A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

It does make sense that the invasion of Iraq might have scared them enough that they’d have taken time to re-shuffle their deck, as it were. If it were enough to make them stop altogether, however, it seems to me it would have been most in their interest to be completely open with international nuclear watchdogs about it, which they clearly haven’t been. So they either have something to hide, or at least want the world to believe they have something to hide.

I suppose that disposition would make sense if they’re pulling a Saddam-like bluff, wanting the world to believe they’re a nuclear/WMD threat without exerting the effort of actually having the weapons. But, again, I would think that 2003 should have taught them that such bluffs can be called. So they’re either miscalculating extremely badly, or they are in fact pursuing the weapons.

Because somebody had to do it:…

The emphasis being that threats will be addressed before capability has been established. The Bush Doctrine is still in effect.

To clarify my previous comment, The Bush Doctrine(pre-emption) is still in effect; as quoted by Pentagon officials. This NIE report hasn’t changed that executive policy, which I happen to agree with.

I truly fear for our children and our children’s children

It’s like watching a Seahawks game where, in the closing minutes, they’re ahead, but forget all about ball-control, and do everything in their power to blow it…You can see the inevitable outcome before it happens.

I don’t know if it’s any of those things, but something is definitely fishy, and I can’t say I haven’t wondered a bit about what could really be behind the NIE.

No one is so stupid to believe that Iran would stop their development of nuclear weapons. No one. Not when Israel has them.

Pray that this recent NIE is a deliberate misdirection to confuse and confound our enemies. Pray that we will use this report as the basis for reasonable deniability of involvement when a remote Irian faciltiy blows up in mid 2008.

If it’s not and it’s based on nothing more than partisian politics, then, coupled with all the rest the dems have to done in dirrect support of those that would kill us, we are witnesses to the beginning of the end for this country.

I truly fear for our children and our children’s children

That always works.

Is there anyone out there in Iran’s orbit who believes, with high confidence, that they really have suspended their weapons program?

Whether or not Iran really suspended their weapons program is now immaterial. As long as the new NIE says that Iran doesn’t have a program, Iran is officially not a problem. We can’t even send them a strongly-worded letter as long as the official position of the U.S. is that Iran is not a threat.

The CIA has f***ed us good. In their excitement to embarass Bush and force his hand, they’ve put Iran in the driver’s seat. There’s nothing to stop Iran from doing whatever the bloody hell it wants now that the official position of the U.S. is that they have no weapons program. But hey, at least Bushitler can’t bomb Iran now, because that’s the most important thing…

Hitch is right, abolish the CIA.

They stress that the military focuses on ‘intentions, not capabilities’ when assessing threats, and that the final unclassified portion of the NIE warns that the intelligence community believes ‘with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.’”

The emphasis being that threats will be addressed before capability has been established. The Bush Doctrine is still in effect.

Joe Wilson free?

No…I think his wife works for the CIA.

It would have the “appearance” of nepotism…Not to mention, the possibility of her Sooper-Dooper “Spy” status being compromised.

I think, CIA should send an “Ambassador” to Iran,

Joe Wilson free?

RightWinged on December 11, 2007 at 9:43 AM

Rush’s particular references and choice of words made me think that in this case, he was echoing the stuff we’ve already seen here, in the “gambit” stories. Didn’t hear anything new.

That would settle the question, once and for all.

[ yes...those are sneer quotes ]

What’s behind the NIE report?

CORRUPT ANTI-AMERICAN DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE RESORTED TO LYING, MANIPULATING, TREASON… ANYTHING TO GET THEIR WAY. I’M SURPRISED YOU HADN’T NOTICED.

“Remember that the fanatic waving his age-old sword in the Khartoum street over a teddy bear shows the same dangerous derangement as the nut in Tehran who may one day want hid hand on the bomb.”

and we think they’ve changed their minds??

if we “make a serious change in position in the
region,”

Bent over?

I don’t know if it’s any of those things, but something is definitely fishy, and I can’t say I haven’t wondered a bit about what could really be behind the NIE.