Hersh: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons
(via C&L)
Washington - A classified draft CIA assessment has found no firm evidence of a secret drive by Iran to develop nuclear weapons, as alleged by the White House, a top US investigative reporter has said.
Seymour Hersh, writing in an article for the November 27 issue of the magazine The New Yorker released in advance, reported on whether the administration of Republican President George W. Bush was more, or less, inclined to attack Iran after Democrats won control of Congress last week.
A month before the November 7 legislative elections, Hersh wrote, Vice President Dick Cheney attended a national-security discussion that touched on the impact of Democratic victory in both chambers on Iran policy.
"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing a source familiar with the discussion.
Cheney said the White House would circumvent any legislative restrictions "and thus stop Congress from getting in its way," he said.
HERSH:
A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power?
At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday.
If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.
The Democratic victory unleashed a surge of calls for the Bush administration to begin direct talks with Iran.
But the administration's planning of a military option was made "far more complicated" in recent months by a highly classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb," he wrote.
"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Hersh wrote, adding the CIA had declined to comment on that story.
A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis and said the White House had been hostile to it, he wrote.
Cheney and his aides had discounted the assessment, the official said.
"They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official was quoted as saying, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning.
"They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission."
Read on...
And so it begins. I believe it will begin quickly, perhaps by the first of the year. After all, the Whitehouse will need to attack Iran oh, say, before the summer of '07 because the race for president will start picking up steam by the fall.
And ya know what folks? We don't have enough bodies to start another war. We don't even have enough bodies to finish the war we already started. Can you say D-R-A-F-T?
You know I posted something in the comments area of the post about OJ Simpson. It lists the characteristics of a sociopath. I think it bears repeating when discussing this administration.
Sociopathic characteristics:
Not learning from experience
No sense of responsibility
Inability to form meaningful relationships
Inability to control impulses
Lack of moral sense
Chronically antisocial behavior
No change in behavior after punishment
Emotional immaturity
Lack of guilt
Self-centeredness
So there we have it. Our President, our Vice President, and OJ Simpson.
Sleep tight babies...
21 comments:
We soooooo need to be more like France.
As far as these two (Dick n Bush), impeach 'em already and send em to one of the black sites in somethingsomething*stan.
But maybe that's too much to hope for from the Dems.
Excellent point MsMel. The soccer mom society is way to busy redecorating their living rooms to be bothered with such things, that is, until Skippy gets a letter from the US Government telling him to report.
One good thing is, todays youth is way to spoiled and selfish, I don't think they'd go quietly.
Email:
moogirl61@yahoo.com
I need to put that somewhere permanent on the site.
Well do you think it's a coincedence that this was just in the news too? "a plan being pushed by Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, for drafting soldiers into the army for the first time since 1973."
Rangel might be thinking the same thing that MsMelody was that the soccer moms would protest the war more if that happened. But I think it would backfire on them very quickly since once a draft is started it's very hard to stop.
It's very hard to keep influence out it also when the goverment runs on the gold rule "Those that have the gold have ways of making the rules"
Bush can take that as ammunition to keep the fighting going and start others with enough rope to hang congress if they give him that slack.
A draft is the worst thing they could have at this point when some are calling to bomb Iran, there was already an article in the LA Times about that.
TYVM for that email I was looking for it today since what I was responding to your comment wouldn't fit in the small space either.
You know, I heard Rangel on the news tonight, and for about ten seconds it sounded like a great idea; start drafting rich kids, rich parents set their hair on fire, the war ends.
And then I thought it through. And then I remembered we’re not dealing with a rational P and VP. A true sociopath WOULD NOT CARE how many Richie Richs’ set their hair on fire. Cheney is such a dangerous man, and I don’t believe that a planeload of senator’s sons going down in flames would move him in the least. They’re not worried about getting re-elected. They have two years to accomplish whatever is on their to-do list. And I don’t think even a band of rich Republicans could stop them.
I had not heard the word “draft” mentioned until I heard Rangel on the news tonight. When I posted this story last night (at 2:30am) the draft just seemed like a logical conclusion. If you want to start a war and you don’t have enough players, and if you’re a psychopath with an agenda, then you just reinstate the draft. If you have no value for life and you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, you reinstate the draft.
My daughter will turn 23 next month. My stepsons are 24 and 26. For me, the stakes just got raised.
Rangel's had this proposal since the start of the invasion, except it never gained any traction with the GOP in charge of Congress.
I can actually remember the last draft (just barely though since it ended a couple of months after I became eligible and Viet Nam was winding down).
And what I remember is that rich families usually sent their kids off to school with deferments or sent them abroad for studies.
It wasn't as effective as we keep hearing because money always talks. Look at George. Air National Guard via pulled strings.
A couple of years ago, the military lowered their acceptance criteria and began drafting people with (violent) criminal backgrounds.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking instances where the Army and other branches are drafting neo-nazis and aryans into the army. And slowly some of them are being promoted up the ranks.
Ps: Moo, you could add your email to your Blogger profile.
"you could add your email to your Blogger profile"
Well duh...
The children of the upper middle and upper classes didn't get drafted in the last war. Don't know why you think they would in this one.
Ya'll can bitch and moan about and be in love with Iran if you want to, but if they are developing nuke technology, do you really think they won't go for bombs? Do you really think they won't blast Israel at the first opportunity. What do you think our stance should be, here? I'm not for invasion, god knows, but I think it is necessary to let Iran know the rest of the world is not too keen on their having nukes. Not too keen on Israel having them either, while we're at it. Or us or anyone. But I damned sure won't sleep better knowing Iran has them.
"Ya'll can bitch and moan about and be in love with Iran if you want to, but if they are developing nuke technology, do you really think they won't go for bombs? Do you really think they won't blast Israel at the first opportunity. What do you think our stance should be, here? I'm not for invasion, god knows, but I think it is necessary to let Iran know the rest of the world is not too keen on their having nukes. Not too keen on Israel having them either, while we're at it. Or us or anyone. But I damned sure won't sleep better knowing Iran has them."
No one's in love with Iran and some nutty little guy appointed president (hmmm, surely it's a coincidence).
But the difference is there may not be a threat from Iran and they may in fact be building for peaceful purposes. Here's an interview with Sy Hersch. Remember the buildup for the invasion of Iraq and how the administration lied about the intelligence.
And under the international agreements Iran signed, they have the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. So far there's no evidence to the contrary.
As far as Israel, they're the biggest welfare kid on the block based on foreign aid the US provides. And they're no one's friend, especially the US's. They proved that back in the Johnson administration when they bombed our ship, the USS Liberty on purpose, and lied to cover it up.
If the US ever dropped it's support of Israel, they'd be forced to do what they ought to be doing anyway...be good neighbors and stop picking fights with Arab countries and stop land grabbing.
It's amazing they want still sympathy for what happened in WWII, and yet they're doing the same things.
That's my comment above.
I will quote what someone else (Golda Meir?) said: If the Palestinians (and Arabs) put down their weapons, there will be no more conflict in the Middle East. If Israel puts down her weapons, there will be no Israel.
Dear god, there were 6 million of them killed. Is there a statute of limitations on horror because of genocide. I hardly think what they are doing could be called the same thing. Mainly, they are defending their country.
Whatever the status of Iraq at the time we invaded, there is apparently no question that they had WMD, and they had demonstrated a willingness to use it, on their own people. Yet we were supposed to believe Saddam when he said they didn't have them anymore?
My question to you was, do you really believe Iran would not use the nuclear technology to build bombs? Didn't they just recently test long range missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads? What do you suppose was the purpose of that? Or do you believe Iran wouldn't sell nuclear technology to terrorists intent on blowing a dirty bomb in the US?
So. It sounds like you're saying pre-emptive attacks are always ok no matter what?
Correct?
I agree that what happened to the Jewish people in WWII was horrible (but I'd say that about any similar situation regardless of ethnicity). It's even more stunning that Israel carries on this campaign of violence and genocide against nearby Arabs today.
Read something else besides the US-based media to get an idea of how the rest of the world looks at Israel. Those other views aren't typically the rose-colored glasses where Israel can do no wrong; that's a US-only bias where Israel is perfect. Better yet, look at some Arab based publications. LinkTV has "Mosaic". Try alternative news sources like Democracy Now!. At least try to be objective in your fact-gathering.
As far as WMD, then using your logic we could make a case for invading Germany because they once had WMD. Remember?
Iraq didn't have any WMDs before the invasion. And guess what, they didn't find any after the invasion. The containment implemented by the UN in the 1990s worked. The inspectors verified that. Read anything by Scott Ritter, one of the inspectors.
As far as Iran, first find the evidence that supports the accusations being made, and then you can make your case for invasion. Not the shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach that Fearless Leader uses to make the US look like fools around the world and ruin our reputation.
Something else to think about. Countries that have nuclear capabilities (North Korea for example), aren't being invaded. Wonder why that is?
It's interesting to know that even now, the bogeyman tactics being used are still working even after all the lies have been shot down.
Boo!
I forgot to add, when you invoke "god", then remember god had nothing to do with this.
This mess is all man-made.
Note that I use "god" with a lower case. A turn of phrase rather than an invocation.
No, I don't advocate an invasion of anywhere. I would oppose the invasion of Iran or any other country unless there were some act of war on the part of that country. I don't even think we particularly have the right to tell other countries they shouldn't have nukes. I'm saying it makes me nervous. I don't think we have any real reason to believe Iran wouldn't use the technology for less than peaceful purposes. Just because the Iranian leader says so, doesn't make it so. You are perfectly willing to believe American's leader is a liar, but not Iran's?
Not even I think Israel can do no wrong. But on the other hand you're saying we shouldn't tell Iran what to do, but we should tell Israel. The fact is that the stated intent of most of the Arab countries is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Even if Israel gave into all the demands of the Palestinians, do you think that would change? It's not just a matter of boundaries or Israeli aggression. The Muslims see it as a holy war, a calling. Please recall that Israel has its present boundaries because they have been attacked/invaded several times and won the land as a result of war.
What bogeyman tactics? We were attacked, 9/11, just as surely as on December 7, 1942. In fact, there were more casualties on 9/11. We had been attacked several times prior to that, by the same group. I don't think any of that was made up. I've never believed the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq. The real reasons were not such as could be stated openly. But, I think it was probably necessary. I think the war was not well-thought out and has been badly managed. But, I think it was always just a matter of when and where, not if, we had to go into the Middle East to keep from any further invasions.
I think it's good that you don't want to believe the worst of your fellow humans. I think that's the way to be. I also think when some have shown bad intentions, it's time to let some doubt creep in.
Bag that last paragraph. It was stupid and sounds condescending, and I didn't mean it to. I think what I'm saying is that it bothers me that you and so many others are willing to attribute good intentions to everyone but the US and Bush. You (the plural you) see all these conspiracies coming Medusa-like from Bush's head. I don't think he's that complicated or that devious. I think he's pretty much what you see. I don't particularly like him, and I despise damned near all the Republican platform, but I just don't see him as some Machiavellian spider. I also don't think he's evil intentioned, just misguided. Now, Dick Cheney is another matter. I think that's who has really been calling the shots all along.
Well dammit Cait.
If we can't get up on our high horse and soapbox here, and sound all condescending and such, then where I ask, is that place?
;) hehehe
Don't worry about it.
We have points we agree and disagree on, and I'll give a short reply tomorrow.
Oh, we can get up on the soapbox and all, but I just don't wish to sound patronizing. That's insulting. I like a good dialogue and debate. I don't like name-calling. That accomplishes nothing. I quit going to sites where the primary form of rebuttal to talking points was 3rd grade taunting.
That was me in the comment above. I forgot to log in.
Cheney's intents have been deliberate and intentional and criminal. No question.
As far as Bush, he's not qualified for the position. And I believe his incompetence borders on criminal negligence for either promoting or not preventing most of the disasters we've seen the past 6 years. He's someone who can't see the difference between "ideology" and "philosophy", and who only sees the world in terms of black & white, good and evil; all this makes matters worse. Worst of all, he doesn't understand his job requirements with regard to the office and thinks it's a business where he's accountable to no one.
Even failed CEOs can be sued for damages (although usually not close to the losses they've caused). If George leaves office in 2009 at the end of his term, the public is obligated to pay him $400,000 / year for the rest of his life plus an annual stipend for miscellaneous. Regardless of the mess he's left.
But what bothers me is that beginning with Reagan and then Bush 41 and then the Republican Congress from 1993 forward, has been the total disregard for, and intent to, undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They don't understand government. And these are job requirements.
And lack of understanding the job requirements has led to Iran-Contra, the Savings & Loan scandal, the pursuit of impeachment for an extramarital affair, and the long list of the current administration's messes including signing statements to legislation. Here's my other opinion on the Republican's business-backed "philosophy" (13th comment).
That's why Bush's support among traditional Republicans has been dropping.
Alex, a couple of things I'd add. I think Bush was simply the stalking horse for Cheney. Cheney was too old and had health problems. The Repubs couldn't make him the candidate. I don't think Bush has ever been in charge, although he make think he has. Perhaps one of the reasons I'm not as harsh with Bush is that I recognize the type and have seen many, many like him in the oil patch. He's a product of his place and time.
I think it's not that Congress doesn't understand their jobs. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theory whack job, but I think there is a small cabal in this country that is definitely trying to reverse a great deal of the social programs and legislation of the last 50 years. I think this is a deliberate plan. They would like to do away with legal abortion, all gay rights, affirmative action, welfare, whatever.
"...but I think there is a small cabal in this country that is definitely trying to reverse a great deal of the social programs and legislation of the last 50 years..."
I believe you're correct Cait. Guys like Richard Mellon Scaife who have their own agendas to take the country backwards ("a bridge to the 19th century", HRC), and they surface occasionally but mostly stay below the radar.
Representive Henry B Gonzalez (TX-20-D) did the correct thing and introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of Reagan and Bush 41. And I believe that if both of them had been impeached and convicted and removed, we wouldn't have the problems with the current administration.
By not impeaching them, the implication was that they got away with it and future presidents could too. As we are seeing.
Paul Craig Roberts pens his thoughts here.
What Alex said.
And don’t ever underestimate Cheney. He could be on life support and still be a bigger danger to America than Osama ever was.
Post a Comment