# Iran NIE fallout:  Either Bush is lying or he's stupid



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

republican conservative former Congressman Joe Scarborough, on Bush's claims about what he knew, and when he knew it, with regard to the Iran NIE:



*Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He&#8217;s Either &#8216;Lying&#8217; Or &#8216;Is Stupid&#8217; *

Yesterday in his press conference, President Bush asserted that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told him &#8220;we have new information&#8221; on Iran&#8217;s nuclear program, but &#8220;he did not tell me what the information was.&#8221;

This morning, the cast of Morning Joe chided Bush&#8217;s claim. Co-host Willie Geist said, &#8220;It&#8217;s just not a credible answer, I&#8217;m afraid.&#8221; Host Joe Scarborough ripped into Bush, saying that president is either &#8220;lying to the American people&#8221; or is simply &#8220;stupid&#8221;:

_"We are left with only two options here. Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid."_


http://thinkprogress.org/


----------



## maineman (Dec 5, 2007)

why must it be either/or?


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 5, 2007)

Scarborough has no credibility.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Dec 5, 2007)

maineman said:


> why must it be either/or?



Sure, why beat around the Bush?  Why not just call him a stupid liar like you really want?

ijits.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 5, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Scarborough has no credibility.



how so?

because he isn't falling in line, starry eyed, behind the war drum despite evidence?


----------



## maineman (Dec 5, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Sure, why beat around the Bush?  Why not just call him a stupid liar like you really want?
> 
> ijits.



I am pretty sure that was the clear implication.  

moron


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 5, 2007)

Shogun said:


> how so?
> 
> because he isn't falling in line, starry eyed, behind the war drum despite evidence?



No, its just that he's so mad, has changed his mind several times and spews vitriol.  There are people on the other side that do this too, conservatives, which I lend no credibility either.  Hannity is the name.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Dec 5, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am pretty sure that was the clear implication.
> 
> moron



like i said, why beat around the Bush?

ijit bushwacker


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

standard GOP misdirect:  make the issue about Scarborough. 

Now, do you believe that Bush only "found out" about the intelligence communities assessment about Iran a few days ago?

Or is he lying, because the findings in the NIE were basically formalized 6 months ago.   


As for scarborough, sane conservatives can change their mind, based on new information.  He's seen enough of Bush to conclude that Dubya is a bumbling incompetent.   Most of america has.  

I swear, sometimes it seems like most of the 24&#37; dead enders - that small fraction that still worships Bush - is on this board.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> standard GOP misdirect:  make the issue about Scarborough.
> 
> Now, do you believe that Bush only "found out" about the intelligence communities assessment about Iran a few days ago?
> 
> ...



Tell me, why would a country dripping in oil need a nuclear program to begin with?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 5, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> No, its just that he's so mad, has changed his mind several times and spews vitriol.  There are people on the other side that do this too, conservatives, which I lend no credibility either.  Hannity is the name.



I don't see Joe as equivalent to hannity in the blathering department.  We all change our minds.  I dunno.. I've seen Joe be pretty consistent before.  I've grown to respect him much in the way I have grown to respect Buchannan.  Ole Pat gets red in the face and is quick to tell it how he sees it too but I'd be a fool to say that this has made him wrong about quite a few things.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 5, 2007)

http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1015.html


----------



## jillian (Dec 5, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> No, its just that he's so mad, has changed his mind several times and spews vitriol.  There are people on the other side that do this too, conservatives, which I lend no credibility either.  Hannity is the name.



Normal people reasses their opinions as evidence warrants. I've always seen Scarborough as one of the few rational right-wing voices in media. He believes in true conservative values and I don't agree with him on an awful lot of subjects. But the man is intelligent and he, at least, gives good reasons for his opinions, even if you differ with him. 

Or is it only when someone has a conservative "conversion" like Romney suddenly deciding he's anti-choice that a flip flop isn't a flip flop?

Can't help thinking about something Stephen Colbert said about George Bush at the Washington Press Corps dinner last year. He said" I love this man [Bush]. And do you know why I love him? Because he believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday...... no matter what happened on Tuesday".


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Tell me, why would a country dripping in oil need a nuclear program to begin with?



this has been explained ad naseum to bush voters on this board.  Do a search. 

And of course, this is another attempt to divert the thread away from bush. 

do you really think bush "just" found out a few days ago that Iran had stopped their nuclear weapons program?  It would seem odd, given that this NIE was virtually completed a year ago.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 5, 2007)

I guess I fail to see how one commodity (oil) displaces the desire for another commodity (nuclear energy).  It's borderline comatose retarded to insist that having oil should keep a nation from wanting nuclear energy too.  Further, American citizens have about as much valid input in another nation's desire for energy as they have about OUR energy prerogative.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2007)

As I said earlier, why not take a look at what the report actually says? At the site you can find a link to the report. It seems to me that if the argument against the administration is that it is 'warmongering' then those arguing against it should be able to say realistically what is and isn't a danger. :

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4723



> ...In the end even this newly leaked NIE notes Iran is not really dropping its dreams of the atomic bomb:
> 
> The estimate does say that Irans ultimate goal is still to develop the capability to produce nuclear weapon.
> 
> ...



Lots more here for those truly curious about what is going on with Iran.


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> standard GOP misdirect:  make the issue about Scarborough.
> 
> Now, do you believe that Bush only "found out" about the intelligence communities assessment about Iran a few days ago?
> 
> ...



From a Washington Post article....link posted by DCD in another thread...
I don't have the link, try DCD's posts in other threads...

But do continue your rants...
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day.


----------



## eots (Dec 5, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Sure, why beat around the Bush?  Why not just call him a stupid liar like you really want?
> 
> ijits.



bush is a stupid liar


----------



## maineman (Dec 6, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> From a Washington Post article....link posted by DCD in another thread...
> I don't have the link, try DCD's posts in other threads...
> 
> But do continue your rants...
> ...



and Bush made his World War Three comment in October.  Thank you for helping prove the point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> standard GOP misdirect:  make the issue about Scarborough.


Attacking his credibilty is perfectly legitimate.

After all, the only reason you posted him is because he said something you like.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 6, 2007)

*Scarborough and Buchanan want hearings over NIE*

Buchanan: The Republican candidates including Giuliani and the others are talking about using nuclear weapons, tactical atomic weapons on Iran to rip it of nuclear weapons when it stopped its own program four years ago. This is incredible.

Scarborough: Does Congress need to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Steven Hadley and the Director of the CIA and the Secretary of Defense and ask them what they knew and when they knew it?

Buchanan: Exactly. And the President of the United States should tell us what he knew and when he knew it, what he said yesterday is noncredible. If the head of the CIA walks in and says weve got new intelligence on Iran and Bush doesnt ask him what exactly are you talking about new intelligence thats not credible. *But Joe youre right. Biden ought to get off the campaign trail, get back here and chair that committee and say look, what exactly were you told?  bring up the CIA and bring up Negroponte. He was the number one guy in intelligence. Look, we are being stampeded towards war with Iran, the second war in this administration on the basis of intelligence which was false and that is incredible. It looks as though the Iranians when they said this may be a peaceful nuclear program may have been telling the truth.*

Scarborough: If Steven Hadley and Condoleezza Rice and Gates and all of these other people knew then while the President was *ramping us up to war and talking about the possibility of a World War III* and allowing our allies in Europe to climb back on board with America, finally, but allowed him to do that and didnt say anything, do you think they should be fired today?

Buchanan: Look, Im not going to fire anybody today. I want to find out the entire truth of what these people knew and when they knew it. It suggests to me, Joe, that Gates, the Fallon group and the Pentagon generals and the others basically are against a war and they said this guy is driving us to war, and somebody said lets get this intelligence out and blow a hole in the policy of our administration which is to go towards war. *But that raises another question: why is the President and why is Cheney and why are the neocons and why are all the others driving us to war if they knew that Iran had stopped its program four years ago? This is incredible.*

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/...rborough-and-buchanan-want-hearings-over-nie/


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> The fact is this is not the slam-dunk assessment it is reported to be.


This is an accurate assessment.
Of course, those that hate Bush first and ask questions later won't care.


----------



## doniston (Dec 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> why must it be either/or?


  YEH, how about both???


----------



## Shogun (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is an accurate assessment.
> Of course, those that *hate Bush first and ask questions later* won't care.



HA!

I was that intended irony?

We've got hindsight on our side, buddy.. if only your team had asked the timely questions the last time you were beating the same drum, eh?  As it is, your assessment of "accurate" went the way of the Mobile Chem Labs.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> and Bush made his World War Three comment in October.  Thank you for helping prove the point.



Very good point.

It makes you wonder, unless you're in the bottom 25 percentile that still trusts this administration.

I personally think this is going to be used against the anti-war sentiment towards Iran, though.

I don't think a lot of people are taking into account that now, there is a an established precedent.  People can now point to the NIE. and say "See?  Iran really WAS trying to build a nuclear weapon."

Now, all there really needs to be, is some new report about Iran being caught with it's pants down, and arguing against military aggression is going to be almost impossible...especially if the media gets on board and hammers home the idea...like they're doing with this NIE report right now.

You can always tell what kinds of things may be happening, or about to happen, based on how much the media covers something.

I'd be completely surprised if by the end of Bush's term, there hasn't been a widely covered report about Iran being caught with something naughty, and that immediate military aggression is our only option.

Contrary to what I'm sure a lot of you might be thinking, I most definitely do not 'HOPE' that happens.  I don't want my point to be proven, but I still believe it will be the case.

If that happens, they fucking god damn BETTER have some good fucking proof.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Paulitics said:


> > Originally Posted by maineman
> > and Bush made his World War Three comment in October. Thank you for helping prove the point.
> 
> 
> Very good point.



Bush, 10-18-07
"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303097,00.html

What's so wrong about that statement?



> It makes you wonder, unless you're in the bottom 25 percentile that still trusts this administration.


It makes you wonder...  what?



> I don't think a lot of people are taking into account that now, there is a an established precedent.  People can now point to the NIE. and say "See?  Iran really WAS trying to build a nuclear weapon."  Now, all there really needs to be, is some new report about Iran being caught with it's pants down....


The anti-war anti-Bush left will claim that Bush failed to find out about it until it was 'too late'.


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> and Bush made his World War Three comment in October.  Thank you for helping prove the point.



You sound like you're trying to make some kind of point here mm....just what is it....?
-----------------------
Bush:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said, responding to Russia's stated cautioning against military action targeting Tehran's suspected atomic program.

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.
-----------------------

Do you have some kind of disagreement with the Bush comment?
Do you think, given the threats from the Iranian nut, that if he would have access to nukes, that would not be a danger and could lead to a world war... or are you trying to make some other point....?


----------



## maineman (Dec 6, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> You sound like you're trying to make some kind of point here mm....just what is it....?
> -----------------------
> Bush:
> 
> ...




big "if".  If pigs had wings, they'd fly.  Presidents of the United States do not frighten the bejeezus out of citizens by raising the spectre of a thermonuclear world war three when it is not warranted.... at least good presidents don't.  You could exchange Lithuania with Iraq...or put Albania or Montenegro or The Maldives in there and his fearmongering would make almost as much sense.  The FACT - that you so nicely highlighted for us - IS that Bush KNEW these guys were not actively pursuing nuclear weapons months before he intimated that they were and how scaaaaaary that would be.


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> big "if".  If pigs had wings, they'd fly.  Presidents of the United States do not frighten the bejeezus out of citizens by raising the spectre of a thermonuclear world war three when it is not warranted.... at least good presidents don't.  You could exchange Lithuania with Iraq...or put Albania or Montenegro or The Maldives in there and his fearmongering would make almost as much sense.  The FACT - that you so nicely highlighted for us - IS that Bush KNEW these guys were not actively pursuing nuclear weapons months before he intimated that they were and how scaaaaaary that would be.



I'm very sorry the Bush comment scared the bejeezus out of you....

but Bush is right....IF the nitwits running Iran should achieve the nuke capacity they were working on in the past, and use it to achieve the results they have been threatening, world war, or at least a very big conflict could be on the horizon....and that is exactly what Bush said....I think even most, if not all Dems running for president right now would agree with that if asked point blank....and it makes sense to make everyone aware of that danger....why does everyone, including Dems make demands for safe ports and searching container ships, etc....we don't do it to prevent toys with lead paint from entering our ports....or some such crap....

and it makes no difference if its in 2009, 2012 or 2015...whatever...the insane public rhetoric coming from Iran can't be taken as fluff and bluff....these aren't rational people in the western sense....and it is in the worlds interest to prevent them from getting nukes....

Again, sorry he scared you....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> IF the nitwits running Iran should achieve the nuke capacity they were working on in the past, and use it to achieve the results they have been threatening, world war, or at least a very big conflict could be on the horizon....and that is exactly what Bush said....


The "I hate Bush" crowd absolutely refuses to admit it when Bush is right.
They will do all they can to avoid doing so.
Plenty of examples of it here.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2007)

Other than Israel, since when has Iran been a threat to anyone? They don't exactly have a history of invading countries...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The "I hate Bush" crowd absolutely refuses to admit it when Bush is right.
> They will do all they can to avoid doing so.
> Plenty of examples of it here.



Um, Bush just admitted he was wrong. You now gonna start arguing with him about whether he was right or not?

Problem is, Bush has a credibility problem. He keeps on getting things wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Other than Israel, since when has Iran been a threat to anyone? They don't exactly have a history of invading countries...


"Other than Israel"...  who will retalliate in like an kind to an Iranian nucelar strike...

Tell me you understand the horriffic world-wide consequences of Isreal dumping its arsenal on Iran.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Um, Bush just admitted he was wrong.


Where, exactly, did he admit his WW3 statement, posted elsewhere, was wrong?


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 6, 2007)

The Dims have a wonderful knack for either mis-quoting or mis-characterizing what comes from Bush in general....and those that don't read what is actually said and in what context go off the cliff like the lemmings they are....they are so easily mis-led into believing whatever lie is put forth, its quite amusing....and no amount of explanation will alter their distorted views...reading comp. is just not one of their talents....


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 6, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Um, Bush just admitted he was wrong. You now gonna start arguing with him about whether he was right or not?
> 
> Problem is, Bush has a credibility problem. He keeps on getting things wrong.



I don't know why Bush would admit to being wrong....but he can certainly admit the national intell report of 2005 was wrong in their findings....they are the ones that claimed Iran was hell bent on nuke research...and briefed Bush accordingly in 2005....so now they changed their minds in 2007...maybe they'll change their minds again in 2009....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 6, 2007)

What a surprise, a "conservative" that agrees with the left is suddenly "believable" and a report that dos NOT say what the left claims it says is used to attack the president, par for the course.

Do not ask then to actually READ the report, that is just going to far.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Other than Israel"...  who will retalliate in like an kind to an Iranian nucelar strike...
> 
> Tell me you understand the horriffic world-wide consequences of Isreal dumping its arsenal on Iran.



America would retaliate in like and kind to an Iranian nuclear strike.
If Iran were to strike Israel, Israel would retaliate in kind.  Iran might threaten Israel but I doubt that Iran would launch a nuclear attack against Israel out of the blue.   It would not be that foolish.   America and Britain would retaliate in kind.  Islamic states sympathetic to Iran might try to aid Iran, but I doubt that they would make a difference.  We would have WWIII but it would come to an end soon enough.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 7, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> America would retaliate in like and kind to an Iranian nuclear strike.


On Israel?  Maybe.  Probably not.



> If Iran were to strike Israel, Israel would retaliate in kind.


I know.  I said that.
I also said that there would be horriffic world-wide consequences of Isreal dumping its arsenal on Iran.  You DO agree, right?

And so, the idea that 'this is no big deal, as Iran is only a threat to Israel' denotes a significant lack of understanding.



> We would have WWIII but it would come to an end soon enough.


It appears that I need to ask you as well:
Tell me you understand the horriffic world-wide consequences of Israel dumping its arsenal on Iran.


----------



## maineman (Dec 7, 2007)

_"I'm very sorry the Bush comment scared the bejeezus out of you...."_

*it certainly didn't scare ME, it just made me sigh and shake my head in amazement that enough of my countrymen were fooled by this dullard - twice!*

_"but Bush is right....IF the nitwits running Iran should achieve the nuke capacity they were working on in the past, and use it to achieve the results they have been threatening, world war, or at least a very big conflict could be on the horizon....and that is exactly what Bush said....I think even most, if not all Dems running for president right now would agree with that if asked point blank....and it makes sense to make everyone aware of that danger....why does everyone, including Dems make demands for safe ports and searching container ships, etc....we don't do it to prevent toys with lead paint from entering our ports....or some such crap...."_

*the point is:  after getting the knowledge he received months before his WWIII speech, such an IF/THEN Statement is purely rhetorical.  He could just as easily have replaced Iran with Nigeria or Chad or Lithuania... and just imagine how much safer we could make our ports with the TRILLION dollars we've flushed down the shitter in Iraq!  Did you get a chance to read The Fifth Horseman yet?*

_"and it makes no difference if its in 2009, 2012 or 2015...whatever...the insane public rhetoric coming from Iran can't be taken as fluff and bluff....these aren't rational people in the western sense....and it is in the worlds interest to prevent them from getting nukes...."_

*that doesn't change the fact that Bush misleads using fear.*


----------



## Paulie (Dec 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Other than Israel"...  who will retalliate in like an kind to an Iranian nucelar strike...
> 
> Tell me you understand the horriffic world-wide consequences of Isreal dumping its arsenal on Iran.



Tell me you understand the same thing can be said if the US does.


----------



## Mr.Conley (Dec 7, 2007)

Kathianne;628913Read these VERY CAREFULLY to understand the conclusions. They basically fall into (1) Highly probably but small chance it could be wrong; (2) Who the hell knows said:
			
		

> So moderately confident now means "who the hell knows"? Nice equivocating.


----------



## doniston (Dec 7, 2007)

ScreamingEagle said:


> like i said, why beat around the Bush?
> 
> ijit bushwacker


  I got it the first time.-------------and discarded it.


----------



## Annie (Dec 7, 2007)

Mr.Conley said:


> So moderately confident now means "who the hell knows"? Nice equivocating.



I thought you were brighter than that, those parameters came from the NIE report...


----------



## Chips Rafferty (Dec 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> _"I'm very sorry the Bush comment scared the bejeezus out of you...."_
> 
> *it certainly didn't scare ME, it just made me sigh and shake my head in amazement that enough of my countrymen were fooled by this dullard - twice!*
> 
> ...





> The C.I.A.s destruction of the tapes came in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.





> *President Bush has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday, the chief White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said today.[/*



Obviously this mushroom, like his gullible supporters, wouldn't know if John Holmes was up his arse with an armful of chairs!!


----------



## jillian (Dec 7, 2007)

> Bush: Pathological liar or idiot-in-chief?
> Olbermann: Timeline for Irans nuclear ambitions was clear, but he kept on
> 
> SPECIAL COMMENT
> ...



MORE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22134108/


----------



## Annie (Dec 7, 2007)

Pretty good take:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2007/12/iran_nie_a_prediction/



> From Stephen Peter Rosen
> 
> For the most part, the arguments about the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran have been and will be a debate, not about intelligence, but about Bush foreign policy. But the NIE also provides an opportunity to assess our own ability to do assessments, by publicly stating what we think the consequences of the NIE will be, and why. We can then periodically check to see how well we did, and what we understood correctly, and if we made mistakes, to see what kind of mistakes we made. Being publicly wrong is not much fun, but this issue is serious, so I will go first.
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (Dec 7, 2007)

I think I'll go with my post on the subject. 

Actually, I take that back. Yours is interesting, too.


----------



## Mr.Conley (Dec 7, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I thought you were brighter than that, those parameters came from the NIE report...



No, not at all. The "moderately confident" came from the NIE. The "who the Hell knows" is your blogger's invention.


----------

