Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Maybe Obama doesn't see a Stephanopolos interview as the right forum for debate over the NIE, that's possible too.
Obama didn't debate it. It flat out refuted it as if it never existed.
Rose-colored glasses? Preferable to declaring defeat before the starter's pistol goes off.
This particular post, and my comment, aren't asking you to declare defeat. We/I are just asking, specifically, what could be Obama's excuse for flat out denying the existence of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran?
O.K., maybe I'm being too hasty in prejudging what Obama's intentions are once in office.
Bush promised all sorts of things before taking office in 2001.
He would be a uniter, he would respect the sovereignty of other nations/no preemptive war crap, no nation building, and the rest of sewage spilt forth.
Now we have some high-minded promises, proposals and pragmatisms spewing forth peculiar to what Obama campaigned on. Will the new Admin deliver what seems endemic to all politicians--
promise high, equivocate and surprise the electorate, but be the President your king-makers selected you to be?
I'm for change, too, but change I can rely on. (says Y. Berra) not.
I think we can all agree that Obama is well aware of the 2007 NEI. We can all agree that he knows what he said on ABC flies in the face of that study. So why did he say what he did?
The only possible reason I can come up with is that as a black Democrat Pres-Elect, he has decided not to rock the boat and get the Village all pissed off at him before he even takes office.
If he is smart, he will ask for a new NEI on Iran once his new heads of intelligence are in place. If the new NEI agrees with the 2007 study he can then use that to justify employing a more diplomatic approach to Iran. It would be very hard for the village to screech about the scary Iranians with two consecutive NEIs - one under the Bush Admin - agreeing that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.
It's also possible Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons, in which case we do want to know it and act accordingly (i.e., diplomatically). The truth should always trump politics.
This is how we hold elected leaders accountable and not become what the beltway centrist mythology says we are: bizarro freepers from the goatee universe.
This is also reason to remain disappointed that Obama's chief foreign policy offical, Secretary of State, will be someone who is even more hawkish and wrong on Iran.
Obama will hear advice from the whole spectrum (as defined by the Serious People) of course: From the New Republic to the Free Republic.
...maybe he can get a third NIE, saying the same thing as the first two. Because, you know, he's black.
Jesus fuck.
It is the same semantic game used before the Iraq war. Claims are made that nuclear weapons are being actively pursued. If confronted, the response would be along the lines of....Oh, I misspoke, What I meant to say was that they have the 'desire' to aquire a nuclear weapon. That point is much harder to refute, and could very well be true. It conveniently changes the argument from being about the existence of an active weapons program to being about their desire to have one. Win or lose that argument people will still come away with a strong association in their mind between Iran/Iraq and nuclear weapons.
A year is a long time in the Middle East. No doubt Pres. Obama has had a first hand look at the latest assessments of what the Iranians are up to.
I have no doubt that Iran is now trying to build a nuclear capability. Atoms for peace? Hardly likely.
I don't agree with much of what the Bush administration has been up to for the last eight years, but I also am not so naive as to think that after all of our saber rattling, Iran is going to sit idly by and do nothing, especially after seeing how nuclear ambitions got North Korea into negotiations with the West.
The only possible reason I can come up with is that as a black Democrat Pres-Elect, he has decided not to rock the boat and get the Village all pissed off at him before he even takes office.
If he is smart, he will ask for a new NEI on Iran once his new heads of intelligence are in place. If the new NEI agrees with the 2007 study he can then use that to justify employing a more diplomatic approach to Iran. It would be very hard for the village to screech about the scary Iranians with two consecutive NEIs - one under the Bush Admin - agreeing that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.
How many NIE's does one need to not attack a country over its non-existant nuclear arms program? If one doesn't suffice, why would the reality-abhorring villagers accept a second? How many reputable economists line up to say "social security is not in serious trouble" yet every villager brings up "entitlement spending" and calls social security a "crisis" at every opportunity? Israel broke the cease-fire with Hamas and yet to the village, Hamas did.
These people believe what they need to believe in order to justify what Atrios smartly calls the American Hegemony Project. No amount of official reports by people actually interested in fact or reality will dissuade them. If the CIA finds that Iran isn't pursuing Nuclear arms, then this is proof of the politicization and bias at CIA. That's how the mental process will work.
"Free KSM"
I appreciate the courage of your convictions. I think you're quite possibly insane, and praise God that Obama did not appoint either of you Attorney General, but I admire your consistency.
Y'know, I used to snicker with the same derision as Glenn at the Joe Klein term "civil liberties extremist" but I'm beginning to believe such a things exists.
Yeah, that excuse/explanation is going to be hard to top. Pretty early in the thread for that to happen.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
