Frankly, I don’t think Iran poses a threat to the US even if they are working on a bomb.
No. Bush was actively lobbying for military action against Iraq. That is not happening now. The fact that this report says they are probably not working on a bomb is exactly the opposite of what we were told about Iraq. I don’t see how that can be even remotely reminescent of the months leading up to the Iraq invasion.
Pointing out that we don’t know the level of confidence is just part of the discussion. Nothing foolish about it.
Define “shenanigans”. Is Bush trying to spin his way to justify his position on Iran? Yes. Does this mean we’re going to war. No.
How can anyone be certain that a secret program doesn’t exist? I don’t think you’re proofreading your posts for illogical nonsense before you hit submit.
Bush may not be lobbying for military action now (because it would be unfeasible, even Tom Cullen knows this laws yes), but he’s done a lot to portray it as a simmering foe. Playing with fear to keep us onboard with his agenda, yet not going as far to make his calls for diplomacy seem inadequate.
I think shenanigans are going on because the content of this report seem to be out of step with what we’ve been led to believe about Iran’s threat level to us. I can only assume that it’s the admin who has an incentive to be less than straightforward with us, just as they were with Iraq.
I agree, but I just don’t see this as a parallel to Iraq. Bush seems to spin everything to suit his purpose. Whether his purpose is military action in Iran, I honestly don’t know. It clearly was in Iraq, but Iran is just a whole different kettle of fish. I think that even Bush isn’t so stupid as to not realize that.
Bush may talk a tough line, but he’s doesn’t appear to be out of sync with the Europeans on this. Not to say that I agree with all his tactics, but he does seem to be taking the long view, unlike he did with Iraq. If I judge him by his actions, I actually think he’s doing OK on Iran. We could do better, of course, but he’s working with the Europeans on this, not against them.
I’m mostly with you on that, John, though I tend to think that the Europeans are hoping to appease Bush long enough to run out the clock. They gave up on trying to stop him, and now just hope to slow him down long enough. “Sure, George, tougher sanctions, sounds good, let’s form a committee to study the possiblity of further study…”
But mostly agree. All we are saying is give peace a chance.
I am glad that I was mistaken. You agree with me that we shouldn’t bomb or go to war with Iran.
See that, everybody? FinnAgain says that Iran is not an imminent threat and that we shouldn’t bomb or go to war with Iran.
Fellow traveller? Like you, who agrees that Iran poses no imminent threat and that we should not bomb or go to war with them? I’m so glad you’re on my side and that I can call you a fellow traveller.
Once again, you totally got me. I’m so embarrassed that I misinterpreted your nonstop, passionate, belligerent rhetoric toward Iran and your twisting…err, creative reinterpretation of the NIE so you can continue to pretend…err, so we can all see the clear, indisputable fact that the lack of evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program clearly means that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, just like Saddam did.
I’m so glad that you caught me in this lie, because it means that you are totally opposed to bombing and making war on Iran. I don’t know how I could have thought otherwise, and I’m so very sorry that I misinterpreted your hissy fits in this thread and other threads about Iran to mean that you somehow thought that they posed an imminent threat to us, which, you agree, they do not, and that therefore we bomb and make war on them. I must work on my reading comprehension to figure out how I could have thought that you had belligerent intentions toward Iran.
You don’t know how happy I am that you said that. I am so glad that you share my position that Iran is not a threat to the United States and that we should not bomb them or otherwise make war on them.
Hear that, everybody? FinnAgain doesn’t think we should make war on Iran!
…even though he is totally convinced that the lack of evidence of an Iranian nuclear program means that there is an Iranian nuclear program.
I’m going to see my priest about my compulsion to lie.
Oh wait, I don’t have a priest.
It doesn’t matter. You don’t want to go to war with Iran. You don’t want to bomb Iran. You don’t have any hostile intentions toward Iran. You advocate diplomacy with Iran.
But for some reason you came in here with a raging hard-on as soon as somebody started a thread about the NIE’s assessment that Iran is not working on a bomb and started screaming at everybody and picking nits and twisting language in order to…
what?
If you don’t think Iran is an imminent threat and that there is no need to go to war with Iran to stop their nuclear program, why are you in here trying to spin the NIE to maintain some reasonable doubt that the Iranians might possibly maybe have a nuclear program? It’s an irony that just kind of smacks me in the face.
Why is Iran’s support for Hezbollah not a threat to the US?
I made no mistakes.
Yes, it does…and you just quoted it. Sorta.
“(Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)”
You left the word “only” out from the quote, no? Interesting caveat, “only”?
The NIE also said: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”
So there is only moderate confidence that the entire nuclear weapons program was halted and only moderate certainty that the program wasn’t restarted until mid 2007. And, again, what does moderate certainty mean when the NIE uses it?
“Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”
Whatever one thinks is up to them, I suppose.
I have said what I have said.
I have not said what I have not said.
What my posts actually said is that the NIE specifically did not say that they could certify with anything more than moderate certainty that Iran’s complete covert weapons program was suspended in 2003 and that it is not still ongoing. They specifically did say that they could only certify those facts with moderate certainty. They even went to some trouble to define the difference between moderate and high certainty, and then deliberately assigned to the label of “moderate certainty” to the claims that the suspension of programs carried on until mid 2007.
There is a reason the NIE went to such trouble to define their terms, right?
Ignoring that the terms they use have specific definitions, delineations and uses is not in keeping with what the NIE was actually saying.
First off, the NIE report itself said “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”
Saying that someone shouldn’t distort the NIE’s conclusions, that they went to great lengths to clarify, is hardly nitpicking.
Also, the judgment of the NIC is what informs the NIE.
From the PDF:
On the very first page, the NIE goes out under the seal of the NIC. Of course the NIC’s judgment is reflective of the whole NIE. It is only after the NIC critiques the draft that the IC agencies review it, line by line.
Indeed. And the conclusion that Iran’s total covert nuclear weapons program stopped and has not restarted was cast as “credibly sourced and plausible
but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of
confidence.”
Just as it was wrong for the OSP to cherrypick and deliberately ignore probabilities, caveats, and dissenting views, so too is it wrong to pretend that something that is “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” is really “based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment.”
That some people, for ideological reasons, are using pretending that the NIE said the latter is as disturbing to me as the methodology the OSP used.
I’ve gone to extraordinary lengths, if that’s the correct adjective, because I honestly believe in the mission statement of this board. I believe that truth matters. I believe that fighting ignorance serves a worthwhile purpose. I believe that spreading ignorance and untruth is bad.
Moreover, I hate dishonest partisan politics and it is bothersome that now that “the left” is ascendant on the Dope, there seem to be startlingly few people who will point out what I have: that people are playing partisan political games with intelligence reports. When Bush did it, there were cries from the rooftops. But now that the roles have reversed, it’s Totem and Taboo and we seem to have just traded places.
So no, there’s nothing to spit out. Like I said in my very first post, this is for the sake of honesty. I’ve seen far, far too many debates here on Iran poisoned by deliberate dishonesty by people who want to distort history as well as current events. I believe that you can’t fight ignorance as long as a debate is predicated on untruth. I believe that debates like this are very important, and that keeping them honest is of paramount importance, GIGO after all.
I believe that the hostility and dishonesty directed at those who try to keep the discussion honest (eg. I’ve specifically said we should not go to war with Iran, in a thread vibra posted in, but she claims I’ve said we should bomb them), shows me that keeping the debates honestly is very important. If it’s so important to some to keep the debate dishonest for their own purposes, obviously stopping that is equally important.
Nothing to spit out, nothing more than a love of truth, distaste for falsehood and a desire to fight ignorance.
That’s it.
100% true.
We do, however, have rock solid evidence that Iran has been actively blocking inquiry into certain facets of its nuclear program. This is confirmed by the IAEA, by the way.
Not true. Nuclear weapons are not the only means by which one nation can threaten another. Iran’s support for Hezbollah, for example, is a definite threat to America.
I think you can agree that long before nukes, certain nations could “factually” be considered a threat to other nations. It’s not like you could have expected someone in the ancient world to say “Never mind about those Huns, they don’t have nuclear weapons, the claim that they’re a threat to us is not sufficiently supported to be considered factual.”
Equally true is that individual instances should be evaluated on individual grounds, rather than rough analogies to what happened before. To the extent that we do not strictly and scrupulously look at the facts of the matter, but instead talk about something that happened, as you say, years ago… we deliberately refuse to focus exclusively on this issue now.
Wrong.
You can prove a negative. The IAEA itself has specifically said that it can prove that Iran has not diverted material or continued a covert nuclear weapons if Iran begins fully cooperating. Moreover, pointing out that the NIE doesn’t conclusively say that Iran is not working on a bomb is indeed relevant when people claim that’s what the NIE said.
Again, if someone says “there is a green rock in this box” and someone else says “There is not a green rock in the box”, you can indeed prove the negative by looking inside the box. “Proving a negative” is (sometimes but not always) a rhetorical fallacy, it is not a logical fallacy.
Those who championing the NIE (while deliberately distorting what it actually says) have to admit that the report says that at least up until 2003, Iran almost definitely had a nuclear weapons program. It also says that it is only plausible that Iran totally stopped this program, but that the intelligence is “not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence”.
Claiming that it makes no difference whether or not Iran has actually stopped its nuclear weapons program, and that there’s no way to prove that Iran has (even though the IAEA specifically says otherwise) is not true, at all.
The IAEA says it can, indeed, prove that negative.
You say we cannot.
Who should we believe?
Well, here’s what there is to argue about:
The NIE explicitly stated that it was not saying it could certify that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had ended, merely that it was plausible but unable to be confirmed.
The IAEA has specifically said that it can confirm the nature of the totality of Iran’s nuclear program if Iran adopts total transparency.
As of now, we do not know the status of Iran’s covert nuclear program, if it definitely ended or if it continued. Anybody who tells you that we know, either way, is shoveling bull.
Fighting ignorance and cleaving to the truth demands that we do not play make-believe, even if imaginary conclusions are profitable for certain partisan politics.
In short, we need to be honest, fight ignorance, accept what we know and what we do not know, and neither pretend that we know Iran has a nuclear weapons program or that we’ve yet been able to certify that it does not.
Um… I didn’t say that anybody said it was implausible. So you just created a strawman in order to pretend that I’d used a strawman.
Ah, another member of the Luc School of Deceptive Analogies. Yeah, although this very report we’re discussing says with a high degree of certainty that Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program as late as 2003, and that it cannot certify that it was ended, Iran likelihood of still having a covert weapons program is on the same scale as your grandmother.
You can think whatever you feel like.
I, however, know that you haven’t performed due diligence before holding forth on this issue, and that the IAEA itself has indeed said that, given cooperation, they can indeed be certain that a secret program does not exist. Hardly illogical. Hardly nonsense. But like many of your ilk, you are posting from a position of ignorance and you do not deign to do the research in order to hold an informed, rather than simply a noisy, opinion.
I wonder if the Israeli strike on a Syrian facility had anything to do with downgrading the threat? Syria was building some kind of nuclear facility. Now it no longer exists. I wonder if the game wasn’t that Iran and Syria would each built part of a nuclear program, and therefore neither country would have a complete bomb-making program and could dodge inspectors?
I sense a concensus brewing here. It is moderately probable that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and highly likely that GeeDubya is a lying sack of shit, exploiting and promoting fear for his own agenda.
Mistakes were made, eh? :rolleyes:
You claimed I had said something. As I’d never said anything even close, you had to invent it out of wholecloth. This was also the second time you made the same false claim, and the second time I called you out. Mistaken, indeed.
Like I’ve been saying that again and again and again in several threads, one of which you posted in (to accuse me of wanting war).
Hell no. I’m not one for partisan politics and my only agenda is the truth. I’m not sure you’d know honest debate if it bit you on the nose. For instance:
Please crack open a dictionary. Only in your dishonest and frankly Orwellian rhetoric would saying we should not go to war be “belligerent”. But like I said, for some (you and your fellow travelers) telling the truth somehow, via some strange alchemy, equals war.
Nope. As I’ve shown rather conclusively, the NIE went to great lengths to show that you and yours have been slinging bullshit all over the place. They deliberately defined what they meant by high and moderate certainty so that you and yours couldn’t freely pretend that moderate meant high. But, with your characteristic level of honesty, you pretend that my quoting what the NIE said is somehow distorting it. Much like my citing facts equals war. Via magic.
Stopping lying would be ever so nice. Can you cite, anywhere, at all, where I said that anything “clearly means that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?” No? Did you respond to another thread, and accuse me of pitching ‘hissy fits’ in which I specifically and repeatedly said that we cannot know whether or not Iran maintains a covert weapons program?
Like I said “mistaken” indeed. You just continue lying.
Wow. I catch you blatantly inventing a quote that I never posted, ever, and you respond petulantly? A+ for chutzpah, I suppose.
I’d point out that you didn’t claim to have “interpreted” anything but that I had “advocated bombing Iran”. I never did. And instead of actually apologizing for lying habitually, you obfuscate.
Moreover, as you are faced with the fact that my arguments are 100% factually accurate and logically coherent, you are reduced to either lying and ascribing positions to me which I do not actually hold, or pretending that I threw “hissy fits”. I’d point out that such tactics as yours aren’t exactly factual rebuttals… but you already know that, dontcha?
Again, try not lying. It’ll help. I have specifically said, numerous times, that Iran is a threat to the United States. Including in this very thread. What I was responding to was your fantasy that we were going to war. But I notice, again with your standard level of honesty, you’ve changed the subject and invented a position while pretending that I hold it.
Funny… in the thread that you posted in, and now claim I threw a “hissy fit”, I stated several times that we shouldn’t start a war with Iran. You just ‘happened’ to miss me saying that time and time again, and pointing it out when I responded directly to you in that very thread, right? You were honestly confused as to whether or not I supported war, right?
Mistaken. Kay.
Naw, I’m just convinced that you have some sort of quota on lies-per-post or something. I’d ask, again, where in any of my posts I say any such thing, but you and I already all know that you’re just lying. Again.
As pointed out, the NIE said no such thing. They went to great lengths to make it clear that they were saying no such thing. The NIE’s assessment was that the continued suspension of Iran’s nuclear weapons program was “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence”
I know, I know, by posting what the NIE actually said, I am twisting it. Just like telling the truth equals war. And not lying about Iran’s history of directing and facilitating attacks against America is belligerence.
It’s the gospel of lying. Lying will solve all our problems. The truth isn’t particularly sanguine. And if the truth isn’t sanguine, war must result inevitably. So lie. Lie for peace.
Because it’s not spin. It’s what the NIE clearly says. You just feel some need to distort it, because truth = war. (And I’d assume, ignorance is strength)
High confidence, on the other hands, means:
You do know what plausible means, yes?
You do understand why something that is plausible but does not warrant a higher level of confidence demands a level of reasonable doubt?
You do understand that something that does not allow a “solid judgment” must, by its very nature, include room for reasonable doubt?
You do understand that the NIE spent an entire 1/8 of their report clearly defining their terms, while you blissfully and deliberately ignore them in order to pretend they’ve said something they haven’t?
What, you think they defined their terms just for laughs? That they were such dunderheads that they said something was only plausible but unconfirmed when they really meant it had a high degree of certainty and could be stated as a “solid judgment”?
Aint reality a bitch?
Anyways, as you obviously will not honestly retract any of your lies, and will only add new lies after dodging the old lies, there’s really no point to carrying on the pretense that you’re here to debate. You can lie about me some more, if you really feel like it. I’m pretty sure, however, that anybody reading what you claim I’ve said will realize that if you don’t actually quote it, you’ve simply made it up. Happy dissembling!
I read the report and did not find this explicit statement. Can I ask you to provide an excerpt for this? “Merely that it was plausible” is not the interpretation I walked away with. “Highly confident that they stopped a few years ago and moderately confident that they had not resumed as of mid-2007” is what I grasped from it. But I’m open to the possibility that I misread.
Which would mean any covert program would, by definition, become uncovert. This is the illogic that I was hoping you’d recognize.
Didn’t we go to war with Iraq because of unsupported fears about covert WMD programs? This is the kind of talk that gives me flashbacks to 2003.
A box of cold stale Krispy Kremes has more worth than this statement.
If we conclusively knew that Iran is being 100% honest and transparent with us, then we’d know for sure whether they had a secret program. But such straightforwardness would violate the spirit behind having a secret program, would it not?
I didn’t leave anything out. I quoted directly from the last page of the NIE. Look it up yourself. If the word “only” is used in some parts of the NIE but not others, it is not me who left it out. It is the intelligence community. So blame them if you don’t like what they wrote on page 9 of the declassified NIE. I assume you’ll retract that insinuation that I was editing a quote of the NIE once you look at page 9.
You’re doing the same thing again, confusing two (actually, two and a half) issues.
Issue 1. The NIE represents the consensus view of the intelligence community, which is that with “high confidence” Iran stopped its program in 2003 and that the stop lasted for at least several years.
Issue 1.5. The DOE and NIC disagree with the confidence of this judgment and apply only moderate confidence to the conclusion, which is a dissenting view slightly at odds with the consensus of the rest of the IC.
Problem: You are now consistently saying that the NIE says that there is only moderate confidence that there was a stop in the program. You’re wrong. The NIE says there is high confidence in that judgment, and two agencies disagree and have a lower level of confidence in that judgment. The opinion of the DOE and NIC are valid opinions but do not represent the consensus of the intelligence community. If you are going to be exacting on what the NIE says, you must not continue saying that there is only moderate confidence in this judgment, because the views of the NIC and DOE on “moderate confidence” are dissenting, not consensus, views. At least qualify your statements to acknowledge that “moderate confidence” is the views of only those two agencies, not the IC as a whole.
Issue 2: You keep conflating whether there was a program stop in 2003 with whether one continues to this day. Those are two issues. On the former, the IC (excepting two agencies) views with high confidence that there was a stop and that it lasted several years. On the latter issue, the IC does indeed have moderate confidence that the stop has continued to this day, just as you say. But those are two separate issues, and you cannot conflate them to the same confidence level.
Each agency speaks for itself while trying to achieve consensus on the product. The views of the NIC do not override the consensus achieved through the process it guides. The consensus view is reflected in the NIE (eg, “high confidence” in the program stop in 2003) and the view of the NIC does not veto that consensus. In other words, the caveats to the NIE do not define the NIE, they inform the reader.
If people are saying that the NIE is authoritative that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran, they are certainly missing a nuance and you’re right to correct them. But saying that, for example, Bush is wrong not to take the military option off the table WRT Iran because the NIE doesn’t support the view that Iran is about to get the Bomb isn’t political games. It is exactly the type of policy statement that NIE’s are meant to inform. The NIE lays out the best the IC knows about a subject, and people can use it to draw their own conclusions about what we should or shouldn’t do. There’s no political gamesmanship there at all.
I accept your word on that. But let me ask you: is it your opinion that Iran is currently and actively seeking a nuclear weapon?
I agree that his actions to date wrt Iran are okay. But the Washington Post article posted in the OP which highlights his insistence that Iran is a danger based on as-of-yet unrealized potentialities does bring to mind Iraq for me. It makes me wonder why he’s trying so hard to make us afraid.
Fair enough, I didn’t realize they’d changed the wording in the last page. My mistake.
Nope. No confusion, which I will again show.
“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007” Not “the NIC and DOE”. That, by the way, is the same we as “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons”. and “We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.”
You can note that:
“We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons”. and “We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.” is not at all inconsistent with:
“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007”
In other words, the NIE is highly certain that Iran halted its program in 2003 for at least several years but only moderately certain that such a halt continues to this day. No conflation, no contradiction.
A quibble, but yes, there is political gamesmanship there, explicitly.
While I haven’t said that Bush was wrong to not take the military option off the table. I am, however, pretty sure that I quoted where the NIE said:
My honest and true opinion is that I do not know. That nobody really knows except for some highly placed Iranian officials. My honest and true opinion is that almost anybody who tries to claim certainty one way or another “Iran is definitely building a bomb” or “Iran is definitely not building a bomb” is abusing the facts and trying to sell something. Unless and until much better intel is made available and/or obtained by our IO’s.
I do view it as incredibly fishy that Iran has blocked the IAEA at several turns (including but not limited to bulldozing a site before the IAEA inspectors were allowed to visit it), and their hiding things does make it look like they have something to hide, but for all I know they’re just trying to assert independence and fuck with the West (although I think that’s a potentially very dangerous).
The simple opinion I hold is that I do not know.
I’ve quoted it several times.
I’ve quoted it.
I’ve given the specific page number of the PDF where the NIE defines its terms. If reading this thread fails, re-read what the NIE says they mean when they talk about something that is moderately certain. Failing that, us the “find” command and look for “plausible” in the PDF.
You’re talking gobledeygook.
And shifting the goalposts.
And refusing to retract a factually incorrect claim.
You claimed that there was no way to prove a negative, that is, to prove that Iran wasn’t building a bomb. The IAEA itself says that there is, indeed, a way. You respond with a nonsequitor about how that would make covert programs overt, and some nonsense about illogic.
Your statement that we cannot prove that Iran is not building a bomb has been shown to be pure fertilizer. We can indeed be confident of that if Iran complies with the IAEA.
And you put forward a fallaciously circular piece of reasoning that we can not learn all the details of Iran’s non-transparent nuclear program because currently their program is non-transparent.
Yes yes, lie for peace. If the truth is that the experts cannot confirm that Iran’s nuclear program is totally peaceful, since Iran is hiding details of it, then stating that fact somehow leads to war. So pretend that’s not a fact, and we’ll have peace. “Illogic” indeed.
I concur. I was concerned about the way you were phrasing your view prior to this statement, but I appreciate that you’ve clarified your stance.
Oh, there may be people who just want to criticize Bush for anything at all. But I’d say the vast majority of people who are exorcised about this issue have a substantive and strong disagreement with how Bush has handled Iran thusfar, and the NIE provides fodder for more substantive criticism of Bush. I think you are reflexively calling any criticism of Bush “political gamesmanship,” and poisoning the well for any well-grounded criticism of his Iran policies.
No problem. Clarity is important after all… even for a secret zionist neocon warmonger like myself. :eek:
In general I’d agree, and I may’ve misunderstood who you were referring to when you were talking about political gamemanship.
I was calling the NIE’s possible suggestions political gamemanship, actually. More to the point, their suggestion that: "some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. " seemed to be gamemanship.
That seemed to suggest that threats (whether or not they were backed up or mere sabre rattling) along with other tactics were viable as long as they seemed credible to Iran’s leadership. I thought that was the type of gamesmanship you were referring to. My mistake.
