Originally posted by Holden McGroin Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.The CIA/Admin changed it's position, not necessarily corrected it position.I ask a question(s) again:Why do we choose to believe one report over another when both contradictory reports are from the very same source?What independant evidence do we have that makes one report more credible than the other? [/B]
Originally posted by Maverick Answer: Simple, any report that casts doubt on Bush is considered accurate no matter the source or normal validity.
Originally posted by Arlo However, if the latest report with the most up to date data supported administration presumption then ....You guys are making a political pity party out of a report you just don't want to believe ...... because you don't wanna believe it. AND trying to project that on your political adversaries.Blame the left .... the Democrats ... for ... something they didn't control? Bush admin wrong .... Democrats fault?
Originally posted by bj229r THATS the thing....IS there any new data? Or is this merely a re-assessment of existing CIA data by State Dept people?
Originally posted by Arlo The State Department people. Even a re-assessment by the SD isn't a conspiracy by the left.
Originally posted by bj229r The US State Dept and the 'Left' ARE the same thing
Originally posted by AGM65 Don't forget he's doing God's work *cough, cough, choke, puke*. Remember when Bush said, "I spoke with God, and God told me to destroy the Axis of evil." Anyone else remember that speach?
Originally posted by Arlo Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice may be surprised by your opinion.
Originally posted by bj229r She is an ineffective leader, has little to do with goings-on. GOOD thing she had this position, so folks won't think of her as presidential material any more
Originally posted by Arlo I'm sorry. What was the point? snip
Originally posted by Arlo You're just in a general all-around pizzy mood over this, ain'tcha?
One misleading aspect of the new NIE is that it defines a "nuclear weapons program" very narrowly as "Iran's nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work." But Tehran may have halted its weapon design work because it already has a suitable weapon design. Aided by A.Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling network and North Korea, Iran may have made so much progress in more than a decade of clandestine work that an easily reversible halt of some programs in 2003 may have little practical effect in restricting its ability to eventually build a nuclear weapon.The chief bottleneck in Iranian efforts to attain a nuclear weapon may not be the weaponization work, but the acquisition of enough weapons-grade fissile material to arm a bomb. This makes Iran's accelerating work on uranium enrichment, with approximately 3,000 centrifuges at its Natanz facility ostensibly dedicated to producing fuel for its civilian nuclear power program, an important part of its potential weapons efforts. It is therefore a mistake to downplay Iran's intensifying efforts to enrich uranium in continued defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Iran may simply be trying to master the most difficult part of the weapons building process--enriching the uranium fuel--before taking the final step of weaponization.The NIE recognizes this possibility by including the following caveat:Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.This important point, buried in the text of the document, is often overlooked in press reports about the NIE.
Originally posted by culero You can make a cake out of carrots.
Originally posted by bj229r Hmm, pretty much, MOSTLY because NOW Iran is going to go unchecked doing exactly what they were doing before, which is being the first Islamic nutberger country to acquire a nuke link
