It is possible that Iran stopped the development of a nuclear weapon temporarily in 2003. The NIE conclusions attributed this to “diplomatic pressure.” This piece of BS alone proves the entire report is insane. There was no “diplomatic pressure” being exerted on Iran in 2003. What was happening was that the US military was busy overthrowing Saddam and the mullahs were afraid they would be next.
Don Surber has a good article on this.
We invade Iraq and Iran gives up WMD
Another success of George W. Bush is misrepresented
THE nation's spies re-assessed the Iran situation. Instead of Iran being on the verge of splitting the atom - as everyone in the world assumed - Iran gave it up in 2003.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., immediately seized upon this as an example of President Bush's incompetence, blah, blah, blah.
Uh, no.
If anything this shows that Bush was right, Byrd wrong.
What happened in 2003?
The Iraq war.
President Bush decided not to take the chance that Saddam Hussein had turned Iraq into an armory of weapons of mass destruction. Byrd had voted against the war in part because he thought Hussein would use his warehouses of chemical weapons against our troops.
When American soldiers got there, thank God, they found no WMD.
The intelligence community had gotten it wrong.
Maybe the intelligence community has it wrong again on Iran.
But we do know that shortly after allied troops took over Baghdad, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi volunteered to give up his programs to develop WMD.
Perhaps Iran followed suit.
Just remember, in 2005 these same intelligence experts said Iran was working on a nuclear program.
I notice that many of those who swear this report is gospel pooh-poohed the earlier report.
It is folly on Byrd's part to credit the international community with Iran backing down.
The only thing that changed in 2003 was that we put 100,000-plus troops in the nation to the west of Iran. This was on top of the troops we placed in the nation north of Iran.
It did not take a genius to figure out who might be next.
And just to make sure everyone was clear about this, President Bush mentioned the Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Then he invaded the first.
Frankly, I am tired of Byrd's partisan games. I am tired of the entire Democratic Party's games. In April, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid declared that military victory was impossible in Iraq.
Six months later, Gen. David Petraeus and 170,000 troops proved Reid wrong. Totally. Completely.
And yet Reid continues to lead the Democratic Party in the Senate.
The real danger to the world is not a strong commander-in-chief. It is a weak one. A mealy-mouthed one. One who worries more about world opinion than he does about the world's security.
Bill Clinton ticked me off about a number of things. But he did oversee the balancing of the budget and the end of welfare as we know it. In many ways, he completed the tasks that President Reagan began.
And Clinton was right about Kosovo. I was wrong. True, its fate remains in the air even eight years after. But at least the slaughter of Muslims has ended.
And this President Bush has done quite a few things that I dislike. Signing the McCain-Feingold Act into law was as cynical and loathsome an action as any I have seen conducted at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Bush did so knowing it abridged free speech.
But in standing up to tyranny, both Clinton and now Bush were on the side of the angels.
I am told that the odds are against the Republicans stopping the Democrats next year from retaining control of Congress and gaining control of the White House. This, I am told, is the price of the Iraq war.
If so, it is a small price to pay. President Truman and his party paid the same price for the liberation of South Korea in 1952.
Perhaps Byrd has forgotten.
I hope our intelligence community is right about Iran giving up its nuclear program in 2003. It will be one more side benefit of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
No comments:
Post a Comment