It Turns Out Ahmadinejad Was the Truthful One

Bush is such a liar. Or is he just out to lunch on the most important issue that he faces? In October, he charged that Iran's nuclear weapons program was bringing the world to the precipice of World War III, even though the White House had been informed at least a month earlier that Iran had no such program and had stopped efforts to develop one back in 2003.

Is it conceivable that Bush was telling the truth at his press conference Tuesday when he stated that he learned of the National Intelligence Estimate report, which contained that inconvenient fact, only last week? Even if Bush read the NIE report, he clearly doesn't respect it, for at his press conference he said "the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world--quite the contrary." Not that he has anything against the NIE, whose directors he handpicked. "I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq, we reformed the intelligence community."

But whether or not the intelligence agencies are reformed, the president still ignores them. He didn't listen when they told him he was wrong in claiming that Iraq had purchased yellow cake uranium from Niger and he doesn't listen now when they tell him his alarms about Iran are without factual foundation. The difference this time around is that because Bush is a discredited lame duck the intelligence chiefs were a bit more forthcoming with their findings in a report that has, in part, been made available to the public.

The whole episode shows that our democratic system retains at least some essential checks and balances, but it also is depressing to see that, in this instance at least, the fanatical leader of a theocracy seems to have a higher regard for truth than does the president of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office as Iran's president in August of 2005, two years after Iran's nuclear weapons program ended, has now been vindicated in his claims that Iran has abandoned the weaponization program. Not so Bush, who has summarily dismissed the intelligence community's findings and, using his favorite tactic in dealing with debacles, is sticking to his original story. A story, as in the case of the earlier Iraq threat inflation, that too many in the mass media and Congress, including some leading Democrats, have bought.

Take Hillary Clinton, who said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that" by way of defending her vote for a resolution that, like the one she voted for before the Iraq war, blindly supports rather than seriously questions the president's case for war. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was absolutely correct in calling candidate Clinton out on that vote and challenging her lame excuse that she had not read the full intelligence report before her Iraq war vote. "Members of Congress," Obama cautioned, "must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force."

Not a bad idea. In the case of Iraq's non-nukes, the intelligence evidence supporting Bush was flimsy at best when it did not directly contradict his key assertions. In the case of Iran, it is now publicly understood that there is no such evidence, flimsy or otherwise. But don't count on that to stop the bipartisan coalition of invasion hawks from pushing on.

Once again, they will attack the United Nations' experts, who have been proved right in Iran as they were in Iraq. A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out that the NIE report supports the agency's view that there is "no evidence" of an undeclared nuclear weapons program in Iran and "validates the assessments of [IAEA Director General] Mohamed ElBaradei, who continuously said in his public statements that he saw no clear and public danger, and that therefore that there was plenty of time for negotiations."

Can we get ElBaradei to run in the Iowa caucus? Why are our leading presidential candidates so easily fooled?

It's humiliating to all of us who believe in a free press, separation of powers and individual liberty that a system of government designed by its founders to hold leaders accountable can be so easily manipulated by an unremarkable loser who has been rewarded throughout his life for screwing up. It is hoped that this time around the truth will catch up with him before he gets us in yet another bloody war, just to show he can.

Originally posted at Truthdig.com

Comments

[JerseyBob]

Ignorance a mother of invention
-deception compelling war
He never masked his intention
-akin to a lamp lit whore

[Overd0g]

But, but, ... he should ignore them, right? After all, aren't they the ones that told him that the honorable Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

[realpolitic]

As Mr. Scheer points out, Bush has been rewarded his whole life for screwing up. He passed through prep school with mediocre grades and was accepted at Yale where he graduated with gentleman's C's and D's. For his scholarship, he was later accepted at Harvard Business school, one of the most competitive in the country. He was accepted in the Texas Air National Guard after scoring only in the 25th percentile on the aptitude test, which was the lowest acceptable passing grade. He left the National Guard before completing his service and, I believe, lost his pilot's license at one time after failing to appear for a drug test. Bush became rich as an oil man in Texas after never finding an oil well. He was suspected of insider trading for selling his stock in Harken Energy just before the stock price plummeted. Then, propelled by Rove, he gained the governship of Texas probably due to name recognition alone, and his disastrous presidency of these United States followed. Only people born very wealthy can continually fail upwards as Bush has.

[Tellmethetruth]

This will blow everyone away. Cheney was planning to strike Iran but the Democrats winning Congress ruined this plot.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/21/the_next_act_will_the_republicans

According to Amy Goodman who interviewed Seymour Hersh. Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist for the New Yorker. His latest article is called "The Next Act: Is a Damaged Administration Less Likely To Attack Iran, or More?"

Per Seymour Hersh the CIA released a report over 1 year ago saying Iran had not WMDs, but Cheney still wanted to go to war with Iran.

Wow! Cheney has only been stopped by the Democratic controlled Congress, and Joe Biden as the head of the Foreign Relations Committee (Senator Hegel is also on this committee).

Electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 - stopped WWIII. But we are still fighting the battle - it is not November 2008.

Read this - I am grateful for Democracy Now and Amy Goodwin - she did her job as a journalist.

Also in September of 2006 - Bush issued an executive order declaring Iran a terrorist nation - two months before the election.

Can't help wondering if Biden's fighting to stop these war plans as a result of taking over the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the Democrats took the Senate in January of 2007 is the reason there has been now news in the mainstream media on Joe Biden - the media blackout. Joe has been public since August of 2007 that he would impeach Bush for going to war - can't help thinking that is why he is being locked out of the news by the Republican controlled media.

Check out the story-it is amazing!

[MajorKong]

You have to try pretty hard to lose a popularity contest with Ahmadinejad, but somehow Bush managed to pull it off.

[HumeSkeptic]

Where is the evidence that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program?

Were there any credible evidence, wouldn't Bushie's have shown it?

Heck, in the case of Iraq, they drew those cartoons of weapons labs that Powell presented at the UN. It seems that this time they don't even have a clue as to what to draw.

[AFCOL]

Google "Democrats on WMD" and you'll find some interesting quotes from key party leaders from 1998 to 2002. If you didn't see the names of the politicians quoted at the end of each quote, you'd swear they were Republicans. Of course, politicians from both parties rely on the short memories and political ignorance of their constituents to sustain their power. But it is not about NIEs, special studies, foreign intelligence, or other supposed authoritative sources. And it is not about one party being good and one being evil. No, it is simply politics. Politicians know the voters will line up behind their Pied Piper candidate and follow blindly as they say what the constituency wants to hear to gain votes. And so many voters swallow it hook,line, and sinker.
It is naive to believe that one party occupies the high ground on the subject of Iraq or Iran. Politicians and Intelligence are opposing concepts. But to the many sheep who hang on every word of their party leaders without considering their past positions, I offer a resounding Baaaaa.....help yourself to some oats.

[ajax2]

This NIE not only exposes GW but also exposes Hillary's war positions. We once again look at Hillary supporting GW"s war moves in spite of his documented incompetence and lying. Where Biden threatens Bush with impeachment Hillary advocates more war powers for Bush.

[vippy]

We are the ones behaving like we have no culture at all when Ahmadinejad was visiting.
We really showed the world our worst side.
Of course, when one spreads lies one does not want a confrontation with the man who is being lied about either. People saw the mess in Iraq which seems to get bigger with every day and now more millions are missing. Does anyone even have words for this?

[OutsideLookingIn]

"the fanatical leader of a theocracy seems to have a higher regard for truth than does the president of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy."

What an amazing example of arrogance, unjustified pride and (to outsiders) jaw-dropping self-delusion.

Two centuries ago the US constitution might have claimed it was was the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy (though I think the Swiss might have made an equally valid claim) but in the two hundred years that have since passed many peoples have made huge strides forward while the US has been basking in the glow of the efforts of the Founders, patting themselves on the back and looking on its constitution with devout, almost Biblical devotion as perfection personified.

Isn't the one thing to be learned from the current US debacle just how deluded that reverence is?

The US "experiment in democracy" is rotten from top to bottom like a tree that has stood too long.

"It's humiliating to all of us who believe in a free press, separation of powers and individual liberty that a system of government designed by its founders to hold leaders accountable can be so easily manipulated by an unremarkable loser who has been rewarded throughout his life for screwing up." This is where the 'great experiment has led, and what is going to change it? Where is Proportional Representation, that allows a rainbow hue of views and voices into the corridors of power? Where is "Accountability" when one man is elected King for an almost unchallengeable term, with Regal powers of 'deciding', and granting Pardon?

When it comes to Democracy the US is nearly 50 years behind Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world, and it long after time that she recognised the fact.

[kkuate]

"George W. Bush - an unremarkable loser who has been rewarded throughout his life for screwing up."

Do you think this belongs in Wikipedia?
Thanks for your bravery and courage, Mr. Robert Scheer.

[rixhex56]

IMPEACHMENT, anyone? Jeeeeez! What do we have to do to get congress off their asses?

The lies and fraud of this administration never stop.

[poopdeck]

Continued
One of the seemingly puzzling statements of the NIE is that the Iranians might have desisted from building a full-fledged centrifuge system for highly enriched U235 for cost-analysis reasons does make sense. From the North-Korean experience the Iranians knew how many centrifuges with their supporting technology were needed to do that. The Iranians apparently decided that going the plutonium route in the future would be easier and more economical if they wanted to build nuclear bombs at all. That is precisely what our Manhattan Project concluded during WW2. The issue with Iran is not "centrifuges" but, eventually, "reprocessing" of reactor material.
President Bush added to the disinformation when he declared that Iran should not be allowed to have the "knowledge" of how to make a bomb. Enough has been published about the centrifuge enrichment-principle and thanks to Dr. Khan also about its technical aspects. The Iranians and, for that matter, any government can have the knowledge of how to enrich U235 because that is no longer a secret.

[Incredulous]

If Bush honestly didn't know about the NIE report when he made his speech, that just means he was out there fear-mongering about WW3 without even knowing the facts. What's worse; a liar who fear-mongers to push a Neo-Con agenda, or a stupid, ill-informed leader of the free world, sabre-rattling without knowing what he's talking about. No matter how you cut it, Bush is a failure on every level.

[poopdeck]

Nobody seems to know exactly what Iran's nuclear program entailed prior to the fall of 2003 when some aspect of it seems to have been frozen. Yesterday Mr. Negroponte told Mr. Lehrer of PBS that the Iranians "ceased assembling a nuclear device at that time". Did Mr. Lehrer stop him and asked: "how could they have been assembling a nuclear device if they did not have the explosives for one at that time"? No, that "MSM paragon" allowed Negroponte to spout this and then some more nonsense. My hunch is that Lehrer and most other journalists have not the foggiest idea how the centrifuge-based uranium enrichment system really works nor of what is needed to build a nuclear bomb. Hence they can be easily fooled.
I have done some chemical work for the development of the Dutch uranium-enrichment method by ultracentrifuges. The only way in which the concentration of U235, the material for U-bombs, can be increased in the product is by decreasing the flow rate (throughput) of the gas in the centrifuge cascade. The IAEA, which periodically tests the U235 concentration of the cascade products, can also continuously monitor the current and future final Iranian centrifuge battery by installing tamper-proof flow-meters. Has that been done? I do not know. Dilution of the uranium-hexafluoride gas with inert gases such as argon, krypton, or xenon to simulate "proper flow rate" to fool the IAEA does not work because the U235 will then no longer be enriched at all. It is therefore important to understand that the Iranians can probably only cheat today by building and operating a secret centrifuge plant separate from the one known to the IAEA.