one as wily as Iran.

Plain and simple, they want to be the regional power in the Middle East.

[xrayzebra]

Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents, especially one as wily as Iran.

Plain and simple, they want to be the regional power in the Middle East.

Yep. That is exactly what they want.

[boutons_]

"Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents"

The wildly hyped "proof" of Saddam/WTC, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WMD was all total bullshit, the "no occupation" lie, etec, etc so dubya's Exec has NO credibility now. Not my fault! :lol

"they want to be the regional power in the Middle East."

proof? (and don't quote their bullshit president, who doesn't run the country nor make geo-strategic decisions or start wars)

It's the USA invading and occupying the M/E to be the totally foreign, alien regional power causes severe and totally understandable paranoia and defensiveness in Iran and elsewhere. How would you if you were a MX or VZ if the Chinese invaded TX or AL to grab the oil? Would you think MX or VZ might be only China's shopping list?

The US has the attitude that the USA can do whatever the fuck it wants and wherever, and nobody better fucking react, esp if you have non-white skin.

[xrayzebra]

"Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents"

The wildly hyped "proof" of Saddam/WTC, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WMD was all total bullshit, the "no occupation" lie, etec, etc so dubya's Exec has NO credibility now. Not my fault! :lol

"they want to be the regional power in the Middle East."

proof? (and don't quote their bullshit president, who doesn't run the country nor make geo-strategic decisions or start wars)

It's the USA invading and occupying the M/E to be the totally foreign, alien regional power causes severe and totally understandable paranoia and defensiveness in Iran and elsewhere. How would you if you were a MX or VZ if the Chinese invaded TX or AL to grab the oil? Would you think MX or VZ might be only China's shopping list?

The US has the attitude that the USA can do whatever the fuck it wants and wherever, and nobody better fucking react, esp if you have non-white skin.


The want to be a regional power in the ME. But don't
quote their President. Prove they don't.

[JoeChalupa]

Doesn't the US get the majority of our oil from Canada and other countries other than the middle east?

[01Snake]

Doesn't the US get the majority of our oil from Canada and other countries other than the middle east?

THESE are the top ten countries that the U.S. imports from:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil

(quick google search...don't hold me to it :D)

[BradLohaus]

^Here are some new oil import numbers.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Are we talking about fighting a war to stop Iran from becoming the regional power in the ME? Isn't the US the current regional power in the ME?

Fighting a war on the other side of the world to prevent a nation in a resource-rich region from threatening our power over the region - well that's an empire for sure.

[xrayzebra]

^Here are some new oil import numbers.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Are we talking about fighting a war to stop Iran from becoming the regional power in the ME? Isn't the US the current regional power in the ME?

Fighting a war on the other side of the world to prevent a nation in a resource-rich region from threatening our power over the region - well that's an empire for sure.


Actually, I am not sure we are the "lone" regional power.
I think you would have to look closely at China and
Russia with some European nations closely following.

And about oil for us alone, I don't think that was our
concern. It was about the free flow of oil to all who
needed or wanted it. Seems like the figure of about
10 or 15 percent of our oil comes from that region.
But I could be wrong.

[Extra Stout]

"Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents"

The wildly hyped "proof" of Saddam/WTC, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WMD was all total bullshit, the "no occupation" lie, etec, etc so dubya's Exec has NO credibility now. Not my fault! :lol

"they want to be the regional power in the Middle East."

proof? (and don't quote their bullshit president, who doesn't run the country nor make geo-strategic decisions or start wars)

It's the USA invading and occupying the M/E to be the totally foreign, alien regional power causes severe and totally understandable paranoia and defensiveness in Iran and elsewhere. How would you if you were a MX or VZ if the Chinese invaded TX or AL to grab the oil? Would you think MX or VZ might be only China's shopping list?

The US has the attitude that the USA can do whatever the fuck it wants and wherever, and nobody better fucking react, esp if you have non-white skin.
If you actually opened your mind and read a foreign policy journal, or a periodical like the Atlantic, you might obtain a less puerile and dualistic understanding of these issues. Interpreting every event through the lens of the United States' being the root of all evil is no more intelligent or mature than interpreting every event through the lens of perfect U.S. altruism.

Iran's goal of regional hegemony is pragmatic, ideological, and self-serving at the same time. From a pragmatic standpoint, Iran seeks both to eliminate the meddling influence of Western powers, and to protect itself against aggression from competing Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. From an ideological standpoint, Iran views itself as the vanguard of the Islamic Revolution, and believes that it should hold sway in the affairs of Muslim nations. Persian nationalism comes into play here, as does Iran's Shi'a faith. From a self-serving standpoint, Iran is well aware of the strategic importance of the Middle East due to its material wealth (i.e., oil), and would like to exert greater economic influence over its neighbors in order to exploit that wealth, for the personal enrichment of its leaders.

Iran's means to achieve that end include its proxies such as Hezbollah, its highly-skilled intelligence service, its rhetoric against Israel, its management of its oil resources, and its nuclear program. The purpose of Iranian proxies and its intelligence service is to promote instability in its Middle Eastern rival nations in order to weaken them. The purpose of its anti-Israel campaign is to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim "street" in contrast to the perennial impotence of the Arab leaders. Part of Iran's oil strategy is to hoard as much of the revenue as the population will put up with in cash reserves and/or gold in order to further its plan of a Dar-al-Islam-wide dinar reserve currency to supplant the dollar and even the euro.

That brings us to their nuclear program, which serves these ends on several fronts. The nuclear program has wide support among Iranians. They view successful Iranian implementation of nuclear technology as a reinforcement of their national honor. If the mullahs were overthrown tomorrow, and Iran were to become a Jeffersonian democracy, it still would seek nuclear power. The use of nuclear power frees up additional oil for export, which serves Iran's oil strategy. It also would demonstrate to the Muslim street the advancement of Iran relative to the Arabs.

The weapons program serves further aims. It would place them on equal footing with Israel. It would provide deterrence against both Arab and Western interference in Iranian affairs. It would provide Iran leverage in regional affairs against the Arabs. It would allow their proxies, terrorist groups, and spies greater latitude to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors without fear of retaliation.

Iran's nuclear ambitions pose threats as follows: 1)They are a potential existential threat to Israel. 2) They increase the possibility of terrorists' obtaining a nuclear weapon. 3) They likely will compel Saudi Arabia and Egypt to pursue nuclear weapons as well, further decreasing stability in the Middle East. These concerns are common to all Western nations, not just the United States, which is why there is multilateral and not unilateral pressure on Iran.

I look forward to your pithy reply consisting primarily of obscenities.

[Extra Stout]

Doesn't the US get the majority of our oil from Canada and other countries other than the middle east?
Oil is a fungible commodity.

Besides, Europe gets much of its oil from the Middle East, and resource security in the EU serves America's economic interest.

National interest aside, somebody is going to buy that oil, and American oil companies would like a cut of those proceeds, so they will pay good money to get candidates sympathetic to their interests elected.

[BradLohaus]

Actually, I am not sure we are the "lone" regional power.
I think you would have to look closely at China and
Russia with some European nations closely following.

That’s true, but out of the US, Russia and China we are the biggest and the only one that isn’t actually in or close to the region geographically - which requires big military bases and support for allied regional dictators, which upsets the people living in those countries, which stokes the fires of terrorism, causing terror attacks to which the response is more war, requiring more military bases, and… I think I see why none of us will live to see the end of the war on terror.


And about oil for us alone, I don't think that was our
concern. It was about the free flow of oil to all who
needed or wanted it.

Well that sure is nice of the Pentagon. If that’s the case then we should stop doing that until other countries start pulling their weight – our costs are too high and they are benefiting unfairly off of us. But I don’t understand what the “free flow of oil” stuff means. If we don’t support the Saudi dictators and fight wars to take out other dictators, then the flow of oil out of that region will slow down or stop? I don’t follow that. It’s about control over that free flow, not the existence of it.


Seems like the figure of about
10 or 15 percent of our oil comes from that region.
But I could be wrong.

We imported about 10, 260 barrels of oil in Sept. ’07.
Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined imported about 2,000 barrels.

So those 2 countries alone account for 20% of our oil imports, which is a little more than what Canada represents.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Strengthening of multilateral agreements among the Gulf nations themselves? YES.

What exactly is the problem here?

I think the problem is that given the track record of the administration, multilateral agreements among gulf nations can essentially mean us squeaking out more sanctions with moderate euro support + absence of a DISagreement from our gulf allies.

If they truly are gunning for genuine multilateral agreements regarding a peaceful Iranian nuclear program, then its high time the administration and its lackies open their eyes and begin actively engaging the bigger players who essentially want what we want, mainly China. But I don't see the bullheadedness factor allowing us to do that. We're alienating major players at the worst possible time, when we should be working with them.

[boutons_]

As I said, Iran isn't crazy. It won't attack our of fear of retaliation.

Proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah? A bunch of raghead terrorists with conventional arms are going to de-stablize non-Israel m/e countries?

Just how does Iran provide to terrorists the entire logistics of nukes AND their delivery systems, which NIE rumor says they won't have for several years?


Terrorists are crazy suicidal motherfuckters, but what terrorists know how to run a missile system capable of delivering a nuke with any accuracy? Put it in a plane and fly over the target? As if Israel and US didn't have radar systems covering all the M/E airspace nor the jets to bring down a suspicious nuke-carrying plane.

[xrayzebra]

Terrorists are crazy suicidal motherfuckters, but what terrorists know how to run a missile system capable of delivering a nuke with any accuracy? Put it in a plane and fly over the target? As if Israel and US didn't have radar systems covering all the M/E airspace nor the jets to bring down a suspicious nuke-carrying plane.

You mean like they don't make and fire missles now?
boutons, you live in a dream world. And people like
you really, really do make me really nervous. Why?
Because you cant see any further than your nose.
These suicidal ------------ terrorists as you refer to them
are not uneducated, stupid people. Hello, OBL, is
an Engineer.

[JoeChalupa]

You mean like they don't make and fire missles now?
boutons, you live in a dream world. And people like
you really, really do make me really nervous. Why?
Because you cant see any further than your nose.
These suicidal ------------ terrorists as you refer to them
are not uneducated, stupid people. Hello, OBL, is
an Engineer.

I concur. They are intelligent but choose to use if for evil rather than good.

[boutons_]

So you people have bought into the Repug/neo-cunt politics of fear, all fear all the time.

So what action do you take against Iran, specifically?

And what do you do specifically with the Iranian/terrorist reaction?

And after that act/react situation, is the situation really any better?

Iraq and M/E stability are WORSE now than Feb 03.

NK supposedly had nukes, and could have, did?, sold them to terrorists, but dubya didn't invade or bomb NK. Why not? No oil? dubya was afraid on NK's nuke retaliation against SK?

How do you stop Iran from getting nukes, if it's so fucking easy to transform domestic nukes into weapons AND their delivery systems?

And if Iran already has nukes, how do you stop them from using them or giving them away?

Kahn/PK gave away nuke secrets to several countries, and wasn't punished by PK. Why hasn't OBL obtained these nukes and bombed American bases somewhere?

Why haven't terrorists nuked Tel Aviv? Forget about nukes, why haven't terrorists sent non-nuke warhead missles into Israel or into even one of 800 US bases around the world?

We already know how badly Iraq turned out because dubya/dickhead/rummy totally failed/refused to foresee anything going wrong after May 03.

So let's hear the geo-political geniuses here tell us about the above questions.

[Extra Stout]

As I said, Iran isn't crazy. It won't attack our of fear of retaliation.

Proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah? A bunch of raghead terrorists with conventional arms are going to de-stablize non-Israel m/e countries?

Just how does Iran provide to terrorists the entire logistics of nukes AND their delivery systems, which NIE rumor says they won't have for several years?


Terrorists are crazy suicidal motherfuckters, but what terrorists know how to run a missile system capable of delivering a nuke with any accuracy? Put it in a plane and fly over the target? As if Israel and US didn't have radar systems covering all the M/E airspace nor the jets to bring down a suspicious nuke-carrying plane.
Hezbollah has done a marvelous job of destabilizing Lebanon. You may remember they actually started a war with Israel recently which resulted in significant destruction of Lebanese infrastructure.

Hezbollah at that time had the capability to launch missiles into Israel, and did so with impunity.

You vastly underestimate the capabilities of these organized terror groups. Hezbollah and Hamas can operate at the level of a functioning government, and do. Hezbollah for years was the de-facto government in southern Lebanon. Hamas is the majority party in Palestine.

Iran's intelligence service is highly sophisticated, to the point that it infiltrated the White House in order to exaggerate the Niger yellowcake case against Saddam Hussein. At least one of the most outwardly anti-Iran advisors to the Bush Administration was possibly an Iranian mole. Iranian spies are all over the halls of power in the Middle East. They are not just a bunch of backwards camel jockeys. They are poor, but clever.

There are numerous delivery methods for nuclear weapons, especially ones with small yields, besides firing warheads from Tehran. The borders of Middle Eastern nations are often wild and porous. Iran was able to smuggle enough equipment into Syria that they actually could construct a facility Israel saw fit to target.

The latest NIE suggests that the application of pressure to Tehran has been effective to cause them to discontinue nuclear weapons development for the time being. The rational course of action would then be to continue to apply pressure to ensure they don't restart it. The rational course of action would then to operate as if the Ayatollah Khameini is going to be the same person with the same goals he has been and has had since 1989.

One foolish course of action would be pre-emptively to attack Iran because they might have the intention to proceed with their weapons program at some indeterminate point in the future. A even more foolish course of action, so foolish as to make the one proposing it a truly simian kind of idiot, would be to assume that Tehran actually has benign intentions, contrary to all evidence, and therefore to withdraw the multilateral pressure and attention placed upon them.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't buy into the politics of fear and there is no doubt in my mind that Cheney like to use it as often as possible. But the fact remains that Iran CAN and in my opinion, will at some time seek nuclear weapons. I feel that we do need to establish diplomatic relations and the Bush way of not talking to them is NOT the way to go. Communication is better than extermination.

[boutons_]

Lebanon has been a destabilized basket case for 25 years. A very weak, fatally divided govt and population, barely even a functioning country, giving Iranian proxies their opening. Lebanon was already weak, unstable without Iran/Syria making it worse. Bad example.

So, which other M/E country have Iranian proxies are able to, de-stabilize?

btw, Iraq was stable. dubya terrorized Iraq into instability. a heckuva job

The neo-cunts, specifically Hadley, absolutely refuse to talk to Iran, and have re-buffed initiatives from Iran via Germany to open talks.

[Extra Stout]

So you people have bought into the Repug/neo-cunt politics of fear, all fear all the time.
There always have been threats to the security of the United States, and there will continue to be threats. It is the job of our military, intelligence, and diplomatic services to manage those threats. That is not the "politics of fear." It is the reality of a dangerous world.

The alternative to Bush/Cheney's pre-emptive wars of aggression for economic gain is not a worldwide group hug. It is not as though the United States could elect some kindhearted pacifist who promises not to meddle in other countries' affairs, and have the nations of the world respond by living in peace with one another forever more. There will always be bad actors out there. Hopefully in the future we won't have such a large concentration of them in our own executive branch.


So what action do you take against Iran, specifically?
You maintain multilateral pressure upon them. You empower international agencies like the IAEA to inspect their facilities. You do all the things that would have been done in Iraq had the goal actually been the prevention of WMD production rather than "energy resource security."


And what do you do specifically with the Iranian/terrorist reaction?

And after that act/react situation, is the situation really any better?
Since the correct course of action right now is not war, there should be no reason to expect a terrorist reaction. Iran is not stupid. They are insidious and clever, and also very patient.


Iraq and M/E stability are WORSE now than Feb 03.
That's a big reason why Dick Cheney is not getting his way on Iran.


NK supposedly had nukes, and could have, did?, sold them to terrorists, but dubya didn't invade or bomb NK. Why not? No oil? dubya was afraid on NK's nuke retaliation against SK?
The solution to the NK crisis was getting several nations in East Asia to deal with North Korea, as opposed to the United States by itself. What ultimately got NK to start behaving was pressure from China.


How do you stop Iran from getting nukes, if it's so fucking easy to transform domestic nukes into weapons AND their delivery systems?It's not easy. It would take many years for them to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Therefore, you stop them by not imagining that they are really nice, peaceful, trustworthy people who can be ignored for several years.


And if Iran already has nukes, how do you stop them from using them or giving them away?It's much easier not to let them get the nukes in the first place.


Kahn/PK gave away nuke secrets to several countries, and wasn't punished by PK. Why hasn't OBL obtained these nukes and bombed American bases somewhere?
It's not very easy to build a functioning nuclear reactor out of rocks in a cave.


Why haven't terrorists nuked Tel Aviv? Forget about nukes, why haven't terrorists sent non-nuke warhead missles into Israel or into even one of 800 US bases around the world?
Well, Hezbollah launched several hundred missiles into Israel in their recent war.

And, obviously, Tel Aviv has not been nuked because the people who would like to nuke Tel Aviv don't have nuclear weapons. However, it would be a particularly stupid fallacy to claim that because Tel Aviv has not disappeared in a mushroom cloud, there therefore must not be anybody who wishes to make that happen. Obviously there are.




We already know how badly Iraq turned out because dubya/dickhead/rummy totally failed/refused to foresee anything going wrong after May 03.
Rumsfeld lost his job, and Cheney is left trying to find ways to execute an end-run around the President, because he can't get his way. Daddy sent the pragmatists to take power away from the neo-cons.


So let's hear the geo-political geniuses here tell us about the above questions.
All answered.

[Extra Stout]

Lebanon has been a destabilized basket case for 25 years. A very weak, fatally divided govt and population, barely even a functioning country, giving Iranian proxies their opening. Lebanon was already weak, unstable without Iran/Syria making it worse. Bad example.

So, which other M/E country have Iranian proxies are able to, de-stabilize?

btw, Iraq was stable. dubya terrorized Iraq into instability. a heckuva job

The neo-cunts, specifically Hadley, absolutely refuse to talk to Iran, and have re-buffed initiatives from Iran via Germany to open talks.
Syria was involved in the Lebanese Civil War from the beginning. Under the Ottomans, Lebanon was part of "Greater Syria," and obviously the Muslims do not accept Lebanon's "confessional democracy." The Christians are supposed to be dhimmis who pay the jizya.

And obviously, continuing Iranian/Syrian involvement in Lebanon is preventing that country from stabilizing.

Iraq likewise is easy pickings for Iran because of our own actions.

Obviously, Iran's biggest remaining rival for power in the region is Saudi Arabia. The Iranians know it. The Saudis know it. One is Arab, the other Persian. One is Sunni, the other Shi'a. As one rises in power, it impinges upon the other. The two have done a dance around one another since 1979. Under Khomeini, the two were belligerent. Under Khameini, they established a detente. Since Ahmadinejad became President, they've become belligerent again. Rafsanjani has being making overtures to Riyadh to reestablish detente.

Obviously, long-term Iran would like to see the House of Saud weakened. There are numerous groups in Saudi Arabia seeking to overthrow its rulers. If they succeeded, they would end up fighting one another, and Iran would emerge out of the mess as the hegemon. So Iran has a history of helping out insurgent groups in Saudi Arabia. There was a well-publicized case in 2003.

Direct bilateral talks between the U.S. and Iran are not the best way to go. Rogue nations benefit from getting an "us-vs.-America" forum. Really, the key nation to getting Iran to behave is Russia.

[xrayzebra]

Stabilization. Which period do you want to take. The whole
region has been nothing but un-stablized since time began.
War, war and more war. But who in the world wants to look
at history.

Dan please take note.

[Extra Stout]

Stabilization. Which period do you want to take. The whole
region has been nothing but un-stablized since time began.
War, war and more war.* But who in the world wants to look
at history.

Dan please take note.
*Pax Romana and Pax Ottomana excepted.

[boutons_]

"un-stablized since time began"

so why TF is dubya there, if stability, which is a prerequisite of democracy, in Iraq?

exclusively for the oil

[balli]

Stabilization. Which period do you want to take. The whole
region has been nothing but un-stablized since time began.
War, war and more war. But who in the world wants to look
at history.



So what in the fuck makes you so arrogantly confident that it's America's fucking job to stabilize it? Especially by bringing even more war to the region as the means to your ultimate obtrusive end? Especially in Iran, whose populous has been one the most stable and un-dangerous groups of the entire region.

If you wanted to argue for increased stability in the Israeli/Palestine conflict (which everything is really about anyway) through peaceful diplomacy I could see your point, but to say we should bring war to Iran, to stabilize the entire region, is lunacy! How'd that work out in Iraq motherfucker (but who wants to look at history)? What an uneducated, vanilla argument you propogate.

[boutons_]

Some Republicans Question Iran Finding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071212/iran-intelligence)

December 12, 2007 09:54 PM EST | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png

WASHINGTON — Some Republicans in Congress are second-guessing a government intelligence report that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons program. They want a second opinion.

( like when dickhead didn't like the Iraq/WMD/AQ intel prior to his Iraq fiasco? so he cherry picked the intel and hyped/lied the hell out of it? )

The National Intelligence Estimate, released last week, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen through at least the middle of this year. That reversed a key finding from a 2005 intelligence report, which said Iran was intently developing a nuclear bomb. An unclassified summary of the new report was released specifically to correct that impression.

The new report was received skeptically by some Republicans on Capitol Hill who believe Iran's nuclear program remains an immediate threat, and think the 2005 report is closer to the truth.

Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada plans to introduce legislation to create a bipartisan commission to produce an alternative report on the same intelligence.

( sorta like the truthiness of the emasculated 9/11 Commission? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

"We just see politics injected into this," said Tory Mazzola, Ensign's spokesman. "When it comes to national security we really need to remove politics. We're saying, let's take a second look."

( do you mean like the Iraq invasion and Mission Accomplished scheduled in the middle of a pres election year? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

do you mean the Repug policy of "all fear, all the time" to obtain tax cuts for the rich? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

The proposed commission is based on similar review panels convened in the mid-1970s to reconsider the intelligence agencies' analysis of the Soviet Union, and an effort in the mid-1990s to reassess the threat of ballistic missiles to the United States.

Last week, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said at a committee hearing he does not trust the new findings.

( but the Repugs trusted all the lies the WH spewed before invading Iraq? )

"I'm not sure we have a good, clear signal of what's really happening inside Iran," he said. "We've got a very big batch of mixed signals."

( you mean sorta like before the Iraq invasion? when mixed signals were cherry picked to grab the oil? )

Twice in the last week, senior U.S. intelligence officials have been forced to defend what they consider the most rigorously reviewed National Intelligence Estimate they have produced.

Principal Deputy Director of Intelligence Donald Kerr issued a statement responding to "those questioning the analytic work and integrity" of the intelligence agencies. "We feel confident in our analytic tradecraft and resulting analysis in this estimate," he said.

And on Wednesday, a senior intelligence official told reporters that intelligence analysts are aware of the political tumult surrounding the report but don't worry about the political repercussions of their judgments. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was expanding on the official rebuttal.

Analysts focus on making certain their reports are sound, logical and based on reliable information, he said.

He contrasted the Iran National Intelligence Estimate with the flawed 2002 assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. That report was produced at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee in just a month.

( whoa! you mean dickhead was able to get a bullshit NIE in one month so he could start his neo-cunt oil grab war while bein able to call dubya a "war president" during an extremely close pres campaign? )

The Iran report was delayed by the intelligence agencies by more than a year and a half in order to review new intelligence and to take extra care to verify sources and consider alternative explanations for what analysts were seeing, he said.

National Intelligence Estimates are the consensus judgments of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies on key concerns. Between 15 and 20 are produced every year, and they go through multiple steps to check the validity of information and analysis.

In late 2002, then-CIA director George Tenet added another safety measure after the faulty Iraq report, which turned out to rely heavily on a single, questionable source. Tenet required those who collect intelligence to sit at the table with those who analyze it to explain who their sources were, the confidence they have in them, and whether their information can be corroborated.

( and as a result of his "safety measure", Tenet came out with his "slam dunk" on Iraq WMD! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Give that boot-licking man .... a Medal of Freedom! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

"There is so much more synergy now between the collection agencies and the analytic side," the senior official said. "Everyone around the table is working with the same amount of information."

The estimates are also reviewed by outside experts who are given a one-day security clearance. Some are chosen specifically because they are known to have divergent views on what the key judgments say.

"We want to understand if we are victims of group-think in this analysis," he said.

( how about being victimes of bullying by dickhead and of second-guessing by Rummy/Feith and their own Pentagon intel team? )

========

Face the facts, CIA/NSA/FBI, you've fucked up totally on missing the fall of Soviet Union, both WTC attacks, WMD in Iraq, and you caved into dickhead and the neo-cunt before the Iraq war. That you caved in and then got blamed anyway for "bad intel" is proved by your refusal to cave in now.

Do you expect anybody to believe you incomptent jerk-offs now, one way or the other? Of course, dickhead and the neo-cunts dont' GAF anyway about intel, good or bad, because their ideological agenda is to grab the oil in any case.

[boutons_]

and dubya counter-attacks the counter-attackers!

White House Rejects Right-Wing NIE Witch-Hunt: The Intelligence ‘Should Be Supported’

Since the Iran NIE was released, conservatives have desperately tried to discredit it. Former Vice President Cheney aide David Wurmser questioned “how much it can really be banked on.” John Bolton called for congressional investigations into the “politicized” intelligence community.

Some conservatives in Congress are following these calls, proposing a “second look” into the NIE in the form of a commission “based on similar review panels convened in the mid-1970s to reconsider the intelligence agencies’ analysis of the Soviet Union.” “We just see politics injected into this,” claimed Sen. John Ensign’s (R-NV) office.

Today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino rejected the partisan witch-hunt into the intelligence community. “They assessed all of the intelligence,” she declared. “I think that they should be supported”:

PERINO: The bottom line for the president on the NIE was that the 16 intelligence communities — community — came together. They assessed all of the intelligence. … And I just don’t know if there’s need to have a second look at it. […]

QUESTION: So is it safe, then, to draw from that that the president is fully confident in the information contained in the NIE?

PERINO: The NIE — the president accepted the results of the NIE.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/13/perino-nie-support/

===============

The above isn't surprsing. The intel, terror, etc is/was never primary concerns of WH/neo-cunts. Oil was/is their real, primary concern.

[Extra Stout]

Wow -- it seems there is a real Bush vs. Cheney power struggle over Iran.

How far will Cheney go? Will he try to infiltrate the Secret Service to go Praetorian Guard on Bush?

[Nbadan]

....."this is not an escalation"....


Ft36GQMmvXs

[JoeChalupa]

The surge should have happened years ago.

[boutons_]

The surge is bullshit. It keeps the lid on the boil, not reduce the boil. And the surge has absolutley failed, since there is no political reconciliation between Shia and Sunni.

After the all-is-cool-in-Basra PR blitz by the UK military as they withdrew, we now here that Barsa and the south, after 4 1/2 years of UK occupation, is a mess.

The US military is putting even more troops into Bagdad, while throwing money, aka Petraeus' counter-insurgency, at provincial/tribal leaders, who go along for now, because the money buys more supporters and arms for the inevitable Sunni-Shia bloodbath, as they try to grab oil just like dubya and dickhead try to grab the oil.

The US military is also asking for a withdrawal of Iraq troops back to Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurgent, the govt is weak and corrupt (like in Iran), and poppy crop is exploding.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya,

all your fuck jobs are well under control

duyba and dickhead will leave office with the world truly much worse off due to their own fuckups.

[xrayzebra]

duyba and dickhead will leave office with the world truly much worse off due to their own fuckups.


You left out: OBL you are the worlds savior and thank you
for bombing the WTC. We deserved it because we
elected George Bush.

[Wild Cobra]

The surge is bullshit. It keeps the lid on the boil, not reduce the boil. And the surge has absolutley failed, since there is no political reconciliation between Shia and Sunni.

After the all-is-cool-in-Basra PR blitz by the UK military as they withdrew, we now here that Barsa and the south, after 4 1/2 years of UK occupation, is a mess.

Say what you will. With the UK withdrawl, 50% of Iraq is now under contol of Iraqi's!

I know... Good news doesn't make it to the liberal media.

[boutons_]

WC, go turn on your formidable reserach machine and get back to us on how things really going in Basra and southern Iraq. And don't bother quoting self-serving UK military press releases.

Try the Iraqi chief of police's view on what the Brits have left him in Basra:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html

[Wild Cobra]

Try the Iraqi chief of police's view on what the Brits have left him in Basra:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html
I've learned long ago The Guardian seldom portrays the truth properly. I'm not even wasting my time reading it tonight.

[Bunz]

I never had dinner with the president