Was everyone living in America (including huddler's)...

[TheGrunt]

When Iran halted their nuclear facilities immediately after the collapse of Saddam's regime--were you all, the ordinary American receiving news from some form of media source, not informed when this happened?

A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

 

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could undermine U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities. ...

 

 

... The shift in the intelligence community's thinking on Iran comes five years after a flawed NIE concluded neighboring Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction -- a report that helped pave the way for the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. ...

 

... Bush's national security adviser said that on balance the report was "good news," insisting it showed Tehran was susceptible to international pressure but that the risk of it acquiring nuclear weapons "remains a very serious problem."

 

But he added: "The international community has to understand that if we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran on a road to a nuclear weapon ... or the possibility of having to use force to stop it with all the connotations of World War III, then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure."

 

Administration officials denied the new NIE had exposed a serious intelligence lapse but could not explain how agencies failed to detect for four years that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted.

 

Intelligence officials said the suspension involved design and engineering for a bomb and covert uranium-conversion work.

 

A key NIE finding was that: "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."

 

Still, the report said: "We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

I suppose I'm only curious, considering how surprised the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) agency is upon receiving knowledge of this happening, were you guys not informed when this did occur back in 2003 (during or immediately after our invasion of Iraq)--? I'm skeptic this information wasn't already known by the vast majority of you guys right as it occurred. By this, I mean getting some sort of news related update --how, after watching the U.S. and British forces completely topple Saddam's "powerful" regime in just under a month, Iran, probably out of fear, decided to halt their nuclear facilities. You guys already knew this, right?

[Pope Flick]

English, please.

[TheGrunt]

English, please.

...Did you or did you not hear this information in 2003, how Iran halted their nuclear program during or after the US-led invasion of Iraq?

[Pope Flick]

...Did you or did you not hear this information in 2003, how Iran halted their nuclear program during or after the US-led invasion of Iraq?

 

 

Why would anyone here be prvvy to a classified report grunt. What's your point?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Pope Flick

[TheGrunt]

Why would anyone here be prvvy to a classified report grunt. What's your point?

I'm only saying I didn't know this specific bit of information was classified. ...makes sense, I suppose.

 

If anything I kind of find it amusing if you all are only just now learning this information -- almost in a sectarian, knowledge is power kind of way.

 

EDIT: excluded caution statement. thought it was stupid and unnecessary, similar to me explaining myself for my actions in this instance. i am done now, thank you.

Edited December 4, 2007 by TheGrunt

[Pope Flick]

Again - I'm not getting you. At first glance I thought it was classified due to your question, but the reality is different: this is new info from a report just released that goes back and contradicts the last report from 2003, whchc is where you're getting that date.

The shift in the intelligence community's thinking on Iran comes five years after a flawed NIE concluded neighboring Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction -- a report that helped pave the way for the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

[yo mama]

...Did you or did you not hear this information in 2003, how Iran halted their nuclear program during or after the US-led invasion of Iraq?

I didn't hear about it until today.

[TheGrunt]

Again - I'm not getting you. At first glance I thought it was classified due to your question, but the reality is different: this is new info from a report just released that goes back and contradicts the last report from 2003, whchc is where you're getting that date.

None of the "new info from a report just released" is actually new information to me. This is what led me to believe that, if this particular agency is only now receiving the correct information from five years ago, it's all the more likely that all of you received incorrect information too.

[Chavez]

What exactly is your point here?

[I Like Soup]

Well, considering our "intel" was shortly being put under the "unlikely" or "wrong" categories, it wouldn't surprise me if this was way off. Then again, if this was known, I'm sure it would have been trumpeted as another reason the war in Iraq was justified at the time.

 

But to answer your question, I don't recall anything like that from 2003.

[yo mama]

But to answer your question, I don't recall anything like that from 2003.

Perhaps it was over your head.

[darin3]

Perhaps it was over your head.

So... many... possibilities...

[TheGrunt]

What exactly is your point here?

I find it kind of odd, maybe a little funny too. If anything, it's just something that got me thinking... nothing special, I suppose. Well, besides the fact that it's good news regarding Iran's current progress toward building Nukes.

 

Well, considering our "intel" was shortly being put under the "unlikely" or "wrong" categories, it wouldn't surprise me if this was way off. Then again, if this was known, I'm sure it would have been trumpeted as another reason the war in Iraq was justified at the time.

 

But to answer your question, I don't recall anything like that from 2003.

That's what I'm starting to wonder or think about myself. I don't understand why or how the assessment was 'wrong' five years ago, when I know for a fact I was given opposite information (which is now the "correct" information) regarding Iran's nuclear research being halted (The assessment is a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies). The reason why I'm most likely confused is because this information, if released when it actually happened, remains the positive 'good news' that it still is today. In all likely, it seems to me, President Bush would have wanted the general public to know this information because it is positive news regarding Iran and how our efforts in Iraq helped persuade Iran to stand down. But rather, instead, the wrong information has been fed to the general public for five years -- giving us the impression that Iran is much more dangerous than this "new" information suggests. I don't know what the purpose of this would have been, besides possibly trying to keep a defensive standpoint on Iran's desire to build nuclear weapons. At which point I'd understand why the need to hide certain information.

[Yukon Cornelius]

By Matt Spetalnick Mon Dec 3, 6:09 PM ET

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

 

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released on Monday could undermine U.S. efforts to convince other world powers to agree on a third package of U.N. sanctions against Iran for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment activities.

 

Tensions have escalated in recent months as Washington has ratcheted up the rhetoric against Tehran, with U.S. President George W. Bush insisting in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War Three.

 

But in a finding likely to surprise U.S. friends and foes alike, the latest NIE concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

 

That marked a sharp contrast to an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."

 

But the new assessment found Iran was continuing to develop technical means that could be used to build a bomb and it would likely be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame."

 

The shift in the intelligence community's thinking on Iran comes five years after a flawed NIE concluded neighboring Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction -- a report that helped pave the way for the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

 

No nuclear, chemical or biological weapons were ever found in Iraq and intelligence agencies since have been more cautious about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

 

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, were briefed on the new NIE last Wednesday.

 

Washington, which insists it wants to solve the Iran problem diplomatically while leaving military options "on the table," is pushing for tougher U.N. sanctions against Tehran but faces resistance from China and Russia.

 

Iran insists it wants nuclear technology only for civilian purposes, such as electricity generation.

 

The nuclear standoff has become a major issue in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, with candidates weighing in on the prospects for military action against Iran.

 

U.S. STILL SEES IRANIAN "RISK"

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, among senior Democrats who had requested the updated report on Iran, said the assessment challenged some of the administration's "alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran."

 

He and other critics had accused Bush trying to rush the country into war again based on faulty intelligence.

 

Bush's national security adviser said that on balance the report was "good news," insisting it showed Tehran was susceptible to international pressure but that the risk of it acquiring nuclear weapons "remains a very serious problem."

 

But he added: "The international community has to understand that if we want to avoid a situation where we either have to accept Iran on a road to a nuclear weapon ... or the possibility of having to use force to stop it with all the connotations of World War III, then we need to step up the diplomacy, step up the pressure."

 

Administration officials denied the new NIE had exposed a serious intelligence lapse but could not explain how agencies failed to detect for four years that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted.

 

Intelligence officials said the suspension involved design and engineering for a bomb and covert uranium-conversion work.

 

A key NIE finding was that: "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005."

 

Still, the report said: "We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."

[evil_gop_liars]

President Bush would have wanted the general public to know this information because it is positive news regarding Iran

 

 

Your kind of like a mushroom.

[TheGrunt]

 

Your kind of like a mushroom.

On occasion, I probably can be. Whatever that means.

 

And you're kind of like a freelance reporter.

[Ursa Majoris]

I have no idea what Grunt is driving at.

[bushwacked]

I have no idea what Grunt is driving at.

 

 

I think he wants us to blame the liberal media.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think he wants us to blame the liberal media.

At first I thought he wanted to say something about people who opposed the Iraq War or something but I really have no idea.

[wiegie]

So, what the evidence suggests is that by invading Iraq the US caused Iran to halt its work on nuclear bombs.

[Avernus]

I didn't hear about it until today.

 

+1

[Savage Beatings]

I think he is saying that the U.S. Gov't knowingly fed us incorrect information about Iran, in order to keep us more afraid of them so that we would want to support our continued military presence in the region.

[The Irish Doggy]

I could not not tell you about what I did or did not not hear on or not before 2003.

[Avernus]

I think he is saying that the U.S. Gov't knowingly fed us incorrect information about Iran, in order to keep us more afraid of them so that we would want to support our continued military presence in the region.

 

that makes sense....

 

and I believe it

[detlef]

I find it kind of odd, maybe a little funny too. If anything, it's just something that got me thinking... nothing special, I suppose. Well, besides the fact that it's good news regarding Iran's current progress toward building Nukes.

Well, that's what one would think. I mean, that's what I think. If it's because Iran was scared crapless after we went into Iraq, bully for us. Perhaps this war wasn't such a waste after all. Of course, it could also be the result of the same International pressure we seemed unwilling to have the patience for to stop Suddam...oh wait, he wasn't...never mind. At any rate, I would have to think that his is good news to anyone. Which is why I'm rather puzzled by this comment...

 

"This is challenging information," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

 

Now, that statement could mean a number of things and with a number of different intentions. However, it would not be the first time someone used "challenging information" to define something they were hoping not to hear. As in, this information sort of messes up our plans.

 

Before you jump all over this as pessimism, what else could he mean? I mean, assuming our objective is to see to it that Iran is not developing nukes, why would you consider finding out that they're not as "challenging information".

 

You've been trying to find your lost dog. Your wife calls you to say that she just found her. That she must have come home while you were out looking for her because she's in the back yard. Is this "challenging information"?

 

I don't know. Perhaps the fact that it runs contrary to what they thought was going on is "challenging".