Marshall your effort to continue to defend the dissembler-in-chief is exceedingly feeble, at best, though more likely a reflection of intellectual dishonesty on your part.  It is one thing to say that Bush did not believe Saddam when he said that Iraq had no WMD but that has no application here.  Mr. Habbush was indeed Saddam’s Chief of Intelligence, but the CIA had turned him.  He was funneling info to our intelligence agencies about a host of Iraqi secrets but when questioned by British intelligence, Habbush told them, truthfully, that Iraq had no WMD.

Suskind has lengthy tapes of his interviews with the CIA officers.  They said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq almost from the moment he was sworn in as President; that when George Tenet was informed of this, he said “they’re not going to like this downtown” (meaning the WH); that when Bush was told of Habbash’s revelation there were no WMD, he grew perturbed, stating, “Why don’t they give us something we can use to make our case?”

http://www.msmbc.msm.com/id/3036677#26045433

This account ties in with the massive evidence of deliberate deception documented by Vince Bugliosi in “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” which including the Manning memo which exposed a Jan. 2003 WH meeting where Bush, concerned that the inspectors would blow the WMD smokescreen, advocated flying US/UK aircraft over Baghdad painted in UN colors in the hopes that he could provoke the Iraqis in firing on them, providing an excuse for the invasion.  It ties in with Bush’s ordering the inspectors to leave at a time when they had been given full and unfettered access to all sites and Hans Blix had stated that full confirmation that Iraq had disarmed, yet Bush ordered the invasion and then had the temerity to claim he did so “reluctantly.”

Give it up Marshall.  You can’t polish a turd.

By the way Marshall, I noticed how you chose to ignore Ron Suskind’s revelation about how Cheney ordered the CIA to forge a document in an attempt to link Saddam to 9/11 and al Qaeda.  Any at Truthdig who want a more detailed account might want to check out Suskind’s appearance on the 8/5/08 Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Actually, Marshall, the purpose of the NPT is to persuade non-nuclear nations that it is unnecessary for them to acquire nuclear weapons, which purpose was undercut every time the Bush regime threatened to use nuclear arms to attack Iran—a fact first revealed by Seymour Hersh.  Indeed, one of the things other nations learned from the Iraq invasion is that the absence of WMD places a nation at risk of being invaded by the U.S.

Unlike the unholy trio, Bush, Cheney & McSame, Obama did “not” threaten to bomb Iran, though he did say “no options are off the table.”  But unlike the unholy trio, Obama has made it clear that his preference is to sit down with the Iranians, engage in multi-lateral talks to resolve concerns.  The unholy trio bombs first, and sits down to talk only after they have their adversaries chained, hooded and in a stress position in some dark dungeon.

As the links provided by Cyrena confirm, the U.S. violated the NPT when it assisted in the transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Israel; again when Bush offered such a transfer to India.  So, Marshall, if a violation provides justification for regime change, why are you not urging regime change in Washington?

Also, while we are on the subject of UN sanctions, the State of Israel has been in violation of U.N. Resolution 242 for nearly forty years.  Why have there been no sanctions against that nation?  Because the U.S. has as veto in the Security Council and will prevent any sanction against Israel irrespective of the human rights violations that nation commits.  But then the U.S., under the Bush regime, is one of history’s most abominable violator of human rights, and so long as the amoral neocons remain in power, while other nations may fear us, no one respects us or looks to us for moral guidance.

•  “Iran *IS* in violation of Safeguards protocol - it was ruled in violation by UN Security Council.”

Marshall, can you direct us to the citation for this? Must be somewhere in the paperwork. I’ve discovered that’s the only way to find the ‘blanks’ in the trajectory of the harassment. If in fact this is the case, (and I’m not questioning you, since they’ve obviously been able to sustain sanctions against Iran) can you direct us to the ‘proof’ that Iran is in fact in violation of the Safeguards protocol? I’m interested in how this was determined, since it’s equally provable that Iran has *not* disallowed safety inspections.

(Check Elbaradei on this)

As for this…

“…The whole purpose of NPT is to prevent non-nuclear nations from getting nukes.  It even uses the word “prevent”, which you seem to be allergic to; but that’s the whole point.  Whose toes are you worried about stepping on with your PC language?  Iran’s?”..

You’re wrong, since this is NOT the ‘whole purpose’ of the NPT, and maybe you should read the thing. Nor is it about ‘PC” language. Rather, it’s about the LANGUAGE of the Treaty. The whole purpose of ANY treaty, is to make the LANGUAGE very clear. It is the LANGUAGE that the signatories agree to when they sign on.

So the *equally* important part of the NPT requires those states that are already in possession of nuclear WEAPONRY to reduce and eliminate their arsenals, and also requires them to ASSIST those non-nuclear states in the ACQUISITION of technology that provides for peaceful civilian programs.

Here’s some of the legal language, which is the *only* thing appropriate in discussing any of this.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT]
Provisions
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear-weapon state. Nuclear weapon States Parties are also obligated, under Article VI, to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Non-nuclear-weapon States Parties undertake not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities under the jurisdiction of the state must be declared to the IAEA, whose inspectors have routine access to the facilities for periodic monitoring and inspections. If information from routine inspections is not sufficient to fulfill its responsibilities, the IAEA may consult with the state regarding special inspections within or outside declared facilities.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

Have another glance at the entire treaty, as published by the UN/IAEA

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties /npt.html

And while you’re at it, consider why you and your buddies are so obsessed with Iran’s program, and at the same time gungho anxious to provide INDIA with all the nuke stuff they could ever want or need.

Stepping on toes, or kissing them?

“the fact that Iran may have been in violation of the NEP provisions regarding…”

Iran *IS* in violation of Safeguards protocol - it was ruled in violation by UN Security Council.

“neither establishes that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons”

Our intelligence community has established this in its NIE.  Iran had an active nuke program till 2003 when it was put on hold, and intends to acquire them one way or another.  Read the NIE if you’re not clear on this.

”...or that we have to engage in an effort to “prevent” a non-existent Iranian effort to acquire a nuclear weapon.”

The whole purpose of NPT is to prevent non-nuclear nations from getting nukes.  It even uses the word “prevent”, which you seem to be allergic to;  but that’s the whole point.  Whose toes are you worried about stepping on with your PC language?  Iran’s?

“Iran has not funded a radical Marxist group of terrorists, like the MEK, to attack targets inside Israel or the U.S.”

It funds radical terrorist groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, to attack targets inside Israel, to hold Lebanon and Gaza hostage and to assassinate opposition.

“Why are you not concerned with the fact that (a) Israel violated the NPT…(c) U.S. does not allow IAEA inspectors into U.S. sites ...”

Israel is not a signature to NPT so it hasn’t violated anything.  And no one has ruled that the U.S. has violated NPT - that’s your opinion.  The first goal of NPT is to prevent non-nuclear states from obtaining nuclear weapons.  This is why the focus is on Iran.

”...Bush regime and McCain, threatening to bomb bomb bomb Iran”

And I’m sure you meant to mention Obama too, who has also threatened to bomb Iran.  All these people understand the negotiating importance of retaining a military option.

“the nation that responded to the Israeli invitation was Pakistan, which has already acquired the bomb”

Pakistan developed nukes back in the early 70s because of its neighbor India with whom it has disputed territory.

The bottom line is that we’d all prefer that no one have nukes - particularly not in the ideological hot-bed that is the ME - but that’s not the case.  So the real priority is on PREVENTING new countries from getting them.

Here’s the last for true believers to chew on.

“The White House ordered the CIA in 2003 to forge a letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein in an attempt to portray a false link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The fake letter was backdated July 1, 2001, and it stated that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was trained for his mission in Iraq. Those are the claims of the explosive new book, The Way of the World, by journalist Ron Suskind. He reports the Bush administration then used the forged letter to show there was an operational link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing the CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. On NBC’s The Today Show, Suskind said then-CIA Director George Tenet received orders directly from the White House to forge the letter.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/5/headlines

The Seyyeds are very “deceptive”.  They acts under the guise of Hamas and Hezbollah violently for the sake of the Mahdi.

The Iranians are not deceptive.  Our roots are non-violent.

Right, Patrick Henry, but I would add that Iran is not 1% as bellicose or deceptive as the Bush regime.  Iran has not funded a radical Marxist group of terrorists, like the MEK, to attack targets inside Israel or the U.S.

Marshall, the fact that Iran may have been in violation of the NEP provisions regarding openness of nuclear programs—part of what the IAEA is working to resolve, neither establishes that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or that we have to engage in an effort to “prevent” a non-existent Iranian effort to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Why are you not concerned with the fact that (a) Israel violated the NPT when it secretly developed its own nuclear arsenal; (2) that the U.S. is in violation of the NPT because (a) it continues to develop new generations of nuclear weapons, (b) threatens to make such weaponry “space-based,” (c) does not allow IAEA inspectors into U.S. sites to verify compliance with the IAEA, and (d) offered nuclear weapons to India.

As to bellicosity, none exceed the statements emanating from both the Bush regime and McCain, threatening to bomb bomb bomb Iran, similar statements made by Israel, the presence of a U.S. naval armada in the Straits of Hormuz, or the Israeli exercise designed to demonstrate its capability to strike targets in Iran.  The Iranian missile exercise and corresponding statements were defensive in nature.  Unlike Israel & the U.S., Iran did “not” threaten to launch a preemptive strike against either Israel or the U.S.  It merely pointed out that if the Israeli’s strike Iran, Iran has the capability of striking back—a statement that is well within the UN Charter while the threats from the Bush regime, McSame and Israel amount to violations of the UN Charter.

Quit equating the Bush regime with the United States.  The so-called “level of alarm” over Iran is a carbon copy of the pre-war “level of alarm” in the run up to the imperial conquest of Iraq—an effort to manufacture a crisis by fixing the intelligence around the policy of regime change—Only this time, the American people aren’t buying the neocon load of crap.

Finally, the nation that responded to the Israeli invitation was Pakistan, which has already acquired the bomb, a nation which was responsible for bringing the Taliban to power in Afghanistan and whose intelligence services are still linked to the Taliban—a nation the Bush regime continues to refer to as its “ally” in the so-called “war on terror.”

By Marshall, August 3 at 10:48 pm

Iran isn’t 1% as deceptive as Israel.

We have no legitimate business meddling in their affairs, neither does Israel.

By cann4ing, August 2 at 2:24 pm #

You are correct that the IAEA has not officially ruled Iran in violation of NPT, though the U.S. disagrees.  The problem with Iran is it’s history of outright deception, it’s clear attempts to skirt NPT as much as possible, and its apparent regional policy goals.

The IAEA did find that Iran violated its NPT Safeguards Agreement, which included conducting Uranium enrichment in secret and lying about for years.  The UN Security Council then passed a resolution ordering Iran to suspend its enrichment activity.  As we know, Iran ignored this and resumed enrichment as of 2006 and has rejected all offers from UN Nations, including its ally Russia, to allow it to continue its civilian nuclear program while assuring the world that it does not have a military nuclear program.

Couple this deceptive behavior with Iran’s modern history; its bellicose statements regarding the destruction of Israel, it’s periodic hostage taking, it’s support of attacks on Western troops in Iraq through training and arms provision, its support of terrorist groups which attack Israel on a daily basis, and the extremist ideology of its Mullah leaders… it’s not surprising that even you support the NPT whose overriding goal, visa-vi Iran, is to “prevent” it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

You speak of an arms race in the region, but make the mistake of putting Israel on one side, and all other ME countries including Iran on the other.  The real trigger for a regional arms race would come if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons.  Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, even Iraq would all consider a nuclear Iran to be a grave threat.

The Unites States’ level of alarm is even higher because the collective opinion of its intelligence community is that Iran had been, until 2003, attempting to develop nuclear weapons; which would be a definitive violation of NPT and reveal a far deeper level of deception and malevolence.  Furthermore, it’s program was not dismantled, but simply paused.  Iran has absolutely no interest in alternative forms of energy (as wonderful as they sound to its progressive sympathizers in the U.S.) because they would provide no cover for a nuclear weapons program that our intelligence believes it wants, whether it is active at this moment or not.

There may come a time when Iran’s nuclear weapons intentions become public.  I do wonder what those like you will say then, because we’ll be faced with few good options at that point, and you’ll be forced to decide whether preventing Iran from obtaining these weapons is really important to you or not.  In the meantime, the U.N. continues to attempt to convince Iran to halt enrichment so that a negotiated solution can be found.  But Iran knows that it needn’t comply, especially if the military option were taken off the table.

Regime change in Iran?  Well it’s not our official policy, but the current regime has a proven record of deception and expansionist policy goals.  So I for one would love to see a more moderate regime take power there, and believe the U.S. and its allies should do everything within their legal power to promote that.  There’s absolutely nothing undemocratic, illegal, or even unethical about supporting a change of government in another country - whether it’s a democracy or not.

“Israel, whose nuclear stockpile is an invitation to all other nations in the Middle East to respond in kind by developing their own.”

So do you believe Iran has responded to this “invitation”?  If not, then what other countries have?

Cyrena, as usual, I am in agreement with your post—except that I agree somewhat with Marshall that the Clinton administration’s policy with respect to Iraq was “regime change”—as it was of the Bush I administration after the end of Gulf War I.  Indeed, if you read Scott Ritter’s “Iraq Confidential” you will see that the tension between the CIA and UNSCOM throughout his tenure was that where UNSCOM’s goal was to verify that Iraq had disarmed.  The CIA was following the policy of regime change.

The fundamental difference between the Bush II administration and the two preceding administrations is that W was willing, indeed anxious, to take this nation to war.  Bush I & Clinton sought to accomplish regime change through the UN sanctions regime.  This in no way absolves either Bush I or Clinton for the sanctions regime was brutal.  During the thirteen years it was in place, it brought about the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five per the UN’s own statistics.  When confronted about this, Madeleine Albright, then the Secretary of State, said, “It was worth it.”

Marshall—I support what is embodied in the NPT—this not only would prevent nations like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but would require those that do possess them to drastically reduce their stockpiles.  I favor a drastic reduction of the nuclear arsenals in the US, UK, France, Russia and other relevant nations from the former U.S.S.R., and, most especially, Israel, whose nuclear stockpile is an invitation to all other nations in the Middle East to respond in kind by developing their own.

Frankly, there is no evidence that Iran is in violation of the NPT and has not enriched uranium beyond the level used in civilian nuclear power plants.  That said, I think Iran and every other nation that buys into civilian nuclear power plants is making a mistake of major proportions not only because of safety factors, but nuclear power is inordinately expensive and certainly poses a greater risk than other forms of alternative energy—wind, solar, geothermal & wave technologies.

I have a problem with the word “prevent” as used by you and your neocon heroes (1) because it is not necessary to “prevent” Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons unless it is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and all the relevant data reveals it is not doing so, and (2) like the bogus claims erecting fears of ominous mushroom clouds, because the “claim” of a need for such prevention is being utilized to shield a policy of regime change through yet another unilateral war of aggression.

Re: By cann4ing, August 1 at 7:48 pm
Part 1 of 2

•  “Cyrena, what would truly be the icing on the cake would be the complete records from the 2001 Cheney energy task force which we know produced maps of Iraq’s oil fields and untapped oil deposits.”
Indeed Ernest, this would be the icing on the cake. But as we also know, Cheney fought as long and hard to keep that secret as he did to keep torture on tap for the CIA.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5309.shtml

“After nine months of shilly-shallying, the Vice President and his operatives have failed to bluff the General Account Office. The issues are being ratcheted up a few quantum notches. On January 30, 2002, GAO informed Congress, the President, and the Vice President that it was going to court. GAO noted that this will be the first time it “has filed suit to enforce our access rights against a federal official” in its fourscore history.”

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020201.html

And…he won…. AS ALWAYS. Here we are, 6 ½ years later, and we’ll never see those records or the records that connect him to Enron and those crimes. Or, the countless others…, including 9/11. It is nothing short of totally amazing (at least for me) that a single person has been able to do this much damage, and still not be contained. Even Hitler didn’t get away with his crimes for this long. And by ‘single person’, I honestly do mean that. Granted he’s had a secret staff of assistant brains, specifically David Addington and others who remain TOTALLY secret. (at least we know Addington exists, and is the source of nearly everything written into the legalese that has turned the nation into a totalitarian dictatorship). But still…could only be directed and carried out by Dick Cheney.

•  “…Marshall deliberately ignores the fact that most members of Congress only saw a White Paper whose systematic deletions of dissents and caveats lead to but one conclusion—willful deception—we find that in the weeks leading to the invasion of Iraq, Bush shifted the goal posts.  At that point it was no longer enough that Iraq “disarm.” Saddam and his sons had to leave; a point that underscored the fact that the concern was never about a supposed “threat” but an unchanged goal of “regime change”—the same goal Bush/Cheney now have for Iran”

And…marshall is still dissembling, even on this. According to his latest post, it was really CLINTON that called for regime change. There was a time when this BS would make me gag. I’m used to it now.
The scariest part of it that I continue to run into, (at least in the classrooms and lecture halls) are the number of people who still believe so much of the same BS you’ve covered here, like…”Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in”. It’s mostly students, and not their fault, because the press has backed up all of these lies for all of these years.

Re By cann4ing, August 1 at 7:48 pm
Part 2 of 2

We know the Hans Blix and his inspectors had full access as early as October, 2002, if I remember correctly from some other IAEA documentation. I also don’t think it’s all that much of a secret that he (Hans Blix) was prepared to offer a full report on the NON-existence of ANY WMD, when Bush ordered the team out of Iraq for ‘their own protection’. What is less known, (and now I have to check the exact date), is that KBR was ALREADY standing by at the Kuwait/Iraq, with all of their fire-fighting equipment, in preparation for what Saddam was expected to do…set some or many of those oil fields on fire, knowing that he was being closed in on, regardless of what the team reported. But, he didn’t do it. And, I only mention that because I’ll never forget when I read, (and then verified) that seemingly unconnected piece of news on the same day that Bush ordered Hans Blix’s team out of Iraq.

Meantime, no matter how much Marshall or anybody else may throw up the straw arguments of how the Congress had access (that they didn’t) to the full information, the bottom line is that Dick Cheney et al were already in motion for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and there’s absolutely NO difference with Iran. ZERO difference, aside from the fact that they’ve run this identical scheme with Iraq first, so we’re all wise to it now. Iran was as much a part of the original plan as was Iraq.

Clearly it didn’t go off as quickly or efficiently as planned, first because Iraq balked at those oil profit sharing agreements that would have sealed their doomed fate for life. But, even that has finally succeeded, as best I can tell. I’ve not tried to examine any of the details of the theft by the Big Four of the Western Oil Industry that have finally forced their way back in, after the 30 year exile by Saddam. But, when I have time, I’ll check to see if Antonia has an update.

Meantime, I’m anxious to read Bugliosi’s book. I’ve only read a chapter or so that’s been available on line, waiting to see if I could manage a way to acquire one of those nifty Kindle’s that I’ve been ogling for several months. The price is slightly down, but not quite enough for my budget yet, and I’m having to limit the number of books (or anything else for that matter) that I pile up. The Kindle gadget would be the epitome of a dream for a soon to be homeless but still voracious reader. Kinda hard to lug a traditional library in a knapsack.

So, maybe I’ll splurge on a lottery ticket.

mrmb you state:

“Now the non muslims and part of the secular nationalist muslims can put forth a historical argument as you do, that before Islam arrived in Iran due to Arab conquest of the country Iran was a Zorastrian nation and so on and so forth. Thats recounting history that is not in dispute by anyone including the muslims.

How you intend to use that historical fact to undermine the legitimacy of Islam and the Islamic republic is in serious doubt.”

.....

That’s plainly wrong.

I will put it here in two ways: the simple, and the detail.

PART ONE

1.1 Past history
Iran’s philosophical roots are from the Zend-Avesta, dated over 10,000 years ago.  Iran actually was not Muslim for many centuries after the Mogul attack.  The people breathed again.  Many books were re-written, and Iran found its old soul.  The same happened in some respects to other nations that were under the Christian Inquisitions.

1.2 Recent history
Back to present, you need to look at the mass abstention of Iranians from the so called Seyyed selection process.  But look at our national festivals at the beginning of each season, and see the participation.  It is incomparable.  Iran then is not like Pakistan, where they have totally severed their past, and have been swallowed up by Islam.

1.3 Conscience
Iranian now know for certain what their philosophy is, and this new tolerance is ignoring the alien within with a clear conscience.

PART TWO

2 Iranian v Seyyed
2.1 Iranian tolerance
I am not here to go into all the non-Islamic culture of Iran.  But just in case you do not know, the Iranian culture is rich and so overwhelming for even Islam, that the Seyyeds are pretty much ignored, and live in their offices.  We have a special attitude to Life.  We believe in Free Will.  It is taught in our own book The Zend Avesta, and later in Shahnameh, and in many other philosophical works.

2.2 Non-Iranian or Seyyeds’ Cause
They are different from your real Iranians.  Iranians do not believe in the Mahdi Cause.  This ethnic group needs to have its own land or country.  They have their own legitimate reasons, just like the Jews.

They believe to be direct descendants of Abraham, via his second wife, or first son, and Halabi Qureshi (aka Mohammed).  Salman Parsi was Iran’s first apostate and wiped out all our philosophy for the sake of this family.  Later Al- Hilli brought it back and converted the last Mongul Prince.

3. Conscience

3.1 Family quarrel
So our problem in the Middle East is actually a family quarrel, an old family quarrel.  You will not get Islamic or Jewish “Scholars” telling you that.  Speak to older souls and they will.  We know, and have lost many heads over the years, if we mentioned it.  So be careful.

3.2 Iranians are winning
We in Iran have been allowed these Seyyeds to float to the top, as it were.  We know who they are, and what they want to do to push forward their agenda, and it has nothing to do with peaceful attitude of Iranians.  We are at peace with each other, and our national festival unite the whole of Iran.  We just wish the world media did not misrepresent us, and helped us to use non-violence general strikes as a tool to get rid of the alien Seyyed rulers.

By cann4ing, August 1 at 7:48 pm #

Keeping the Iran and Iraq discussions in separate threads, I’d like to respond to a few points you’ve made about the NIE, White Paper, etc…

The still classified White Paper you refer to was prepared by the intelligence community for President Bush.  Bush did not edit the White Paper; it was a piece of intelligence he and Congress were given to help them formulate policy.  You appear to mistakenly believe he manipulated the White Paper, subsequently misrepresenting it to Congress.

For something as important as a vote on authorizing war against Iraq, there is no excuse for those in Congress who voted but chose not to read the NIE.  Furthermore, Bush did not add any restrictions to their review process as you seem to imply.

Your post states that Bush “shifted the goal posts” by changing the requirement that Iraq disarm to a policy of regime change.  In fact, President Clinton instituted the official U.S. policy of regime change for Iraq and that policy remained in place up to the removal of Saddam.  Nor did the U.S. believe Saddam had “disarmed”, thus neither condition was met.  The reason Clinton adopted a policy of regime change was precisely because he believed Iraq was a threat, which is what he very clearly stated on numerous occasions.

By cann4ing, August 1 at 7:22 pm #

So once again Canning - do you support a U.S. policy of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

I don’t pretend to know what Bush believes vs. what he says he believes any more than I’d pretend to know that about anyone, but you seem to be willing to make that leap.

So I you once again: do you support a U.S. policy of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Cyrena, what would truly be the icing on the cake would be the complete records from the 2001 Cheney energy task force which we know produced maps of Iraq’s oil fields and untapped oil deposits.

Moving beyond the very lengthy classified NIE that Marshall correctly states was “available” to Congress but conveniently ignores was read by very few because its classified nature and length, which required members to go to a separate room and prevented note taking.  Marshall deliberately ignores the fact that most members of Congress only saw a White Paper whose systematic deletions of dissents and caveats lead to but one conclusion—willful deception—we find that in the weeks leading to the invasion of Iraq, Bush shifted the goal posts.  At that point it was no longer enough that Iraq “disarm.”  Saddam and his sons had to leave; a point that underscored the fact that the concern was never about a supposed “threat” but an unchanged goal of “regime change”—the same goal Bush/Cheney now have for Iran.

As Bugliosi points out, between 11/27/02 & March 2003, there were “over 100 UN inspectors swarming all over Iraq…after 731 inspections they had not found anything…”  On 3/7/03, less than three weeks prior to the invasion, Hans Blix said “we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq…”  The Iraqis were giving full cooperation (no doubt in part because Scott Ritter told them how dire the consequences would be if they failed to do so) and Blix estimated that the UN inspectors could confirm that Iraq was disarmed in a span of months.

Bugliosi notes, “To anyone who did not want to go to war in Iraq unless necessary, this report…could not have been better news.”  So what did Marshall’s hero, the reluctant warrior who never had to face enemy fire, do.  Why he order the inspectors to leave, ordered the invasion and then had the audacity to claim that “our nation entered this conflict reluctantly.”  And now, 4,100 working class Americans in uniform lie in their graves!  Wonder why Vince wants to try this jerk for murder?

Wrong again, Marshall the dissembler.  We “know” that Cheney specifically asked that the Iran NIE not be released.  We “know” that during the time that the Iran NIE was being withheld from the public Bush and Cheney made public statements that were 180 degrees from the content of that report, just as they did with respect to the 10/1/02 NIE. 

There is absolutely “no reason” to accept your statement that Bush “believes” that Iran is a threat, but we do know that Bush “claims” he holds such a belief. 

The question is, Marshall, whether one should accept Bush’s “claim” that he actually “believes” Iran poses a threat.  For that, we have a jury instruction here in California that helps, the gist of which is that if a witness has been willfully false in one matter, his testimony is to be distrusted in all other matters. 

There are so many lies your hero told in the run up to Iraq that it took Vince Bugliosi an entire book to set them out—and these did not begin to tell all.

So sell your BS to someone stupid enough to actually swallow it.  I doubt you will find many takers from the usually knowledgeable posters at TD.

Marshall lies/parses words/splits hairs 18 ways to Sunday/whatever you wanna call it –AGAIN- here:

-  “Nor did Bush ever state that Iraq was an “imminent threat” - in Ohio or anywhere.”

But, we can see below, that’s exactly what he’s doing:

In Their Own Words: Iraq’s “Imminent” Threat
The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an “imminent” threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq’s WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying “Some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent’. Those were not words we used.” But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase “imminent threat” – while also using the synonymous phrases “mortal threat,” “urgent threat,” “immediate threat”, “serious and mounting threat”, “unique threat,” and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to “strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction” – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was “contained” and “threatens not the United States.” While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration’s efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.”

“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
-  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
- President Bush, 7/2/03

“Absolutely.”
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
- President Bush 4/24/03

“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
- President Bush, 3/19/03

“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
- President Bush, 3/16/03

“This is about imminent threat.”
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

I didn’t find any mention of Condi’s Mushroom Cloud here, but she did mention it.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

Marshall also says this:

-  “…Congress had full access to the unclassified NIE, not just the White Paper as you state.  There’s no disputing this fact.  When you get these little facts wrong, it reduces your overall credibility so I’d become more detail oriented if I were you…”

Bigger problem is that Marshall lies on LARGE details like the constant refrain from the bushies in the leadup to war, about Iraq being an ‘imminent threat’. But, since his ‘credibility’ was long ago destroyed, (never had any with me to begin with) becoming more ‘detail oriented’ obviously won’t help it/him.

By cann4ing, August 1 at 6:45 am #

Unfortunately Canning, the accusation that Bush/Cheney held up the NIE for political reasons is speculation.  There’s no proof of that but you’re free to believe what you want.

What ISN’T speculation is that Bush still believes Iran is a threat - as is his right.  You may disagree, as is yours.  There are aspects of the NIE that support him; like its consensus that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon by 2015 because it’s foreign policy goals demand it.  The report has only moderate confidence that Iran hasn’t already restarted its nuke program, and makes clear that it can pick up where it left off easily.  Nothing’s been moth-balled.

Your comparison to the Oct. 02 Iraq weapons NIE is rather humorous since that NIE could not have been more clear in its belief that Iraq had active chem/bio and nuke programs - despite the caveats buried within.  Nor did Bush ever state that Iraq was an “imminent threat” -  in Ohio or anywhere.  And we’ve been down the “White Paper” road before but I’ll say it once again: Congress had full access to the unclassified NIE, not just the White Paper as you state.  There’s no disputing this fact.  When you get these little facts wrong, it reduces your overall credibility so I’d become more detail oriented if I were you.

But we digress.  The issue at hand is Iran and its nuclear intentions.  So I ask you once again: Do you support a policy of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or don’t you?

The Iranian people know better than anyone how to deal with the enemy within.  We do not need the US to get so worked up and get into a frenzy.  And you do not need to worry Scott.

Now the question everyone asks me is, why don’t you all take care of these Seyyeds, if you all do not like them?  A couple of reasons.

The first answer is that, the Iranian diaspora has been censored by the world media.  That is the real war we are dealing with.  If the war that the people of Iran are waging on a cultural level, is reported, then you would not see the Seyyeds around for long.

The second answer is that, if the US did not deal with the Seyyeds, but instead dealt with the real Iranians, that put Iran first and other ideologies second, then we would be able to broadcast our thoughts through the mass media, and get regime change.

The war we have then, is the media war.  We cannot get the world press to write about non-violent general strikes, as a tool to influence the Seyyed regime.  The fact that this does not happen leads us to suspect collusion between the US administration and the Seyyed administration.

1. Give us some media space.
2. Make provocative questions about the stability of the Seyyeds, in light of a general strike, as opposed to an air strike.
3. Don’t legitimize the Seyyeds, when real Iranians abstained from their “Seyyed selection” process en-masse.

But instead what do you do Scott? You give the Seyyeds the benefit of the doubt.  What doubt is there, when we all know that they have a clear Mahdi agenda.

You might not like the Republicans, but don’t use Iran as your tool to criticize them.  It makes the Seyyeds look great.

By cann4ing, August 1 at 6:45 am

Marshall—Give it up!  Bush & Cheney were in possession of the NIE—the assessment of our nation’s 16 intelligence agencies—which expressly stated that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon, yet sought to suppress it for over a year.  Publicly, Bush & Cheney made repeated statements during that one year that Iran was actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

~~~~~

And Ernest, there’s even more to this..something akin to the white papers that you have so clearly described in reference to Iraq. It began with the original agreement that Iran made with the EU3, VOLUTARILY agreeing to suspend their enrichment activities as part of a ‘confidence building’ agreement, as far back as 2003. Thing is, the US and the EU3 decided it should be open-ended. In other words, ‘they’ would determine how long it would take for Iran to prove the peaceful nature of their program, and for the US and the EU3, that would simply be FOREVER, since that’s how long it takes to prove a negative. So, in 2006, Iran decided that it had been long enough, specifically since by that time, the IAEA had full access to EVERYTHING, and could find NO indications that Iran was in pursuit of nuclear weaponry. Obviously, the SIXTEEN US INTELLIGENCE agencies concluded the same.

After reading this latest piece of BS from Marshall, I was tempted to dig up the work that I did myself, tracing this all the way back (or at least 2 decades back), concentrating primarily on the time since 2000, and specifically Iran’s dealings with the IAEA. (since that’s what I was focused on, but still needed to provide the background leading up to it). But alas, that work went by the way of this now reformatted hard-drive, so it would mean digging it out of the university archives. (with the hope that Prof. Falk stored it there). And then I thought..it wouldn’t matter to the apologists anyway. On the other hand, it made me realize that I actually DO need to get about the business of tracking a whole bunch of that work down, if only for my own reference. My own organic hard drive relies on those prompts.

Marshall—Give it up!  Bush & Cheney were in possession of the NIE—the assessment of our nation’s 16 intelligence agencies—which expressly stated that Iran was not actively seeking a nuclear weapon, yet sought to suppress it for over a year.  Publicly, Bush & Cheney made repeated statements during that one year that Iran was actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

This is precisely the same thing that they did in the run up to the war in Iraq.  Bush received an NIE on 10/1/02 which revealed that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S.; would not be a threat unless Saddam thought we were about to attack.  on 10/7/02 Bush gave a nationally televised speech in Ohio in which he claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat, stating that we could be attacked “on any given day.” 

That NIE contained numerous dissents and caveats.  The Bush administration then submitted a summary of the NIE to Congress which would be labeled the “White Paper.”  That unclassified summary, presented to Congress just one week before the Congressional authorization vote, deleted all dissents, caveats and the conclusion that Saddam was not an imminent threat.  The deletions included language that revealed the speculative nature of the assessment.  For example, where the NIE said “although we have little specific information on Iraq’s CW [chemical weapons] stockpile [in fact they had no information] Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons…of CW agents…”  The White Paper deleted the words “although we have little specific information on Iraqis CW stockpile,” then simply stated “Saddam probably has…”

The recent Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearings disclosed that the White Paper had deleted a footnote containing a dissent from the U.S.A.F. director for Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance which disputed the pre-war claim that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to deliver biological agents—thereby deleting the assessment from “the agency with primary responsibility for technological analysis on UAV programs.”

The White Paper falsely stated that “all intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons” when, in truth, the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau expressly disagreed.

Frankly, Marshall, after the willful prevarications that led us into one war—killing 4,100 Americans and counting and more than one million Iraqis, the maiming and disfigurement of tens of thousands more, along with the displacement of an estimated 6 million Iraqis, 2 million into exile—I have lost all tolerance not only for this administration’s dissembling but for the hair-splitting, word parsing perfidy of the administration’s apologists—meaning you!

I hope Iran is able to affect a quid pro quo with Israel.  The Iranians have been more than accommodating to the International inspectors, whereas Israel hasn’t.

The saber rattling and provocative banter Israel is providing now is only good until Jan 20.

We need to bring the fleets home, cut off military aid to the Mid-east and sort this out with the other power brokers of that region.

By cann4ing, July 31 at 9:25 pm #

“The reports I read show that there is no evidence that Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability after 2003—whether they were doing so prior to that time is disputed not only by the Iranians but by the IAEA.”

But not by the NIE, which you used to substantiate your statements.  That is entirely selective, whereas I’m not referring to parts of reports that agree with me and ignoring those same reports when they don’t.

Bush has not been “discredited” for believing that Iran had an active nuclear program; the issue is precisely why he requested the NIE to begin with. Best intelligence up until the NIE indicated that Iran had such a program.  And indeed it did, until 2003.  The NIE is clear that such a program can be restarted quickly, that Iran likely has purchased fissile material and will likely be able to produce its own within the decade.

You and I can trade quotes and speculate about whether Iran has/wants nukes all day, but the fact is that Iran has been offered many concessions and multiple opportunities to set the global community’s mind at ease by improving the transparency of its nuclear program, and it has balked at every turn.  Now unless you support an Iranian nuclear program, I find it difficult to understand how you can find fault with U.S. pressure on Iran to disclose.  It is just such pressure that NIE you quote credits with having halted Iran’s nuke program in 2003, indicating that it is more sensitive to such pressure than we judged.  I see no rush to war with Iran, but instead a clear statement that a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated and we’ll do whatever it takes to accommodate Iran’s civilian nuclear program while making sure it doesn’t develop a military version.  You think this is bad policy?

mrmb, as lengthy as your list of the military actions by imperial America are, it is far too short.  It leaves off the many covert operations, such as the CIA’s role in the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeqh, the democratically elected, secular leader of Iran and its replacement with the murderous regime of the Shah and its infamous SAVAK—all to the benefit of US/UK oil companies—an act that produced unintended consequences of the Iranian Revolution, the hostage crisis and the Shah’s replacement by a dictatorial theocracy.

Marshall:  I suggest you re-read your July 31 post which includes: “Whereas Dr. Knowitall can’t see past his hatred for the U.S….”

Your reading of the NIE is just as selective.  The reports I read show that there is no evidence that Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability after 2003—whether they were doing so prior to that time is disputed not only by the Iranians but by the IAEA.  Your statement: “The NIE also concludes that Iran does likely intend to develop nukes in the future” only serves to underscore the point I made, albeit not in the same “precise” words, while thoroughly discrediting every thing the Bush/Cheney regime has claimed for the past five years; everything that John McSame & Israel are saying now.

Finally, as reported by Seymour Hersh, recounted tonight by Keith Olbermann on “Countdown,” our cunning VP has brainstormed ways to “provoke” an incident that could be used as an excuse to invade Iran, including remaking boats to look like Iranian patrol boats, filling them with U.S. special forces disguised as Iranians and then having them fire on our own forces.  Apparently, in this instance, someone had the good sense to tell Darth Cheney that it would not be a very good idea to have U.S. special forces fire weapons at other U.S. service personnel.

If true, this tracks similar comments made by Bush and documented in the Manning memo, where Bush, concerned that there would be no WMD found by inspectors, suggested to Tony Blair that they repaint U.S. aircraft in UN colors; fly it over Iraqi air space in the hopes that the Iraqis would fire on it so as to provide an excuse to invade.  See, Vincent Bugliosi, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” (2008).

By cann4ing, July 31 at 7:14 am #

“Marshall conflates opposition to the neoconservative and Zionist agenda of the Bush regime into “hatred for the U.S.””

I never mentioned hatred for the U.S.. Are you referring to someone else’s post?

“the NIE released last year that concluded Iran was not seeking to create a nuclear weapons capacity”

Perhaps you should read the NIE before making false statements.  The NIE concluded that Iran had an active nuke program (which they continue to deny) through 2003, and “halted” (not dismantled) it as the result of global pressure.  Here’s the link:

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

The NIE also concludes that Iran does likely intend to develop nukes in the future due to its “key national security and foreign policy objectives”.

By mrmb, July 31 at 8:23 am #

The points you make about my post are certainly your opinion (and we obviously disagree), but nowhere have you shown that I’m “wrong”.