Who is more credible on the Iran nuke program issue, Ahmadinejad or GW Bush?

Question

Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc

Answer 1

They are cut from the same cloth so I don't think I can answer this for you.

Answer 2

IRONIC the same National interlligence estimate said that Iraq had WMDs in 2003. BUT it was a lie. the Democrats rallied behind that also for politics. Yet again, the NIE has come out with this report, saying the Iranians have halted their Nuke ambitions, the democrats are also rallting behind this report. However, the same NIE was dead wrong about Iraq.

the same National interlligence estimate also says that Iran continues to enrich uranium could FINISH building a Nuke by 2010. Geee.. that sounds like only 2 years from now.

Answer 3

Well, I dont see a source for the information ( by source I mean other than saying it was from this group. I mean some tangible info ) or a single name associated with the information.
And Ahmadinejad... I would hardly call that guy credible.
So I dont know. Bush surely isnt tops on my credible list either.

If I saw a quote attached to a name who was a member of some group that I recognized and they stated at least some reference to their findings then I might actually consider that article worth something.

Answer 4

I just gave a long winded reponse to the standard questions uninformed peopel are spewing still, a copy paste will make this easier to post.

The ignorant masses are a force of danger.

Let me address the uninformed:


Explain why they supply IEDs that kill our soldiers.

That was reported by the White House, again providing no evidence. One must truly understand the history of the modern Middle East to know the divsions and factions within it. Persians are Iranians, they are not Arabs, they generalyl dislike Arabs this has been going on for milennia, they would not support elemnts ofo Al Qaeda, as they despise them.

Explain why they stone women to death and hang gay teenagers:

Iran is not completely modernized, it is a rather large coutnry with sprsely sepperated populations. The majority of the county lives in several of the major cities, the largest being Tehran. Tehran is very equivilent to say, Chicago, not quite New York City. The resulting 'spotted' population is spread out from the modern infrastrcuture in the more populated areas of Iran. These less developed areas are not completely caught up in humanitarian standards, this is true. Thisis a product of the culture, and the country 'growing up', we went through the same thing. They are not enacting Iranian governement anti-humanitarian executions, but it does occur. Hardly a reason to violently destroy a country, its growing.

Explain why their president was among the students who stormed our embassy and kidnapped Americans for 444 days:

You must educated yourself on the Iranian Revolution. The Iranian Revolution occured because the Shah of Iran or King, was in the pocket of the CIA. From the American Embasy it was widely known to Iranians to be the staging point the CIA backed coup in Iran occured putting the Western influence Shah in power and driving the country into poverty. The first thing they took over when revolting and instiuting new leadership was guess what, the US Embasy. Who can blame them given its historical use in that country, and well known.

Explain why Iran's president and Venezuela's president recently called for the downfall of America:

Rhetoric to match rhetoric. Look through both postitions of the argument, you will not see a big deviation.

Explain why Iran's nuclear facilities are supposed to generate electricity when they have enough oil to power their country for generations:

Because they want to sell the oil, they made that clear. This by the way is the same thing developed countries do with mass oil stocks. Like Russia, and the United Arab Emirates, of which were allied.

Explain why their nuclear facilities are camouflaged and enclosed in hardened bunkers:

Standard Operating Procedure, listen to your own question.

Explain how a regime that killed a million people during a nine year war with Iraq isn't dangerous:

This is a huge and incorrect statement. Iraq invaded Iran, with the backing of the United Stats. Iran defended itself from Iraqi agression and pushed IRaq back into their country and slightly into it. Iraq initiated the conflcit because it wanted Shat El-Arab, a major shiping point in the PErsian Gulf lcoated just within Iran. Iraq is in a precoctious position of having very limited ocean access for trade. Iran was gased by Iraq, Iran did not gas in return, Iran faced all odds and perservered with a cease-fire being signed 9 years later. More Iranian civilians were killed in that conflcit then anytime since the Mongol Invasion milenia back.

Can you explain ANY of this, or are you covering your eyes and telling us you're invisible:

I am trying to give you more sources of information, so we as Americans can make choices that are from INFORMED information. I have no bias, but truth.

Answer 5

The burden of proof is on Bush because he is the one who is saying that Ahmadinejad is a liar and that he is making a bomb.

So Bush MUST PROVE that claim. If he cannot prove it then he's a LIAR.

No other person besides bush accuses Ahmad of owning a nuclear bomb -- worldwide.

Answer 6

that's time for something of the worldwide to make it very sparkling to GW that he's on his very own from right here and that we could like not extra of his innovations-blowing wing lunacy. you may think of the deaths of 1000's of hundreds of Iraqis and hundreds of his worldwide places youthful ladies and men human beings could positioned a provide as much as his insanity and that the yank human beings could say sufficient. it incredibly is yet another case the place the prospect of nuclear conflict is getting used to conceal yet another time table by means of fact despite if that they had the potential they could must recognize that it may be suicide to to apply or maybe threaten it and if it became into discovered they had offered terrorists that should have an identical effect. This corporation of attacking different worldwide places on the pretext of combatting terrorism is going to deliver approximately WW3 except sanity is permitted to succeed. My very final factor is that if one u . s . has atomic weapons, why shouldn't each and every of the others? we could desire to continually be training doing away with all of them as quickly as that's a threat. We have already got everyday weapons, and the skill to grant them, that should make WW2 appear as if a minor skirmish.

Answer 7

think your so called think tank has anyone that isn't as politically motivated as you and driven by anything other than an agenda..as you do interjecting bias at every opportunity and submitting it as a-political and independent?

Wickipedia
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) is the center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking within the United States Intelligence Community (IC). It was formed in 1979. According to its official website:

It leads the IC's effort to produce National Intelligence Estimates and other documents;
It supports (and reports to) the Director of National Intelligence;
It serves as a focal point for policymaker's questions;
It contributes to the effort to allocate IC resources in response to policy changes; and
It communicates with experts in academia and the private sector to broaden the IC's perspective;
The NIC's goal is to provide policymakers with the best information: unvarnished, unbiased and without regard to whether the analytic judgments conform to current U.S. policy.

One of the NICs most important analytical projects is a Global Briefing. Produced every five years, the Global Briefing assesses critical drivers and scenarios for future global outcomes over a 15 year time horizon. The Global Briefing provides a basis for long-range strategic policy assessment for the White House and the intelligence community. The NICs most recent Global Briefing, Mapping the Global Future: 2020 was released in 2005.

Answer 8

The latest is the administration claiming 2007 policy caused Iran to give up on making a bomb... in 2003.

Is anybody surprised?

Other than politically incontinent, socially drooly, cultural cretins that is?

Answer 9

I tell ya what, Chi Guy, why don't you sit back and allow Iran to get hold of a nuclear weapon. Then see if they do like the U.S. has and sit on it for 52 or 53 years without using it. We haven't used ours since 1945. Do you really think Iran will wait that long? Because if you do, you're awfully naiive.

EDIT: And by the way, we used ours while we were on the DEFENSIVE, taking out Japan for having attacked Pearl Harbor. Iran will be on the OFFENSIVE with theirs. Do you see a difference, or are you really that clueless?

EDIT 2: Three thumbs down? Did I annoy you guys by saying something you know makes sense but you don't like it, or did I just piss you off? Three thumbs down? How many more can you guys manage to give before he picks a best answer? Huh? How many? Is three the best you yellow-bellies can do?

Answer 10

The USA intelligence agency is more credible. bush is just as big a liar as ahmadinejad.

bush said the weapons inspectors were wrong. Still no WMD's found to date. Some people just lack common sense those would be the thumb downers and anybody who asks such a question.

Answer 11

Ahmadinejad
because GW Bush is a ******* lier !!!