Cheney and the other war hawks (ie, future Halliburton employees and lobbyists) are so disappointed.
Bush: US Must Remain Vigilant on Iran
President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.
“I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program,” Bush said. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.”
Bush spoke one day after a new national intelligence estimate found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, largely because of international scrutiny and pressure. That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.
That doesnt get past the point that this wasnt only about nuclear weapons. We are doing the same thing with Iran that we did with Russia during the cold war. You constantly threaten Iran, build up ability, and occassionally talk with them in a coordinated dance that eventually leaves Iran in a weaker position. When Iran thought the dems were going to force a withdrawal, Iran took a hard line against washington. Then, once Bush prevented the withdrawal, the Iranians asked for negotiations to resume. The reason why is that the Iranians are only willing to actually negotiate if they think the US is going to stay for the near future. The Iranians number 1 concern is the outcome in Iraq.
Why do you hate Israel so much Peter? Is there some underlying issue there? Sounds a little like the rhetoric coming from Ame-jihad himself in Iran.
Bush must have approved the release of this report. He’s looking for a way to climb down on this issue. There has to be absolutely zero support within the military for any sort of attack on Iran at this time. All our resources have gone into the bottomless pit of Iraq.
Republican government:
7 Years – Zero accomplishments.
Unless you count becoming the laughing stock of the world an accomplishment, or burying us in debt (at the tune of $1.5 million per minute right now) and accomplishment, or destroying the fundamental principles of American values an accomplishment, or leading America towards a fundamentalist theocracy an accomplishment, then yes, if you include those as accomplishments, the Bush presidency has been a resounding success.
Bush spoke of “what will they think years from now if we don’t do anything about Iran today”… well, I wonder what they will think years from now that we let this petty politician misguide the country for so long.
Thank you jim….I have been trying to explain that to every one else here. We are using threatening rhetoric about an attack to:
1. get Iran to abandon nuclear goals (done)
2. get Iran to prove that they actually have the ability to quell some of the shiite violence in Iraq and stop sending weapons into the fight.
Iran is trying to get us to guarantee that the new government in Iraq will not be a Sunni-only led government with aggressive military capabilities and that the US will have a limited presence in the Iraq with the exception of providing basic support. The Iranians would not publicly admit the end of their nuclear program until we gave thos guarantees.
>>We are doing the same thing with Iran that
>>we did with Russia during the cold war.
Not the same thing, my Big Headed compadre, not even close.
Russia DID HAVE nukes, and we would NEVER have invaded them, no matter what (uless they launched a nuclear attack).
On the other hand, Dumbya already has invaded one of those towel-head countries…Iran, Iraq, what’s the difference to him?
That would be just like Dumbya, to invade Iran. He couldn’t do the job in Iraq, and I’m A Dinner Jacket and his buds are a lot more dangerous than a buffoon like Saddam.
#27 MM – “Oh yeah, that’s been a smashing success. Three point five trillion dollars, tens of thouands of dead Americans, a country destroyed, all to take care of a tinhorn dictator who was less of a threat to us than Fidel.”
Okay it’s back it up time with facts.
What has cost 3.5 trillion dollars? Not projected, actual cost.
What has caused the death of “tens of thousands of Americans”? (Other than smoking, drinking and bullshit blog posts)
Surely you would not have said it if you didn’t have proof to back it up would you? That just wouldn’t be right.
BTW the word tens implies multiple tens, in other words more than two.
So, WTF are you talking about MM?
Comments from the dumber half of the population:
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he
is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical rfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I remember back when the US had to worry about tens of thousands of nuclear weapons (I.E. the USSR), and now we wet our pants over the possibility of a country possibly, maybe making ONE?
Oh, by the way Todd, you calling out ‘liberals’ (is that supposed to be an insult?) and ‘party line Democrats’ when you yourself are following the Republikan talking points is the height of hypocrisy. You want to say that Bush ‘didn’t want war with Iran’? Hah, good one.
Frank IBC said, Given how catastrophically wrong our intelligence agencies were about … the status of Saddam’s WMDs in 2003, how can you be sure of what they’re saying now?
The NIE in 2003 was that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the use or even the region.
This was published and well-know but TOTALLY ignored by the Bush administration.
Now Bush and the war mongers who IGNORED the 2003 NIE, BLAME faulty intelligence! This is just surreal.
Face it man. Bush lied then and he’s lying now.
Bush doesn’t have any intelligence about Iran outside of our US intelligence agencies who are telling him that Iran almost surely doesn’t have a nuke program and won’t have one any time in the near future.
jim h said, Bush must have approved the release of this report. He’s looking for a way to climb down on this issue.
Why must have he approved of it?
A much more likely scenario is that someone in the intelligence community is PO’d at Bush for blaming “faulty intelligence” when they issued a NIA saying that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the US or the region.
When that NIA was released prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration just kept up their rhetoric as if the report never happened. Everybody forgot about it. Sound familiar?
BTW — here is a story about that report, to refresh your memory. http://tinyurl.com/3dm5td
My guess is that there are people in the intelligence community who resent that Bush screwed them on Iraq and don’t want it to happen again with Iran.
# 19 Todd,
#17, do you honestly hate the US that much? Goes to show, liberals always complain about america this and america that…..
So, chicken hawk, why do YOU hate America so much. If you had any amount of respect you would have treated “America” as a proper noun and capitalized it. Instead, you show your disrespect and write it with irreverence. But then those who claim that they love America the most are usually the ones that don’t.
what country exactly is cleaner than America? England (apartheid), rest of Europe (colonialization[sic]/slavery), …
So England is full of apartheid right now? When was England EVER apartheid? Gee, maybe you should tell the English. The rest of Europe is practicing colonization and / or slavery? Is that all of Europe or just some? You do realize Europe is composed of several countries, all independent. BTW, Europe led the way in banning slavery.
Middle East (zero rights for women and they use terror cells to do their foreign policy work.)
Hhmmm, I guess your Gr. 10 teacher hasn’t mentioned Israel is part of the Middle East. As is Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. All countries that allow full rights to all citizens, male or female. And which countries use “terror cells” to do their foreign policy work?
We arent [sic] building a death star you jack ass.
I guess you don’t understand sarcasm or satire. Juvey
But please all of the you far left liberal idiots (not all liberals by the way) our current generation is not responsible for the sins of the 1800’s.
Your first mistake is identifying this rant as to the far left idiots. Since they number only a handful that is a pretty silly rant. Your second error is now accusing self same far left idiots with the same silliness you did above tarring Europe with colonialism and slavery.
#23, Todd,
We had no intention of going into Iran and actually fighting …
Where do you get this “we” white man ??? Don’t you mean those who actually enlist and do the fighting? Not the chicken hawks, mind you, they prefer to let others do their fighting for them.
#38, Philleep,
No, those were comments from people that didn’t think the President would stoop so low as to lie to them. Don’t blame those that felt the person who sits in the White House would have scruples and were fooled.
In society we tend to blame the liar, not the person who believed the lie. Maybe if the Republican Party had the same ideals they would still control Congress.
I wouldn’t care if Iran had nukes if their leadership wasn’t so suicidal. Ahmadenijad at Columbia opened with a prayer for the return of the 12th imam, and he believes that this happens if they start an all-out war.
Rafsanjani has said people should be afraid if their nuclear program goes underground. Why should we be afraid of a non-weapon nuclear energy program?
Rafsanjani has also said that he doesn’t care about an Israeli counterattack because they will have wiped out Israel while only a small part of the Muslim world would be hit.
Mr. Fusion,
My point was not to say that the current European powers were worse than us….my point was to say that all countrys have skeletons in the closet. Many far leftist (and you know this is true) hold AMERICA in such a low light. Then they give examples of all of our evils. they point to European nations as being enlightened and speak of Americans as nothing but a bunch of ignorant bigots. My point was that most of Europe has been engaged in just as many scandals as the US…in some cases more….
My point is to put things into perspective because you do get the anti-american rhetoric from the far left all of the time…some of it is deserved, but a lot is twisted. Im sorry that this bothers me….like what Philleep wrote up above.
Note about your guys suppossed knowledge of what is going on…..Im am so sorry that I choose to actually listen to professional intel analysts. Analysts by the way who have been extremely critical of the war(stratfor). Stratfor has analysts who have made a lifetime of studying these various regions. I am so sorry that I give them more credibility than you all when it comes to geo-politics. Especially when they have been correct in almost all of their analysis for the past 2 years.
Where do you get your info??? Blogs???? thats trustworthy. Do I trust some 20 yr old with an agenda and no training or a company who is extremely successful soley because of the accuracy of their analysis. I must be an idiot….that 20 yr old must know exactly whats going on. Please scan back up the page and the read the stratfor entries. Unless its too long for you to handle.
Furthermore, I dont ever pay attention to the presidents talking points. I could care less. However, just because the republicans say it…it doesnt mean its not true.
All you guys are doing is spitting out the dems talking points, which is why I dont like either party. Both parties are wrong most of the time, because the answer always lies somewhere in between. Now, they are too damn hard headed to actually do anything. The fight on capital hill has nothing to do with bringing the soldiers home or ending he war…..Its all about making this war the central issue in the next election. The dems dont want Bush to pull out yet….because if he does and all hell breaks lose, then the dems are up the creek with out a paddle. If the soldiers are still there, but the dems pretend to try…then people think they are trying, but the dems get to keep the status Quo and blame bush. So people are mad at the republicans in 08. Thats what this is about. If you dont believe me, ask Pelosi….she was quoted in the washington post saying pretty much this exact same thing.
I have a serious problem with this…I dont think that pulling out now is the best idea….however, if you do genuinely believe that a pull out is in our best interest then as a law maker they should stop at nothing to cause that. However, instead Pelosi flat out said that they were going to stop really pushing for a withdrawal with the hope that this will be a major issue in te 08 election. SO, in other words, she is willing to put her convictions on hold, just so that she can win an election. Im sorry, but whether you are a democrat or a republican…that should bother you. For christ sake….those are people lives Pelosi is playing with. Those are my friends lives they are playing with.
By the way, I would keep your mouth shut about the we thing……you dont know me or what I do.
Mr mustard I would be able to give your inane arguments a bit more credibility if you would lay off the idiotic homonyms of the Presidents name . You may not like him but respect the office and show some class for once the “dumbya” only shows your ass and your ignorance. If you want to argue your point do it in a mannerly style and your opponents will have much more respect for you and your argument
More quotes from the dumber half:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Want more?
Phillep,
Thank you for those quotes. People like to hide the fact that Clinton had a very similar view of Iraq as Bush did. He in fact told bush before he left office that Saddam had WMD’s. These quotes prove that point. Another point about Sandy Berger…He was caught destroying classified documents at the national archives just days before he had to give a report to the 911 commission. I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but that sounds pretty shady….A guy of his stature (though no longer in office at the time) would not risk serious prison time to destroy recipes. There was something very important in the archives that he needed to get rid of. Especially when you factor in that Sandy was called to the 911 commission to testify (and provide documentation of) the Clinton era intel on both AQ and Osama. My guess is that he was destroying info that implicated the clinton administration. Not that they took part obviously, but that they may have had more warnings and more opportunities to take out osama than we currently know of. They may not have wanted that to get out. Now that is just speculation, but it has to make you wonder why such a high ranking official would risk his credibility to destroy some documents in the National Archives.
By the way Mr. FUsion,
Apartheid was a result of Brittish Colonialism and was going on until fairly recently. It wasnt in Engalnd. It was in South Africa, but I had hoped that you would get that already and I wouldnt have to give you a 6th grade history lesson.
And I get the idea that the US did not actually want to go into Iran and fight a ground war from reality. The people in this country would never support it after Iraq. Additionally, we dont have the resources because of Iraq. Furthermore, our concern with Iran is their weapons program….unless they are very close to getting a bomb, we arent going in. Even if they do come close to having one, we dont need to invade, we just need some coordinated air attacks and cruise missiles. So my reasoning comes from logic…and is supported by Strategic Forecasting reports. Meanwhile, your reasoning is provided by you suspicion and hatred of bush and the rantings of the far left (who benefits a great deal from convincing you that republicans are dumb and evil).
>>What has cost 3.5 trillion dollars?
>>Not projected, actual cost.
The war’s not over yet, pumpkin. No reason projected costs shouldn’t be included. We have to pay them too. Read the report prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of the House and Senate. Even Bushian apologists like yourself admit that the cost will be well into the trillions. And for what?
mr. Mustard…
I actually do agree with you that Iran is much more dangerous than Saddam ever was….however, that is exactly why we will not use a ground invasion….I also understand that Russia was different…I am saying that we are employing the same tactics as we did then (Iran is as well). Iran uses Proxies and weapons support in Iraq to fight the US. Russia used proxies and weapons support in vietnam and with Cuba.
We used weapons support and training (of the same radical elements we are now fighting) to help in the battle against Russia. They actually beat Russia as a result….And we lost vietnam as a result. We fought all of the time…but we didnt invade because we were worried about fall out. The same thing is going on now. I understand that Iran is not half of the threat that the USSR was, but diplmatic tactics remain the same. Threaten and scare the Iranians….apply pressure until they begin to give some ground in negotiations. The Iranians want to do the same thing…so they use rhetoric that implies they are going after nukes when in reality they havent been for quite some time. The reason they are doing this is because they want the US to give them some concessions on Iraq for a public acknowledgement and promise that they will no longer go after nuclear capability. And we wont give them anything unless they do. Thats what this is all about. We arent going to invade Iran…the MSM may want you to think that because it makes a good headline…but even Bush isnt rash enough to do that. He just needs the Iranians to think he is. And he uses the media to get this message out. The media is dumb enough to fall for it. Again, diplomacy only works with and enemy, if they think you are willing to try something more severe if it fails.
Analysis – Timeline of events
On Dec. 3, the United States released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that says Iran halted work on its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is an extremely significant development.
At first glance, it might appear that this report — a compilation of information from all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies — is an attempt by the intelligence community to undermine the Bush administration’s dealings with and position on Iran. Its contents negate the rationale for any future U.S. military action against the country, and directly contradict many of the past assertions of the U.S. leadership, which has repeatedly said that Iran is a dangerous nation bent on building up its nuclear arsenal.
In reality, this document marks a momentous shift in the dynamics of the Middle East, as well as in the relationships among the United States, Iran and Iraq. As Stratfor has said many times, Iran’s nuclear program primarily represents a bargaining chip to be used as leverage in Tehran’s talks with the United States in order to gain it concessions in Iraq. The NIE indicates that Washington and Tehran have made significant progress in this back-channel back-and-forth, and that the positive signs coming out of Iraq lately have culminated in some sort of agreement.
The battle over Iran’s nuclear plans and the future of Iraq has not been an easy one. Stratfor has carefully monitored its development, and we have explained the intrinsic link between Tehran’s nuclear program and the U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Following is Stratfor’s account of the events that have shaped this process since the lead-up in 2002 to the Iraq war:
October 2002: As U.S. military intervention in Iraq seems increasingly inevitable, Iranian-U.S. back-channel meetings accelerate while Iran looks to extract political concessions from the United States over Iraq in return for its cooperation. With the aid of Ahmed Chalabi, Iran coaxes the United States into Iraq with intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
January 2003: A top Iranian official says his country supports U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq. The announcement signals that Iran has implicitly approved a U.S. war, despite its concerns of U.S. military action spilling across its border. Stratfor believes such support will open the door to U.S.-Iranian cooperation.
March 2003: The United States invades Iraq, and swiftly topples the Iraqi regime. In return for cracking down on al Qaeda fugitives in Iran and guaranteeing Shiite cooperation during the invasion, Iran is expecting Washington to allow Baghdad to fall in Tehran’s hands.
April 2003: Iran, fearing that the United States will renege on its end of the deal, sparks a major Shiite uprising to remind Washington of its ability to send Iraq up in flames. U.S.-Iranian relations are on the decline.
May 2003: With some nudging from the Russians, Iran feels out the United States for a deal, with strong indications that Tehran has agreed to hand over al Qaeda suspects to the United States or a third country. Iran follows up with a letter to the U.S. government calling for a comprehensive deal over Iraq in which it would cooperate on its nuclear program. Still confident in its ability to handle the insurgency and unwilling to be held hostage to Iran’s geopolitical ambitions, the United States rebuffs the offer and concludes that the Iranians and Iraqi Shia are undependable allies, and that a deal with Iran is no longer necessary to bring order to Iraq.
June 2003: Angered by the U.S. double-cross, Iran creates a crisis with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its nuclear program and wavers back and forth in its nuclear negotiations with the Europeans.
July 2003: Still evaluating its next steps, the United States reconsiders the need to negotiate with Iran, and calls in the services of former Secretary of State James Baker in Iraq.
October 2003: Progress is again seen on the U.S-Iranian negotiating front as Iran opens the doors to the IAEA and British, French and German foreign ministers for talks on nuclear facility inspections. Arab governments, concerned about a possible U.S.-Iranian alliance in Iraq, look to establish a common policy to curb both Washington and Tehran.
Fall 2003: Iran halts its nuclear weapons program, according to the NIE released Dec. 3, 2007.
January 2004: In the wake of a massive December earthquake that destroyed the Iranian city of Bam, the United States offers to send a humanitarian delegation to Tehran led by Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. Iran rejects the offer, saying the timing is not right. Tehran also says Washington must respect Iran before contacts between the countries can take place.
February 2004: After months of issuing paradoxical statements on its nuclear program, Iran emerges out of February parliamentary elections with a conservative-controlled parliament. With the ability to look beyond the domestic front, the Iranian government once again signals it is ready to do business with the United States.
May 2004: Iran demonstrates its cooperation by getting involved in negotiations between Washington and Shiite rebel leader Muqtada al-Sadr.
June 2004: The United States looks favorably upon Saudi Arabia’s increased involvement in the Iraq war, much to Iran’s chagrin. The Iranians seek added leverage in the negotiations and engage in several tit-for-tat diplomatic spats, including the seizure of three British patrol boats along the Iraq-Iran border. The ensuing months follow the same theme of increased tensions between Washington and Tehran.
November 2004: Iran agrees — for the time being — to comply with IAEA demands to halt enrichment activity in the interest of securing a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad for the December and January legislative elections.
February-March 2005: After a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is established, the Iranian nuclear issue flares up again as Iran works to keep the United States out of its nuclear talks with France, Germany and the United Kingdom in order to maintain its leverage. U.S. war rhetoric against Iran picks up steam in the coming month, prompting Iran to come clean on its nuclear program.
June-August 2005: Mysterious explosions occur in Tehran and the Arab-majority town of Ahwaz, sparking Iranian suspicions that Western intelligence agencies are riling up an anti-regime movement. Iranian presidential elections yield a surprise result, in which Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani admits defeat and black-horse candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rises to power.
September 2005: By now it is clear that Ahmadinejad’s election was part of Iran’s nuclear bargaining strategy to project a carefully honed image of irrationality to convince the Americans of the utility of dealing with Iran. Ahmadinejad’s fiery anti-Israeli rhetoric leads to division within the ruling ranks in Tehran over how to deal with the United States. The United States also returns the Iranian snub over the Bam earthquake aid offer by rejecting an Iranian offer of 20 million barrels of oil in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The offer was made on the condition that Washington lift trade sanctions against Iran.
December 2005-January 2006: The United States attempts to re-create Iran’s worst nightmare by throwing its support behind Iraq’s Sunnis. Sources in Lebanon reveal major preparations by Hezbollah for a military conflict, suggesting Iran could soon play its Hezbollah card in the negotiations.
February 2006: After the IAEA passes a resolution to present the nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, Iran returns to a belligerent stance on its nuclear program, threatening to resume industrial-scale enrichment and pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
March 2006: Just as things could not look any darker for the United States and Iran, the Iranian government offers to take bilateral back-channel negotiations over Iraq into the public sphere, and the United States accepts. Iran is not ready to sacrifice its nuclear leverage just yet, and reiterates that these talks will address Iraq only.
April 2006: U.S.-Iranian negotiations appear to have hit a snag. The United States proceeds with plans to strip Iran financially and Iran makes a major announcement regarding its nuclear program.
May 2006: Ahmadinejad makes another offer for talks with the United States by sending a peculiar letter to U.S. President George W. Bush proposing fresh ways to mend relations. At the same time, Iran continues its rhetorical blitzkrieg about its nuclear program.
June 2006: Iraq’s Sunni camp makes an apparent down payment on a political settlement when al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed in a U.S. airstrike. The ball is now in Iran’s court to get the Shia to reciprocate. Iraq has reached a break point.
July 2006: Realizing it could push for a better deal with Washington, Iran decides to pull out all stops and flip the negotiating table over by reactivating Hezbollah in Lebanon and drawing Israel into a costly war. Iran sends a clear message that it has assets throughout the region to help it achieve its demands in Iraq.
August-September 2006: Emboldened by its success in Lebanon, Iran strikes a conciliatory tone with the United States again.
October-November 2006: The perception is that the Bush administration is weak and disintegrating. With an aim to shape the November U.S. congressional elections to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Iran activates its proxies to ensure November is the deadliest month to date for U.S. casualties since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
December 2006: The Iraq Study Group releases its report calling for a U.S. dialogue with Iran. Iran still assumes it has cornered the United States into implementing a withdrawal plan, leaving Tehran to pick up the pieces in Iraq.
January 2007: Bush throws off Iranian expectations with his announcement of a new strategy to surge troops into Iraq. The United States couples this strategy with an offer to the Iranians to talk. The Iranians return to the drawing board.
February 2007: The U.S.-Iranian covert intelligence war heats up, as both sides engage in saber-rattling to shore up their negotiating positions. Once again Iran makes a power play in the waters when it seizes a group of British marines and sailors in the Persian Gulf.
March 2007: Realizing their busted flushes in Iraq, U.S. and Iranian officials meet in Baghdad to discuss Iraq.
May 2007: Iran and the United States engage in publicly announced bilateral talks over Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. At the summit, Iran presents a groundbreaking proposal to stabilize Iraq. Iran is careful to keep the nuclear issue out of the negotiations. There are doubts, however, as to whether the regional players can deliver on their end of the deal.
June 2007: The United States considers meeting Iran’s demand to unlink the nuclear and Iraq issues in order to move the negotiations forward.
August 2007: U.S. and Iranian diplomats meet in Baghdad to hammer out a security agreement on Iraq. Later in the month, the latest NIE makes it apparent that the U.S. surge strategy is not yet yielding sufficient results and that the strategy must begin to shift. Iran gets excited at the thought of a pending U.S. withdrawal, claiming it will fill the vacuum in Iraq. Bush, however, follows up with another surprise, saying the United States will maintain its surge strategy.
September 2007: Iran issues another feeler for talks with the United States and replaces its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief. Washington increases the heat concerning war and sanctions.
October 2007: Iran gets some added leverage when it looks to Russia for a sponsor in its negotiations with the United States over Iraq. For its own interests, Russia acts as Iran’s backup and makes more promises to deliver nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr facility. An intra-Iranian debate over next steps in Iraq erupts with the resignation of Iranian national security chief Ali Larijani.
November 2007: With violence dropping in Iraq, the United States feels it is in a strong enough position to move forward in negotiations with Iran. Iran says it will participate in a fourth round of talks on Iraq with the United States. Iran makes a major conciliatory move on the nuclear front when it hands over a set of blueprints to the IAEA that details how to shape weapons-grade uranium into a form usable in a nuclear warhead. Though no date has been set, it looks as though the atmosphere is being set for a serious round of negotiations between the United States and Iran.
December 2007: In a massive reversal of U.S. policymaking, the U.S. intelligence community releases an NIE report that claims Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, though its intentions still remain unclear. With the rationale for U.S. military aggression against Iran gone, negotiations between Washington and Tehran are more serious than ever.
#51 MM – So now we are going to track ALL the costs for Iraq. I hope you tracked all the costs for WWI and WWII. Wait, you mean we don’t have bases and troops on the ground in Germany or Japan? That’s good to know.
Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.
Speaking of which, you clearly imply that the war has cost “tens of thousands” of American lives. I noticed you were conspicuous in NOT answering that one.
Are you going to constantly switch your names you use to refer to me? Which is it? steve-o or pumpkin.
signed
steve-o
(until further notice)
>>So now we are going to track ALL the costs
>>for Iraq.
Sure. Why not? That’s what it costs. To do anything else would be as silly as to say you “paid” $200,000″ for a $200,000 home after paying off the 30-year mortgage.
WWI and WWII were fought for just causes. I’m not wooden-headedly anti-war, and I know wars are costly (although Dumbya’s trophy war is more expensive than most, with its war profiteering reaching to the highest levels of the government). There was no justification for Dumbya’s trophy war, and even if there were, the could NEVER be justification for rushing into any war with no plan to fight the war and no exit strategy. It’s not like Saddam bombed Anchorage or something.
>>Are you going to constantly switch your
>>names you use to refer to me? Which is it??
Usually Steve-O, Steve-O. But when you’re particularly silly, I reserved the right to switch over to Pumpkin.
#55 MM – So long as we got the name straight.
Yet I still notice no answer on the “tens of thousands” of Americans.
steve-o
Mustard,
Did you bother to read the post from “stratfor”
up above. I know it is long, but that shouldnt matter if you genuinely want to understand the situation. It confirms everything that I have saying and gives a timeline of events all the way back until 2002. check it out. It is very well done and very well thought out and accurate. At the very least, it is a much more researched view point than anything on this web-site.
>>Yet I still notice no answer on the
>>“tens of thousands” of Americans.
You got me there, Steve-O. I mis-spoke. What I should have said was HUNDREDS of thousands WOUNDED ( http://tinyurl.com/32tzv9 ), not tens of thousands killed. You are correct, “only” about 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq ( http://tinyurl.com/grm4 ). The point remains the same, though. So much cost in human life and suffering, dragging the economy into the toilet bowl, all so that Dumbya could try and resolve his daddy issues.
What a disgrace.
#58 MM – Damn! I’m glad I was sitting down when I read your correction.
steve-o
(aka pumpkin)
I knew that it would touch me sooner or later, a soldier I know was killed by an IED in Iraq 2 weeks ago.
No MM,
all of those brave soldiers have been killed or injured for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Those soldiers continue to be killed in an effort to secure Baghdad for the Iraqi citizens. Our troops (and Iraqi civilians) are being killed by suicide bombers and IED’s that are placed to cause unrest, fear, and carnage. Which is then promptly aired all over the world by CNN and alike. Over the past year amazing changes have taken place. The soldiers have more local support than they have ever had. Former enemies have joined with us and booted AQ out of Iraq. There are still serious problems, but positive changes occur each day. Yes many civilians are still killed, but fortunately the number of attacks are down and have been for months. The only problem is that now they are much more effective (due to practice) in the attacks that they do launch, so each attack is more devastating. Its called a learning curve and its why Osama’s troops were such a problem. (they were battle hardened fighting the Russians). We also just had 70,000 Iraqi’s volunteer for the Iraqi version of the national guard. The war is far from won, but they are finally making positive strides. Remember that half way through WWII it looked like the war was lost as well. Especially if you were European. But the world changed its strategy and we were able to bring down the Nazi’s.
There has been a major shift in strategy on the ground (i.e. soldiers live amongst the people, we dont just fight and move, we fight and hold, and more and more Iraqi’s are taking responsibilities in operations and security.
So before you demean every soldier who gave his life for those people….how about you stop over-simplifying the war in Iraq to support your oversymplified logic about the world as a whole. Yes, bush should have waited before invading, yes, bush should have questioned the intel coming from “curveball”, yes Bush should have questioned intel coming Iran about Iraqi WMD’s, and yes, we could have used these resources in a much more effective way, had we not invaded….but Saddam was a brutal dictator, his kids would most likely have been worse had they succeeded him, He took part in genocide and brutalities that make G-Bay look like a frat party. Yes Bush deserves criticism, but for our troops..they are there to help the Iraqi people. They have given their lives for their fellow man and to call their loss a waste is an amazing over-symplification of what is going on. Shame on you!
Le me guess, you have probably oversymplified what will happen when we leave. Or do you just not care about the mass carnage and increased public humiliation that will ensue? Have you just decided to ignore how much weaker position will be internationally. It isnt good now (and bush has a lot to do with that), but it will be much worse if we just turn our backs on Iraq.