Features

mburbank · #1

"Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,"
-W

This is not the first time he's phrased it this way. If it's even remotely a true reflection of policy, it's pretty scary.

Any reasonably talented physics grad student has the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. That horse left the barn in the 1950's.

KevinTheOmnivore · #2

It's perhaps the most accurate and to-the-point thing Bush has ever said about Iran.

And I've never seen anyone dismiss nuclear proliferation down to being a garage science experiment. The questions are can they get it, can they use it and would they sell it?

The IAEA is even a little bit confused by the latest intelligence estimate, and nuclear weapons weren't even the primary reasons behind the UN sanctions. They are still in violation of the UN, and the NIE claims they could have a weapon within ten years. So the debate shifts, you would think, from do they have nukes to should they.

But the president's analysis--that Iran has been dangerous and still continues to be--is consistent. They have played a negative role in Iraq up until now, and continue to finance global terrorism. My feeling, as others have speculated, is that the Bush admin. leaked this info in order to get some control back while pursuing sanctions. This could be a repudiation of Israel's position on the matter, or even a way to pull the matter away from the N-Pod and Cheney crowd. But concerns of a hegemonic Iran in the region are quite real, and worth our concern.

mburbank · #3

"The questions are can they get it, can they use it and would they sell it?"

Of course those are the questions! But what W is saying in his typically deliberately dense way is, I don't need to know the answers to those questions to hit them. Alls I need to know is they are seeking the knowledge.

They HAVE the knowledge. Everybody does! He's playing stupid and reserving the right to strike if he feels like it.

Diplomatically, that might be a good tool, but I think he might end up actually doing it for the same, simple reason he did Iraq. He felt he should. In his gut. He throws ludicrous statements out there for himself as much as anyone else.

"I had to do it. They had the knowledge. That made them a threat."

He's uninterested in the difference between knowledge and capability.

KevinTheOmnivore · #4

Max, it's people like you and Norman Podhoretz--the far left and Right--who talk about war.

The Bush administration has pursued sanctions, and has utilized all of the UN channels to deter the republic's activities. Diplomatically, threatening to attack is useful. It gives you leverage, leverage that the NIE has squandered.

And you're being way too literal about this--"can they get it" means resources, proper material and the acilities dedicated to shifting those resources towards a weaponized program. They had this, and with the advancement of their civilian program, they could have it again.

China was warming up to a third round of sacntions just the day before this NIE leak, and the EU sounded confident too, especially since Iran told them to buzz off last week. Of course we're going to "game" an attack, but diplomatically, everything we're doing goes against the possibility. However, the absence of a perceived threat (something the far left has been rejoicing the past couple of days) puts us in a tough spot in curbing Iran's other activities.

AChimp · #5

I think "knowledge" is a poor choice of words for this situation. A better term would probably be "has the means to actually build rather than imagine."

mburbank · #6

Kev, it was a great diplomatic tool with Iraq, too. Then we invaded them.

Seymore Hersh, a journalist of some track record seems to think W is bent on war on Iran.

I don't think it will happen at this point, by the way, not because I don't think Chenney still wants to, I do. But especially after this NIE release, I think W won't do it becuase of the beyond enormous sentiment against it.

I hope I'm right about that.

And I think you're doing what everyone does with W. "Oh, he can't mean what he said, he just doesn't know very many words real well"

"Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,"
-W

For it to mean what you think it means, 'knowledge' would have to have a different meaning than it does. You think it means "resources, proper material and the acilities dedicated to shifting those resources towards a weaponized program." because that's what a reasonable person would be looking for.

He doesn't think the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq changed the equation at all. Even now.

He doesn't care about anything as practical as the difference between 'knowledge' and 'ability'. He doesn't do metaphor. It isn't me that's literal, it's him, and that's what makes him a loose canon.

Kulturkampf · #7

Iran i skind of dangerous... They talk about making martyrs of millions of Iranians and desire to develop nuclear based technologies, even if it i s'peaceful' and were doing so as recent as 2003.

Put that into perspective.

mburbank · #8

Thanks for following what this thread is about, you great, drunken doofus.

Zbu Manowar · #9

I don't think Bush has the support anymore to go to war with Iran. Taking out such a big oil supplier will send this country into a depression easily. And even if Bush doesn't think about that, his party is abandoning him in droves. Why do you think everybody is talking about elections earlier this year? Bush might have power and is insane, but nobody takes him seriously anymore. His power is gone and the only thing he has left is pathetic shit talking.

Congress is just waiting for the right moment to impeach him, and I'll guess that if anybody does it it'll be the Republicans just to cleanse their palate of him. Nothing comes before the party in their eyes, especially a hick figurehead whose use has just ran out. On top of that, nobody would disagree if Bush and Cheney were made to fall on their swords and get impeached.

mburbank · #10

Unfortunately, I think the question boils down to, if W, as commander in chief of the armed forces, orders major air strikes on Iraq, will the military follow his orders? I don't see the joint chiefs having any choice beyond resignation, and W could just appoint someone new and order them.

My hope lies in the idea that he is not so isolated he doesn't know he would have zero support for such a move, and not so looney he doesn't care. But I'm not certain of either of those things.