News-Record.com

Strange how the left now embraces America's intelligence agencies...and all it took was backing up a two bit dictator that hates Bush too.

It's also amazing how the right keeps clinging to the notion of attack first and get the facts later, especially when their sons or daughters aren't on the firing line.

Jim,

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is "most likely" keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies "do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, the report says, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that the enrichment program "could still" provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.

But the new estimate declares with "high confidence" that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt "was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."

The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public "since our understanding of Iran's capabilities has changed."

The new report has come out just over five years after a deeply flawed intelligence estimate concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. The report led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of that estimate's conclusions turned out to be wrong.

"Some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways might if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program," the estimate states.

So, does this all make you feel warm and fuzzy about Iran being a non threat? I hesitate relying on someone's "guess" when it comes to state sponsors of terror.

And since you brought Bill's name up, speaking of "not being truthful about an extramarital affair", did you hear what Andrew Young recently said about Slick Willie?

YOUNG: I want Barack Obama to be president (applause) in 2016. (laughter) Barack Obama does not have the support network yet to get to be president. The Clintons have -- he's -- he's smart, he's brilliant. But you cannot be president alone. Hillary Clinton, first of all, has Bill behind her, and Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack.

And, speaking of Hillary, her role was to control Bill's "Bimbo Eruptions" as verified again by Andrew Young.

YOUNG: If you read about the Clintons, when Clinton decided to run, Hillary sat on the defense committee, and that's what they called it. And you know what it was? It was to go around and neutralize all the women that he'd ever been involved with. She got her friends to be on the defense committee to protect him from the attacks.

Yeah, Jim, those were the good old days when Bill only lied about extramarital affairs. Yeah, right. And, Hilliary's experience is leading the defense committee, leaning on the women that Bill had abused. Here's a list of what we know about and the accusations:

Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned

Bush has done such a fine job for the last seven years. How dare anyone criticize him?

ORR,

Are you freaking kidding me with the Clinton stuff? Bush is very obviously trying to lie his way into another invasion that will cost thousands of lies, and you choose to divert from the subject by bringing up allegtations from 35 years ago? What a perfect example of the right's most reliable defense. "Our guy isn't a liar -- this is all Clinton's fault". In fact, this may be a new low. How can you possibly compare internet rumor of 30+ year old Clinton gossip to outright lies designed to support the escalation to war? Your post is a joke.

Howie,

Jim was the one that raised the matter of Bill Clinton's lies, so he is fair game. Also, the comments by Andrew Young are current and reflective of both Clintons' past, so this also makes it relevant.

So, you are saying that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning are all lying about Bill? You know, when there is this much smoke, there is usually a fire. And, Hillary's campaign is spotlighting Bill prominently, so Bill is part of the current news.

So, show me me what documentation that you have shows that all of these women are lying about Bill, or just internet rumors. Yeah, I know, Bill was a sexual predator, but he was a great President, right? Character doesn't count.

Actually, I am not comparing the two at all. My post made it clear that the NIE report was nothing more than a biased guess. There is nothing there to even suggest it is fact. As a matter of fact, many other countries' intelligence agencies are questioning the accuracy of the report. I, for one, don't think that we should be fat and happy and call Bush a liar based upon a report that has no basis in fact. What in this report proves that Bush is a liar? We know that Iran is a sponsor of terror, such as Hezbollah. We know that "the new estimate says that the enrichment program "could still" provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade". So, given this, how does that make Bush a lier? Iran now has to be ecstatic.

And, no, I'm not freaking kidding you. I'm serious as a heart attack.

Howie,

One other thing..why would Bush want to lie his way into an invasion of Iran? what does he have to gain? His term ends in one year, and he can't be re-elected. It just isn't clear to me what his motive would be, if Iran isn't a threat to our security. I'm sure, though, that you can enlighten me on this.

Well Jim also mentioned Rove, so I guess that makes it fair game to dicuss how hard he had to work to scrub GWB's history of drug use. You know, 'cause when there's that much smoke, there's usually a bong. Is that also relevant to the discussion about escalation to war with Iran? No more/less relevant than the Clinton rumors. My comments were not about the propriety of the comments, as much as about the relevance. Same with Andrew Young's comments -- what do they have to do with the lies aimed at launching us into another war? Typical right wing diversion.

As for the motives, I don't fully understand them. But in retrospect, I don't understand the motives for our occupation of Iraq either -- do you?

And your contention is that the NIE is a "biased guess". Well we've used less sophisticated data to invade another country, so are you saying that in five years, after installing the most massive beauracracy in our history, that we are no better off? That the judgement and consensus of these 16 agencies boils down to a guess? Well then shouldn't the people responsible for that be held accountable? After all, it was Bush's hand-picked guys who are telling him that his rhetoric is off target. Who is responsible in this administration? Anyone?

"So, show me me what documentation that you have shows that all of these women are lying about Bill, or just internet rumors. " -Oak Ridge Runner

Actually, only one of them had to endure cross-examination under oath - Kathleen Willy. After first getting caught up in a lie, Kenneth Starr gave her the option of going to prison or getting immunity in return for further testimony against Clinton. She took the immunity. Problem was that she got caught in another lie, and Starr had to give her immunity a second time, which he did; her testimony was needed that badly because she was his most credible witness.

I posted several comments yesterday about Iran not selling oil in US dollars...Sadaam wanted to do the same. Does anyone but me see the connection.

IF Iran is making atomic bombs, why is is OUR job to stop them...and how do you propose we do this. Another winless war? I hope not.

Carol Dunce,

If you don't know by now why we must stop Iran from aquiring nukes, just go back to sleep. You have spouted anti-war crap for too long. What are you going to do when Iraq is a success? Will you be as sad as the rest of the democrats?

"IF Iran is making atomic bombs, why is is OUR job to stop them...and how do you propose we do this. Another winless war? I hope not."

The problem as I see it Carol. If Iran makes a bomb and launches one at Israel, Europe or even comes up with the means to launch one at us, I would hope they would have the smarts to know the entire country would instantly be turned into a kitty litter box if they did this. The problem I see is if they release a nuke to any of the many terrorist organizations they support.

Winless war? Who recently came back from Iraq and said "the surge is working"?

Answer: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)

***********************************************
Hillbilly, while I disagree with Carol on many issues, she is ALWAYS polite and respectful. Calling her a dunce is not only inaccurate, it cheapens your argument.

Save the dunce stuff for Demon Deacon if his wife or the N&R ever lets him post again. One or both of them cut him off.

Who posting here thinks the US is not in the bomb making business? As Carol said, who are we to tell others not to do what are doing. It sounds like a "Do as I say rather than what I do" situation just as telling the "president" of another country what they can or can't do in their own country. Did God die and leave Bush in charge of the world?

Yvonne, here is some basic reading:

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212088/tergov.htm

Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped out from the map".

This from the liberal bastion of CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. If you don't believe it then more power to you but please prove it. If you don't think terrorists would use a nuke if they had the chance, more power to you but methinks you are sadly mistaken. Iran, or Pakistan for that matter iif under extremist leadership, could provide that weapon.

Read a bit about terrorists and their ideals. Worldwide domination under Sharia law. I didn't say Muslims in general, I said terrorists.

Frankly I find it hard to believe that you support Iran having nukes, especially using the justification that we have them too.

Iran sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Can you please tell me why they need nuclear power?

I believe if Hillary becomes prez she will realize this fact too. That will totally alienate those with their heads in the sand about what we are facing.

Fortunately for us (the U.S.) the Isralies are not buying into the NIE opinion...they cannot afford to pacify the politically correct liberals. Their very existence depends on it, thus they will take out Iran's nuclear capabilities for us.
IMO, of course...