Was the NIE Report a Strategic Setback for Bush and Globalist Warmongering?

Question

The globalist neocons running the Bush administration saw that a perceived unjustified attack on Iran threatened to arouse a major rebellion among Americans that could potentially and radically alter who America would choose in the upcoming presidential primaries. The PTB see this period leading up to the primaries, as a period when their abilities to manipulate public opinion toward their favored globalist candidates (Giuliani and Clinton) are most at risk of failure. An Iran attack would have exacerbated that risk.

First, the public wasn't buying the justifications. They'd had too much of that in Iraq. Second, increasingly, huge numbers of thinking men and women in the military were becoming critical of this warmongering agenda and actively expressing those opinions on the internet (and donating to Ron Paul's campaign). Even normally supportive yesman Generals in the various services were balking and there was a not-so-minor revolt brewing in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Third, the surge in support of Ron Paul has them worried, even though they are still confident they can deny him the nomination. They fear that the one way to guarantee an even higher level of support for Paul is to attack Iran, which would have proved Ron Paul right: The price of oil would go shooting up toward $200 a barrel, the public deficit would become even more astronomical, and more hatred against America would result.

Nevertheless, the attack is merely postponed, not cancelled. It could be a short postponement trying to get past this presidential primary or they could wait for the ultimate war scenario, in the next decade. The specter of Iran's nuclear weapons program can be resurrected as quickly as the NIE put it to rest. Worse, no new NIE will have to justify Iran's weapon's culpability--which was already established by presumption in this latest edition. All they will have to claim is that the weapons program "has been restarted", or worse, that "Iran never did shut it down" Intel of this sort is easy to create when you have access to black operations worldwide.

Answer 1

Not really; the press did a terrible job at presenting what it said. Here is a summary of the nine page report by the President of the Air Force Association:

Troublesome
• Iran has imported some weapons-usable fissile material
• Iran won't have a bomb until late 2009 at the earliest
• Iran has not stopped its Uranium enrichment program [and since it does not yet have a nuclear power plant (Russia is building it one and has agreed to provide Uranium for it), one wonders why Iran needs to enrich Uranium]
• Iran's halt to its nuclear weapons program does not mean that there has been a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program (whatever this means - R&D!?)
• Iran may import enough fissile material in the future for a nuclear weapon
• Iran will use covert facilities (rather than declared ones) for the production of HEU
• Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.
For more, see: http://www.afa.org/EdOp/edop_12-06-07.asp

Optimistic
• Iran does not have enough material for a bomb
• Iran has stopped its weapons development program ...
• Iran has not restarted it program as of mid -- 2007
• We should have believed Iran in 2003 when it said it stopped its nuclear weapons program
• The program was halted in response to international pressure - which means Iran may be more vulnerable to influence than we thought
• Iran may not be capable of producing enough Uranium for a weapon until after 2015
• Iran will not be capable of producing enough Plutonium for a weapon before 2015

Neutral
• Convincing Iran's leaders to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult
• Only a political decision to abandon nuclear weapons will prevent Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons

Answer 2

I continuously theory that being sane became reminiscent of being pregnant. You the two are or you're actually not. i'm not sure how the "completely" suits in right here. i might prefer to show you how to be responsive to that i think of it shows he's insane, yet that doesn't be the certainty. The Bush administration has, because 911, operated effectively on the muse of inspiring concern. This premise contributed to the knee-jerk reaction of the congress in helping and passing the "patriot act" and it has worked especially plenty for them/him because then. Now he's caught in an embarassing difficulty. right now he defined that he have been instructed quite some months in the past that there became some new intel, yet that it needed to be looked at for accuracy, and that he became in basic terms given this training various days in the past. ok, so as meaning while the President is instructed that there is a few new (meaning 'distinctive') intel, he does not ask for a minimum of a cursory evaluate? Who contained in the worldwide will have self assurance that! So now, as a flesh presser is obligated to do, he tries to spin this around to make it sound like...yeah, that's what i've got been sayin all alongside." that is pathetic and that is embarrassing to every physique with 0.5 a ideas. notwithstanding, i think of the yank public's astonishing gullibility makes human beings like George Bush have self assurance they could say something and the persons will have self assurance it. So perhaps the greater proper question is this: Are individuals in many situations not completely sane?

Answer 3

A setback? No.
What Bush claimed on Monday is the same as what he states on Wednesday, regardless of what happend Tuesday.

Answer 4

Poppycock!!