Rachel Maddow on Clinton's Middle East Involvement Proposal
Rachel Maddow and Olbermann discuss Hillary's proposal to intervene in any conflict in the Middle East, a proposal which is further to the right than even John McCain.
Stephanopoulos suggested that Iran is still pursuing a nuclear weapon, a point which is directly contradictory to the recent NIE report, although neither Clinton nor Obama corrected him on this point and both answered as if this neo-con talking point was an accepted truth.
However, Hillary's proposal is simply astonishing and it's extraordinary that this is not what people are now talking about when they mention this debate.
Tags:
10 comments:
a point which is directly contradictory to the recent NIE report, although neither Clinton nor Obama corrected him on this point and both answered as if this neo-con talking point was an accepted truth
Probably because they both read the whole thing and actually understood it.
a point which is directly contradictory to the recent NIE report, although neither Clinton nor Obama corrected him on this point and both answered as if this neo-con talking point was an accepted truth
Most likely because they both read the entire report.
Doh! Blogger error forced a double post.
Probably because they both read the whole thing and actually understood it.
It said Iran has stopped seeking a nuclear weapons programme in 2003. I know the lunatics in the Bush regime simply ignore this fact but either Obama or Clinton should have pulled Stephanopoulos on that point.
He's stating as a fact something for which he has no evidence.
For one thing, the only thing that was released were a list of unclassified key judgements, not the full intelligence estimate
It said Iran has stopped seeking a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.
No, it didn't.
There was a footnote to it that a lot of people missed if they were reading just the press reports of it. It turns out what they call a “nuclear weapons program” is just the design work on the actual warhead itself. Actually, the U.S. National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell testified this week that the weapons design work, particularly for an early- generation weapon, is the least important part of a nuclear-weapons program. What’s important is the fissile material and in the case of Tehran, the enriched uranium. That’s the real core of a nuclear-weapons program. And there’s no doubt that activity continues.
The key judgments further state:
“We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.” Then you get in parentheses, “Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this estimate, however, DOE [Department of Energy] and the NIC [National Intelligence Council] assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear-weapons program.”
So given that they are continuing to try and enrich uranium (the key component in a nuclear weapon), given that they are continuing to work on ballistic missile programs capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and given that AQ Khan gave them a viable design, everybody who stays abreast of these issues believes that Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon, whether or not they happen to be working on warhead design at this point. It is apparent that Clinton and Obama believe this as well, and that Stephanopoulis is also well aware. The DNI was also quite clear in recent testimony about our belief of their intentions and what the NIE really stated (see their marked pages 10-13, or 12-15 using Adobe Acrobat).
So the bottom line is that nobody "challenged" him because they are informed on the topic.
The truth is that even David Kay, whose article you link to, says "I have to emphasize I have not read the classified version and I have no idea whether it reflects a more sophisticated understanding of nuclear proliferation than the unclassified version."
Therefore, we have no idea what it says. However, it is false to state that we know Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon as, even by your own argument, Iran is not pursuing a warhead which would be needed for any such programme.
The fact that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium is the thing which angers Kay and others. However, Iran has the right to do this under the NNPT.
And I repeat you have no PROOF that Iran are seeking a nuclear weapons programme. None at all.
Whether or not I have proof is irrelevant. What I pointed out is that obviously those far more in the know, such as Clinton and Obama, are operating as if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, probably because they have access to classified information that neither of us do.
Whether or not you believe Iran is pursuing nukes doesn't matter one iota. What matters in this case is whether significant numbers within the US government (as well as other governments) believes it, and all indications are that they do, including Obama and Clinton.
Whether or not I have proof is irrelevant.
After the debacle of the Iraq war, which was founded on lies and assumptions, I would say that proof is of the highest priority.
What I pointed out is that obviously those far more in the know, such as Clinton and Obama, are operating as if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, probably because they have access to classified information that neither of us do.
No, you are reading far too much into that. They simply accepted to answer a question which was posed on a false premise. Stephanopoulos had no right to state as true something of which he has no proof whatsoever; unless you are also suggesting that Stephanopoulos has access to information which is being held back from the rest of us?
And if there is evidence that we don't know concerning Iran, why are some US generals threatening to quit if Bush attacks Iran?
And you, and other right wing nutters like you, are simply wasting your breath when it comes to Iran. The public will not back an intervention, you blew it with all the lies you supported prior to the invasion of Iraq.
After the debacle of the Iraq war, which was founded on lies and assumptions, I would say that proof is of the highest priority.
And yet you dodged my main point. Do you or do you not believe that significant portions (both left and right) of the US government believe that Iran's goal is a nuclear weapon? Further, do you or do you not believe that if a significant portion of the US government (left and right) do in fact believe that Iran's goal is nuclear weapons, then that is relevant to how the US government approaches Iran?
They simply accepted to answer a question which was posed on a false premise.
And you know this how? I already provided evidence that the unclassified key judgements were not as you interpreted them. So then what is your evidence that Mike McConnell was making this all up?
you are also suggesting that Stephanopoulos has access to information which is being held back from the rest of us?
I don't know whether or not he does. I do know that he is a Washington insider likely with many connections, and given that there are plenty of dirtbags in Washington eager to speak out of school so-to-speak, who knows? But that's irrelevant, I suspect that he, just like Clinton and Obama, at the very least listened to Mike McConnell's interpretation of the NIE where he spelled out the perception of the threat.
why are some US generals threatening to quit if Bush attacks Iran?
Exactly which generals were threatening to quit a year ago?
And you, and other right wing nutters like you, are simply wasting your breath when it comes to Iran. The public will not back an intervention, you blew it with all the lies you supported prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Is it possible to just stick to facts to make an argument without resorting to idealogical babble like that last paragraph of yours?
In any event, where have I ever stated that I back any attack on Iran? You are certainly attributing that to me, so the onus is on you to back it up? No? I didn't think so. Also I see that you still don't understand the difference between faulty intelligence and "lies" as you call them.
I suspect you'll just take that last sentence and then go on yet another idealogical rant enumerating all the "proof" the rest of the lunatics have set out for you demonstrating that these were in fact blatant lies, a conspiracy, and not faulty intelligence at all. Don't bother. Not interested.
And yet you dodged my main point. Do you or do you not believe that significant portions (both left and right) of the US government believe that Iran's goal is a nuclear weapon?
No, I don't accept that. I don't think it's in anyone's interests that Iran acquire a nuclear weapon and I agree that vigilance is needed but I believe Obama when he says the way to deal with this is through negotiation with Iran. It does not follow that everyone assumes Iran is building a bomb.
And to be honest, I don't think a significant proportion of the right really believes that. The desire to cut Iran down to size come from the pro-Israeli groups who want the US to undo the damage it did when it invaded Iraq and turned Iran into a regional superpower. I honestly believe the nuclear issue is simply the WMD argument all over again. It is the excuse they are using to "do something".
I already provided evidence that the unclassified key judgements were not as you interpreted them. So then what is your evidence that Mike McConnell was making this all up?
There was nothing that he was saying that was particularly shocking. He was talking about possibilities being expressed with various degrees of confidence. As I say, this does require vigilance, but there is no solid proof at all, especially as we are talking about intentions.
I don't know whether or not he does. I do know that he is a Washington insider likely with many connections, and given that there are plenty of dirtbags in Washington eager to speak out of school so-to-speak, who knows?
Oh right, it's the "they know things we don't" logic that brought about the Iraq war. Don't you EVER learn?
Exactly which generals were threatening to quit a year ago?
If you clicked on the link, which I am sure you did, you will know that they are remaining anonymous. No doubt you'll attack this as unreliable whilst simultaneously pushing the notion that politicians "know things" that we can't be told. I no longer expect consistency from you.
In any event, where have I ever stated that I back any attack on Iran? You are certainly attributing that to me, so the onus is on you to back it up? No? I didn't think so
What are you on? You have previously stated that if Israel attacked Iran you would reluctantly have to support her as she did so. It was yet another example of you wanting to have your cake and eat it. You are against an attack but you would nevertheless support one if it took place.
If I remember correctly - and I can't be bothered to trawl through the archives to find the exact thread - you slinked off when I asked you to prove how much you disapproved of Israel's actions by specifying which punishment we should exact upon Israel for committing this crime of agression which Nuremberg established as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
I suspect you'll just take that last sentence and then go on yet another idealogical rant enumerating all the "proof" the rest of the lunatics have set out for you demonstrating that these were in fact blatant lies, a conspiracy, and not faulty intelligence at all. Don't bother. Not interested.
Then why even bother posting that sentence if you are "not interested" in any response I might have to it? You make your point and then insist that any response must be "lunatic" and you don't want to hear it?
Defending Bush has turned you into a very dishonest debater.
Post a Comment