Ah, Kevin.

When will you submit to the wisdom of your betters like I have, and stop listening to these stupid sailors. Cheney was smart enough to get five deferments; surely he can run 3 wars. What have we got to lose? Nothing of importance.

So will they finally figure out this time around that it takes more than gentle pressure to get these guys to recognize reality on the ground?

What, constitutionally, can they really do beyond exercising "gentle pressure?"

Cheney wants to attack, W is probably undecided. Besides the consequences that Mullen alluded to, such an attack would lead to a tidal wave of votes against the GOP in '08 as most of America is sick of war.

Bush is the wild card and I suspect that dozens of GOP leaders are asking W to chill out.

"The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record."

Cheney's craziness aside, this first line is 100% accurate.

Or...

"The Bush Administration's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record."

Kevin Sullivan at 12:46 PM: For "The Iranian regime" substitute "the American regime" and the line remains 100% accurate.

In John Brunner's 1970's SF Novel Stand on Zanzibar there's a character named Bennie Noakes (IIRC) who spends his time sitting in front of the TV smoking some sort of futuristic SF dope, watching the news, and occasionally blurting out "Christ! What an imagination I've got!" I don't use dope anymore, but lately there are days I feel the same way.

"Wolf! Wolf!" cried little Dickie. The townspeople assembled in panic, once again, to drive off the imaginary predator.

This really shouldn't be left up to serving military officers.

The Vice President's public statements on Iran interfere directly in the jurisdictions of both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. It is highly unlikely either of them were given the courtesy of being allowed to review Cheney's latest speech before he gave it. In a normal administration people in the position of Secs. Rice and Gates would consider their ability to manage and speak for the United States compromised, and insist to the President that he either clarify the Vice President's role on policy with respect to Iran or allow them to resign.

This, obviously, is not a normal adminstration. Sec. Gates in particular must feel sometimes that if he took his hand off the wheel -- even though his is plainly not the only one trying to turn it -- the whole vehicle would going flying off the road. But the very fact that, months after Donald Rumsfeld's departure, people are talking about what uniformed officers might need to do to prevent another badly conceived war from being initiated by the one senior official in the administration with almost no Constitutional or statutory power should be a sign that the civilian secretaries are letting their inhibitions put the country's foreign policy at even further risk than it is already.

Remember, War isn't the last resort.

It's the only resort. At least if you think like Dick.

And I think Peter up a few posts is right that the military is kind of hamstrung about how vocal they can be about this. It's up to people, both in and out of Washington, to make that change. We have the people out in America proper. The problem is convincing the deaf ears in Washington to listen to people other than Brooks, Broder, and "The Devil" Murray.

Quest for hegemonic control? Did I miss something? When did Iran start running around and invading the neighbors willy-nilly?

Blue Girl, don't you know how things work anymore?

The suggestion that they'd want hegemonic control over the region is enough to justify war nowadays! Gee, you and your pre-9/11 thinking. Next you'll be telling me that we shouldn't be attacking Jordan too. I mean, they're looking at us funny, isn't that enough?!

We're at war.
what's one more?
They're easy!
Don't be queasy.

'Course Congress can,
it's just Iran!
Can't have a nuke
Don't make me puke.

So send the men
(can't say when).
It's world war 3
by George! and me (mostly me)!

Kryptic, are you saying Malkin was right when she called me a "9/10 moonbat"?

If Cheney could just convince the "Turks" to also attack the Kurds in Iran along with those in Iraq.

Soften up those pesky rug merchants.

"If you attack, you will destroy a mighty kingdom"

The Oracle at Delphi's message to the Lydian king Croesus, on the eve of his attack on Persia. Guess what happened next.

Blue Girl - Of course! I mean, would you disagree with a stunning journalist like her? Look at her bravery snooping out the story on those Cheatin' Frosts! Such sacrifice!

....

....ugh. Sorry, I'm giving myself an ulcer now playing the wingnut role. Not to mention it's failing to be funny since it still sounds too damn real.

Attacking Iran would make life much more difficult for American troops and contractors in Iraq. Thus far, the Shiites haven't been nearly as fervent about attacking US troops as the Sunnis have been. Attacking Iran would change that drastically.

A big part of what makes our continued occupation of Iraq possible is we can move all manner of supplies north from Kuwait through (Shiite majority) southern Iraq without intolerable harassment. Well, provoke the Shiites enough and the US military will be facing a new insurgency at least double the size of what the Sunnis put on.

"The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record."

anyone wanna give a little perspective on the last time Iran invaded another country? anyone? blue girl?

yes, smash the persians! just like your old pal saddam!

But...but...but the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist group! Terrorists brought down the buildings on 9/11! We've got to revenge the victims of 9/11 by attacking Iran!

This was a disappointing item for a couple of reasons.

First, there is no need for Kevin to toss in the "chickenhawk" insults that are the hallmark of so many lesser bloggers on the left.

And second, if Kevin want to make the case that Cheney has urged "immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives" then I encourage him to do so. The speech he linked to did no such thing. In fact, Kevin linked to the most bellicose part of the speech:

"The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Not only is this not a call for an "immediate attack" it also happens to match the words of the UN as well as many of the leading Democrats in this country. Including Hillary "in dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table" Clinton and Barack "we should take no option, including military action, off the table" Obama.

Cheney, right after the lines Kevin quoted, went on to speak not about military options but about the need to encourage reform and democracy within Iran. So I'm not sure what Kevin's "Cheney vs Mullen" criticism is grounded in.

>"The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record"

Cheney complaining about a nation seeking destabilization and hegemonic control.

ROFL... SMTN.

Read the PNAC that he signed. It's all about destabilization and hegemony... by the US of course.

>"The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East ... "Cheney's craziness aside, this first line is 100% accurate."

And your examples of Iranian-led destablization and hegemonic control programs are... er... yes?

From Andrew Sullivan, to counter the Booga Booga Party:

"Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

Hacksaw, don't be deliberately obtuse.

when you say "we will not allow," and when you, like dick cheney, do not believe in diplomacy, then of course you are calling for military action.

it's a completely different phrase with completely different meaning than "no option is off the table."

Peter Baustista, what highly senior officers can do is resign. The fact that not a one did prior to Iraq is one of the saddest notes of the whole fiasco, given that the senior officers are the very ones who supposedly spent their whole careers vowing not to repeat the mistakes of vietnam....

....Not only is this not a call for an "immediate attack" ...Cheney... went on to speak ...about the need to encourage reform and democracy within Iran... Hacksaw at 3:15 PM

howard,

Well here is Hillary from this February: "As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Or Edwards from around the same time: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

Obama is a little more wishy washy but he clearly is in line with the argument that Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes, even if military action is needed: "We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program... In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table."

None of these statements is all that different from what Cheney said: "The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." All are saying Iran cannot be allowed the have a nuclear weapon and all have cited broad international agreement that this is so.

Mike,

All I was pointing out was that the quote Kevin used to set up his Cheney vs. Mullen argument did not actually prove the point he was trying to make. You may not find the administration believable with regard to Iran, fine that's your right. But it does not mean that, as Kevin implied in his post, Cheney is urging "immediate attacks inside Iran" and therefore stands in contrast to Mullen.

Remember, the people who are telling us that it would make things much better if we bombed Iran are the same people who told us that if we Iraq it would quickly turn into a peaceful, prosperous pro-American democracy.

But Bobo, the whole point is that nowhere in the quote or speech that Kevin cited does Cheney state (or even imply) "that it would make things much better if we bombed Iran" much less that we should do it "immediately." If folks are going to link things together, it would be nice if they provided actual, you know, proof for what they are stating.

Hacksaw, you might have a point were it not for the fact that Cheney's aggressiveness with respect to Iran has been well documented elsewhere. All Kevin failed to do was include those other links.

"None of these statements is all that different from what Cheney said"

Actually, they are quite different, which renders whatever point you think you're making moot.

PaulB:

Oh come on. How are "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons" or "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons" so different from "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

It seems so impolite to raise these sorts of questions, but exactly what evidence is there that Iran is running an illegal nuclear weapons program? I mean, other than some dude in a trench coat who meets Michael Ledeen in dark parking garages at 3am? I pay pretty close attention to news coverage of this, and I have yet to see any of these neocon proponents of "aggressive action" against Iran actually put forth a single shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; they simply assert it. I mean, at least for the Iraqi WMD's, they had this "Curveball" character who alleged that he knew about bioweapons labs and such. It's a classic case of truthiness -- they "feel" Iran might seek nuclear weapons, therefore Iran "is" seeking nuclear weapons.

Oh come on. How are "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons" or "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons" so different from "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Because the first two sentences really mean "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons and we will use diplomacy and economic pressure to prevent that from happening" while the second sentence really means "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon and we will illegally commit an act of aggressive war against Iran to stop that from happening."

Hacksaw, Stefan (and PaulB) beat me to the punch: to divorce the words from the speaker and the context.

when you do, you end up saying the words are fairly (thought still crucially) different, but when you look at the total picture - including cheney's track record in particular - then they mean entirely different things....

(which is not to say that a clinton, edwards, or obama presidency absolutely positively would rule out anything, because presidents don't take options off the table, but that's a different matter).

but exactly what evidence is there that Iran is running an illegal nuclear weapons program?

None.

First, there is no need for Kevin to toss in the "chickenhawk" insults...

I disagree, I think it's entirely relevant. Perhaps if Cheney and his kind had actually experienced war they'd be less prone to trigger needless wars that get other people's loved ones killed.

but exactly what evidence is there that Iran is running an illegal nuclear weapons program?

Well, not quite none. Iran has continued to build capacity to refine ore (the P1 issue referred to by El Baradei) with 2,000 to 3,000 centrifuges. They remain in defiance of a Security Council directive to suspend enrichment and have not joined in the Additional Protocol.

Further, the Iranians have been very coy about the extent of their weaponization program (the P2 issue).

There is nothing concrete to establish that the Iranians intend to do anything other than develop a nuclear energy program. But this El Baradei interview provides one reason why GwB and DC keep drumming and that is there is a work plan report due to the Security Council around the 22nd of November.
If there is a parallel to the Iraq run-up, then the work plan report is key. If GwB and DC can get an authorization as for Iraq, then the report is moot. Otherwise they have to argue that the report shows the Iranians were telling the truth and back off or that the UN is not to be trusted and the US needs to do something.

But to say that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program simply isn't so.

First, there is no need for Kevin to toss in the "chickenhawk" insults...

Why the hell not? It's apt and fitting.

Lets see now, we had an undercover operation dedicated to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And somebody, most likely Cheney, exposed that operation, ruining it, and probably causing the death or imprisonment of a number of foreigners who had been working with that operation.

And now Cheney tells us we can't let Iran get nuclear weapons?

I've got a better idea- let's impeach Cheney for treason, and let the law apply the full penalty applicable to those who treasonously betray our undercover operations.

I've got a feeling he'd 'fess up soon enough if we applied a few of those techniques he tells us aren't torture. I'm pretty much against those techniques, but willing to make an exception for people who tell us those means of questioning are o-k with them.

It never ceases to amaze me how warlike this bunch in the WH has become, now that they themselves are too old to go to war. Blech, they are revolting.

Shorter TJM: Evidence of an Iranian nuke energy program is evidence of an Iranian nuke weapons program.

Shorter Disputo, I don't know anything and I refuse to learn anything. Good plan, I guess.

ALWAYS a commendable source, Scott Ritter here delivers a veritable magnum opus on this increasingly dismal state of affairs. "Gott mit uns!":

On the Eve of Destruction
By Scott Ritter [Truthdig.com]

... The issue of Iran is a national problem which requires a collective debate, discussion and dialogue inclusive of all the facts, and stripped of all ideology and theocracy which would seek to deny reasoned thought conducted within a framework of accepted laws and ideals. It is grossly irresponsible of an American president to invoke the imagery of World War III without first sharing with the American people the framework of thought that produced such a comparison. Such openness will not be forthcoming from this administration or president. Not in the form of Stephen Hadley's policy of no policy, designed with intent to avoid and subvert both bureaucratic and legislative process and oversight, or Dick Cheney's secret government within a government, operating above and beyond the law and in a manner which violates both legal and moral norms and values, and certainly not in the president's own private conversations with "God," either directly or through the medium of lunatic evangelicals who embrace the termination of all we stand for, and especially the future of our next generation, in a fiery holocaust born from the fraudulent writings of centuries past. The processes which compelled George W. Bush to speak of a World War III are intentionally not transparent to the American people. The president has much to explain, and it would be incumbent upon every venue of civic and public pressure to demand that such an explanation be forthcoming in the near future. The stakes regarding Iran have always been high, but never more so than when a nation's leader invokes the end of days as a solution.
-

Thanks, Poilu. Scott Ritter becomes an ever more forceful and eloquent voice of reason against the backdrop of the lunacy of the Bush Administration. Of course, he was Swift-boated early in the Iraq war conflict with specious allegations about his sexuality and now couldn't get national media attention if he could shit gold bricks while standing on his nose.

Kaplan was wrong on one point. If given an unlawful order by the commander-in-chief any soldier can and should refuse to obey it and it is not a coup d'etat. It is then up to the commander-in-chief to order a court martial to try the soldier for failing to obey a lawful order. The soldier's defense would be that it was an unlawful order.

AFAIK, the US Army does not swear personal allegiance to the President unlike the Wehrmacht who did to Hitler.

Further, the Iranians have been very coy about the extent of their weaponization program

What does this statement mean? In other words Iran hasn't been completely open and trusting of the UN and the US so we should presume their intentions? Sounds a lot like pre-invasion Iraq debate.

There is nothing concrete to establish that the Iranians intend to do anything other than develop a nuclear energy program.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Get back to me when you have something.

To "cut to the chase", DICK Cheney and his NeoConNazi cohorts (and Brownshirt supporters) are lying sacks of shit!

I saw John Bolton spewing this same preposterous nonsense on "Tavis Smiley" a week ago, and couldn't believe the smacked ass could actually keep a straight face throughout. ("Oh, it's all public record," he claimed -- BULLSHIT!!!)

NO reliable assessment has alleged Iran to have a "nuclear weapons" program. Even if its government DID secretly harbor such ambitions, the best available estimates, including the NIE, project the "goal" of such to be FIVE to TEN years out!

And contrary to the prevailing "wisdom", Iran is perfectly within its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop its own nuclear power program, INCLUDING processing its own fuel. OUR nation, however, is in defiance of that treaty's obligations -- the US has actively resumed nuclear WEAPONS development, when it's required under the NPT to reduce its stockpiles and gradually disarm!

Considering the shameless deceits, brazen hypocrisy, and unbridled belligerence of this nuclear-armed-to-the-TEETH Bush Reich, when are we Americans going to get off our fat, lazy asses and actively pursue THROWING these treacherous Fascist goons out on their ears??

... Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
~Patrick Henry
.

There's nothing concrete because they are being coy. But this isn't just DC or GwB, or me, the UN Security Council passed the latest round of sanctions unanimously. The EU not only adopted the sanctions but agreed to keep Iranians from studying proliferation subjects.

I understand your reaction, I even understand your sneering dismissal of the whole idea. But unlike the pre-war Iraq noise, the UN and the EU are in agreement that Iran has to agree to the Additional Protocols as well as agree to resumption of inspections. They knew Saddam was just a bag of wind. Not so much Iran.

If it's only for energy, why not cooperate?

... Of course, he was Swift-boated early in the Iraq war conflict with specious allegations about his sexuality and now couldn't get national media attention if he could shit gold bricks while standing on his nose.

CD: More's the shame of this incredibly sleazy administration, considering especially that Ritter's integrity and credibility so vastly exceeds their own.

I find that I increasingly perceive any smear by the Bush Regime an indelible "Red Badge of Courage". All who've been thus victimized by the cowards of this "presidency" invariably have much of merit to reveal.

(Isn't it "funny" how Ritter's allegedly illicit meeting with a teen girl never even made it into court? Fancy that!)

Cheney. Mullen.
Bad cop. Not-quite-so-bad cop.

If it's only for energy, why not cooperate?

That would perhaps pose an intriguing (Socratic) insinuation, except for one annoying detail: Iran is, and HAS been, cooperating with the IAEA on inspections. So the "point" you attempt to make is entirely moot.

And the head of the IAEA, another victim of Bushevik "sliming" -- which strongly attests to his integrity, in my mind -- has repeatedly insisted that there is NO evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

The UN Security Council is NOT an investigative body, and had NO basis for its sanctions other than US arm-twisting and an expressed desire for full transparency regarding Iran's ENERGY program under the NPT. The sanctions themselves were actually ILLICIT, since Iran was not in violation.

Moreover, if sanctions were a reliable measure of "culpability", why hasn't the US itself -- the major instigator in this lop-sided, imperially-motivated hostility -- been subjected to them for its own brazen renewal of nuclear WEAPONS development? That's not any "suspicion", but a well-recognized FACT. This country is clearly in violation of the NPT, along with many other treaties it is party to, not to mention the Nuremberg Protocols.

You're blowing nothing more than hot air with that one, TJM. So let me propose an alternative question:

Why merely "wriggle" semantically if you have any solid basis for this anti-Iran innuendo?

First, there is no need for Kevin to toss in the "chickenhawk" insults...

Tsk, tsk! ONLY if, by that, you mean he should have gone straight for the jugular, wielding the entirely appropriate "Nazi" or "Dark Lord of the Sith" insults.

But the "chickenhawk" epithet is also quite apt. Darth Cheney is obviously more than pleased to drum up yet another unwarranted war of aggression, expending OPM (Other People's Mortality) in order to enhance his cronies' future profit margins. Oh, to die for the Elite!
.

TJM made my point for me: The IAEA alleges there are still some questions that need answering about the full scope of Iran's atomic research. Ergo, they're on the verge of developing a deliverable warhead and need to be stopped now? That just doesn't add up. El Baradei says explicitly: "there is no evidence" that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons. But they'd like to be extra certain. Ok, so we can negotiate over this. None of it, however, adds up to an iminent threat of any kind.

Poilu,as you may or may not know, I responded to Disputo re an assertion there was no evidence to suggest Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Since the building blocks are the same,it's the quantity as well as the purity, the question the IAEA has been attempting to answer is just what El Baradei said in the interview I linked to.

So your point that except for one annoying detail: Iran is, and HAS been, cooperating with the IAEA on inspections. is simply wrong. As El Baradei says in the linked interview:This is the first time that Iran has agreed to address all the outstanding issues. when he was asked about the work plan.

That work plan involves various tasks, and El Baradei goes on to say: So, we were happy that Iran agreed to address all the outstanding issues and we developed this work plan.

Further El Baradei says: We will not give them a pass unless they answer all the questions we need to ask, until our people are technically fully satisfied that this is the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts.

Semantics? No, what I was, and am doing is quoting El Baradei, who I believe. Perhaps you no longer will since what he says is directly counter to your belief, your opinion.

As far as the Security Council goes, did I mention the interview I linked to? El Baradei addresses the issue:In every meeting I do with them (Iran) I ask them privately, urge them to go into suspension as a way towards confidence-building. I don´t have a magic wand. If the Security Council is not able to get them to suspend, after a year, do not expect me to be able to do that.... Again, this is an issue directly between the Security Council and Iran.

Weaponization? here's El Baradei: Studies on the weaponisation that they have done..... The Iranians say these are baseless allegations, but they have to convince us and we have to discuss with them..

And finally you say:Why merely "wriggle" semantically if you have any solid basis for this anti-Iran innuendo? Ummm, how about El Baradei, you know, the head of the IAEA, Nobel Laureate, you know, that guy?

jonas makes a good point and one I agree with. There is no reason to question the assumption that Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon or even the processes needed to concatenate enough material to make one. So I certainly don't agree with either GwB or DC that the issue should be brought up by them in some WWIII context.

I just didn't want the dear Poilu to make any more giant leaps.

Kevin -- haven't you previously argued against chickenhawk ad hominiums? So why start now?

If it's only for energy, why not cooperate?

That's all you got, and you're too stupid not to comprehend that that is not evidence and that you are instead begging the question (ie, assuming your conclusion).

This would be humorous if it wasn't the exact same thing that happened with Iraq -- "If Saddam has nothing to hide, why doesn't he cooperate?" Well we know how well that worked out, and the same useful idiots are following for the exact same crap all over again.

Gawd help us all.

Darth Cheney is obviously more than pleased to drum up yet another unwarranted war of aggression, expending OPM (Other People's Mortality) in order to enhance his cronies' future profit margins.

Not only that, but he is apparently also ok with being call Darth Cheney:

In fact, most of you knew me long before anyone called me, Darth Vader. I've been asked if that nickname bothers me, and the answer is, no.

No, sorry, Disputo, not even close.

The evidence of Iran not cooperating with the IAEA and the UN Security Council is in what El Baradei says not in your baseless opinion.

There, see, an entire comment without referring to you as, well, you know.

TJM, did you actually read the interview with El Baradei? He makes it clear that the IAEA has full access to all of Iran's nuclear laboratories. His concern is with the possibility a) that the centrifuges which Iran has might (at some stage) be used to make highly enriched uranium, which the IAEA disapproves of, and b) that Iran might have a plan somewhere which tells them how to make nuclear weapons; the Iranians say there is no such plan, but El Baradei doesn't altogether trust them.

This simply doesn't correlate with what you have been saying.

MFB, yes, I did, several of my other comments here have quoted from it. How you get full access from El Baradei saying : We will not give them a pass unless they answer all the questions we need to ask, until our people are technically fully satisfied that this is the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts.

And what exactly do you think I've been saying? I'm not saying let's go bomb them or anything close to that. But I just don't understand how you can think the IAEA has been given full access given his own words.

There is a reason for the sanctions, supported by the Security Council and the EU, among others, which isn't anything like the run-up the Iraqcle debacle.

Smoke, TJM..Smoke. From your own source, in a statement FAR more inherently clear than any "ominous" inferences you might choose to draw from the more nebulous comments strictly related to the verification "work plan":

ELBARADEI: If you talk about war, then if people are talking about war, they need to tell me what is the casus belli. I have to be very clear here, that the casus belli could not be what we see today in Iran, because what we see in Iran today, is as I said, is not far from having a nuclear weapon.

FT: It´s far, or it´s not far?

ELBARADEI: No, it is far from having a nuclear weapon today or tomorrow. If the casus belli is distrust of Iran´s future intention, and therefore the need to enrich, not have this technology, and therefore we need to make everything possible for them not to have this technology - then that is something else that goes beyond our mandate, as I said before, because my radar stops today.
__________

Got that?

"IRAN IS FAR FROM HAVING A NUCLEAR WEAPON TODAY OR TOMORROW."

That's straight from the "horse's mouth" -- a "horse" you yourself chose in an attempt to demonstrate "otherwise".

And frankly, what the sovereign nation of Iran chooses to do -- short of actual aggression against the US -- is none of this government's Goddamn business. As I stated, Iran HAS been cooperating with the UN, in accordance with its NNP Treaty obligations. Nothing you've cited refutes that observation in the least. Mere quibbling about the intricate details of compliance do not constitute NON-compliance,

If I were you, I'd worry FAR more about the potential for US-induced instabilty in Pakistan, which actually HAS nukes. Perhaps if our country's "leaders" meddled a little less in other nations' business (and respected their borders), that wouldn't be an issue. But sadly, it is. Iran is NOT, except in the ostensiby paranoiac, grotesquely opportunistic NeoConNazi minds that currently occupy this White House.

I just didn't want the dear Poilu to make any more giant leaps.

Coming from someone whose own extrapolations have him resembling a 6-foot grasshopper, that's decidedly rich.

Not only that, but he is apparently also ok with being call Darth Cheney: ...

Disputo: Well, that would figure. No shame in that vaguely humanoid creature, eh?

Poilu, great, another mind reader. Since I responded to Disputo with the phrase,"Well, not quite none" as to whether Iran was running an illegal weapons program, you seem to have inferred that I was far beyond the pale by accepting the administration's claims about Iran having or seeking a nuclear weapon.

You don't seem to understand that "not quite none" isn't the same as "Oh my God, Iran is getting nukes....we must bomb them."

See if you can understand that when YOU said:That would perhaps pose an intriguing (Socratic) insinuation, except for one annoying detail: Iran is, and HAS been, cooperating with the IAEA on inspections. So the "point" you attempt to make is entirely moot. You were just wrong. If Iran were "cooperating" then the head of the IAEA wouldn't be saying that he needs their cooperation to ascertain that what the Iranians say is a baseless allegation actually is baseless.

So, you take a response of "not quite none" and "why not cooperate" and instantly assume that since I don't precisely mimic your reflexive antipathy to everything the administration says, I must therefore believe all that they say. Hence your need to show how they are wrong. You can't find anything, and I mean anything, in what I wrote that means anything close to what you've assumed and neither can anyone else.

What I said, not what you think an imaginary enemy of yours said, is that El Baradei is asking Iran to confirm their intentions to acquire nuclear fuel for a generating plant and not for a weapon, especially since the process of obtaining fuel for a reactor and for a weapon is the same. Fuel for a weapon requires more cascades.

Try reading the comment before leaping to conclude something that isn't there because virtually everything you've written is trying to prove that the GwB and DC are blowing smoke (which is true) and therefore I am blowing smoke (your inference, not my statement).

Reading is fundamental.