Will the intelligence discrepencies about Iran hurt Republicans in 2008?

U

Unregistered

Moderator
How do you think the apparrent discrepencies between what Bush has been saying about Iran, and what the latest intelligence report says will impact the election?

What has Bush been basing his opinions about Iran on? Is he simply trying to keep us scared? Is he trying to keep mid-east fear high, so oil prices will remain high?

I think more Bush lies will hurt the Republicans in 2008. The party needs to try to keep him a muzzled lame duck until the elections if there is any hope for a Republican victory, in my opinion.
 
First off, there’s a disclaimer on page 5 that says "a high confidence judgment is not a fact or a certainty, . . . and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong." This means it's possible for the current intelligence estimate to err in either direction. It’s not like they overestimated Iraq’s weapons capability just after underestimating it. But I digress.

While the dems and the press take their jabs at Bush for his saber rattling, he isn’t running for reelection and none of the major candidates are that closely aligned with him. As much as they want to make the inconsistencies about the republicans and a referendum on Bush, I don’t think the tactic carries that much weight.

Remember, most of the major republican candidates have never cast a vote based on an intelligence estimate and almost all of the democrat candidates have. If they would have bothered to read any of it to draw their own conclusion, they could have challenged its findings. Since I don’t believe any did, they must have trusted the info as credible. Either way, pointing fingers could be perilous for them because they are just as complicit.

No, it doesn’t hurt the republicans or the current administration, it hurts the entire country. It doesn't seem to matter how much of a threat Iran poses; short-term political gain is more important than the interests of America. This estimate and the subsequent, to borrow a Hillary expression, 'piling on' undercut the credibility of threatening to use military force, reduces our leverage against future threats, and diminishes rather than enhances the likelihood of a diplomatic outcome.

Consider this. If Iran actually stopped its nuclear program in 2003, is it coincidence this was the same year America made good on its threat of military force against Saddam Hussein?

As for as Bush 'lies', he doesn't produce the estimates. They're produced by career Washington bureaucrats who come in all political flavors. You know, the same types who work at the BATF, IRS, SSA and all the rest of our favorite government agencies.
 
The previous poster is right on here-a President doesn't collect, fuse, analyze and disseminate the intel-he only recieves it and bases his decisions on what the experts have to say. Intel analysis is a "best guess" game and with the lack of HUMINT sources (some say due to the purging of the CIA among other agencies a decade or more ago), it's difficult to get reliable info from many places that we would dearly like intel from.

Will it hurt the Republican canditate for next year's election? Hard to say. Depends on what the candidate says about this report. Since he's probably not privy to all of it, he most likely will say nothing. Since it seems that most Democrats think GWB is running next year, they probably will bring it up, though.

Scott
MSgt USMC
 
If it makes Bush look stupid or like he was trying to drive us towards armed conflict with Iran it will hurt the Republicans. People cannot punish Bush as a lame duck so they will punish his party.

I want to know, wasn't Bush given this info? Is his own staff only passing along what he wants to see? Nobody doubts that Iran is bad but we have been told for months now about their attempts to gain nukes and how "this time we are certain." Now this news comes out which says essentially the opposite. Granted, perhaps they stopped after seeing what was done with Iraq but the rhetoric out of the White House has been all "end of the world." Sorry, I could understand the Iraq issue. Many people thought there were programs there, even if only held in reserve to restart later. The differences were on wheather we should do something about it or not. To rattle the saber again though when our own intelligence estimate doesn't back it up is stupid.

Perhaps Bush secretly wants a Dem presiden... he is doing all he can to assure one.
 
It's worth noting that during this same period, Iran was declaring it was building thousands of centrifuges for enrichment purposes. That fit as well (if not better) with a crash nuclear weapons program than with a nuclear power program.

Iran wanted everyone thinking it was joining the nuclear club. The fact that intel surfaced recently might have done so despite Iran's best efforts, not because of American screwups. Or it could be that we finally got what we've been lacking in the area for decades, namely human intel.
 
Bush has destroyed the republican party (and just like Bill Clinton, attempting to assemble the laundry list of lies and illegal actions gets exhausting). It has lost effectively all credibility nationally. Will this hurt the republicans? Well since it's hard for credibility to go lower than zero (except amongst themselves and limbaugh's fantasy world), we have to look at what SENSE this total repudiation of Bush on Iran will hurt republicans. I believe that the only way LEFT in which it can hurt them is by causing even more people to leave the party and become democrats or independents. In 2000 and 2004 I preferred a republican congress and Gore/Kerry as president, but thanks to the "gore/kerry is worse" lie, we now have a democrat congress, and this president is doing things that will all but guarantee a democrat president. The only way republicans can put another (R) in the white house is to either nominate a true constitutionalist (the actual but no longer USED definition of "conservative") such as Paul or Huckabe, OR republicans might barely win by nominating Giuliani and continuing to use 9/11 for political purposes. I think the latter is the most likely.

Bottom line, whether we'll be stuck with Giuliani (bush version 2.0) or a Democrat is just too close to call.
 
and today the White House is still full speed ahead on Iran... The absolute inability to admit error of this administration amazes me.
 
Scott (semper fi from a zoomie) is correct. The president is a consumer of intelligence, not a producer.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
from a UN official
"To be frank, we are more skeptical," a senior official close to the agency said. "We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran."
Click to expand...

Not letting your guard down is not 'full speed ahead'. And how is this HIS error? I guess that depends on what the definition of 'is' is. :eek:

A good quote from another article:
Remember … when it comes to Iran and whether they do or don’t have nukes, which would be the biggest error:

(a) Believing that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program and taking action to stop it; or,
(b) Believing that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, when in fact they do, and failing to stop it.
Click to expand...

I heard on the radio this morning Bush was first briefed on this in late October. And yes, Bush is vulnerable to the some criticism but certainly not responsible for the report or lying about it. It may also be that by releasing now, he has decided to throw in the towel on dealing with the Iranian threat, leaving it for the next administration.
 
Scott (semper fi from a zoomie) is correct. The president is a consumer of intelligence, not a producer.
Click to expand...

The problem is, I don't think he is even a consumer of intelligence. He seems to disregard the information he is provided, and plunges head long into his own pre-conceived agenda about what ought to be done, facts be damned.
 
Remember … when it comes to VENEZUELA and whether they do or don’t have nukes, which would be the biggest error:

(a) Believing that VENEZUELA does have a nuclear weapons program and taking action to stop it; or,
(b) Believing that VENEZUELA does not have a nuclear weapons program, when in fact they do, and failing to stop it.

We better invade South America!

Sorry, but the above arguments can be made about EVERY nation we have issues with. Bush may be a consumer of intelligence but given the way he has gone after Iran for some time now I must wonder how much of this intelligence he actually consumes? I believe it is a matter more of only seeing the intelligence he wishes to see.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315209,00.html

"The Iranians have a strategic choice to make," he said. "They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities, and fully accept the long-standing offer to suspend their enrichment program and come to the table and negotiate, or they can continue on a path of isolation."

The administration is worried that the new National Intelligence Estimate — representing a consensus of all U.S. spy agencies — weakens its leverage over Iran and its ability to build global pressure on Tehran to stop its uranium enrichment program.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but our administration is a joke. If they wanted to really put pressure on Iran then why would they continue to accuse them of trying to develope nukes right up until the report comes out (which you would think they knew was coming!). Then they divert to saying, tell us what you were doing then or else we will isolate you even more. We look like idiots and because of this our abiltiy to actually gain international support and force any real concessions on Iran are minimal at best.

I would rather a gov't that gets nothing done than one that conitnually looks like idiots. Who exactly do the intelligence services report to? Didn't they KNOW this was coming?
 
The intel discrepancies will hurt Republican chances this cycle in the same sense that a stab in the ribs "hurts" a cadaver.
 
What has Bush been basing his opinions about Iran on? Is he simply trying to keep us scared? Is he trying to keep mid-east fear high, so oil prices will remain high?
Click to expand...


Can I vote all of the above? It will hurt every R but Ron Paul which in my view is not a bad thing.
 
Has it occurred to anyone that the intel guys were wrong about 9/11, they were wrong about WMD in Iraq, and now you assume they are right about Iran not wanting nukes, when they say themselves that they are working full speed ahead to produce weapons grade plutonium?

IMO, the guys who produced this intel are Clintonistas held over from the ‘90s who burrowed their way into civil service jobs. They deliberately produced this report to prevent Bush from taking any pre-emptive action against Iran, regardless of what the truth really is.

It is also possible that Iran is trying to produce plutonium for a nuke project located in Syria, using Iranian money and North Korean technology; the one that Israel just wiped out in Sept.
 
the latest intelligence report....
Click to expand...
is nothing more than liberals within our government trying to make the US look bad.

It's too bad Bush doesn't have the balls to go after these people within the government who keep releasing our secrets.

Exhibit A:
Ibeenanutjob (Iran's prez) has been saying publically that Iran is going to wipe Isreal off the map...which can only be done with nukes...that they are working with now.

What more proof do we need than this guy's public comments?
Are we supposed to believe anything other than what this guy threatens?

We are foolish is we do.
 
Let's see, the report if true, indicates that Iran backed off its nuke program about 2003. Must have been all the pressure from the "international community" and the friendly understanding from Ron Paul. Coincidentally, 2003 was also the the time the US went after Saddam.
 
Well, we all know how accurate our intelligence is.

I don't believe for a minute that they've backed off of their plans to build a nuke bomb.

They'll build it cause they hate Israel so much, if fo no other reason
 
is nothing more than liberals within our government trying to make the US look bad.

It's too bad Bush doesn't have the balls to go after these people within the government who keep releasing our secrets.
Click to expand...

right... it is all a part of the vast left wing conspiracy... :rolleyes:

Bush, who has always been so open to hearing dissenting opinions, should go after the people who released this secret. Of course since this was not a leak in any sense of the word let's just say it as it is. Bush should crush any person stupid enought o offer a dissenting opinion!

Question, did you agree that Bush should go after all who opposed him when the issue was illegal immigration and his desire to give amnesty?

I really like this piece of justification:

Well, we all know how accurate our intelligence is.
Click to expand...

So let's see. We were wrong on the status of WMD programs in Iraq, greatly overestimating their level of development and activity and using that information we justified an invasion. Now our intelligence tells us the opposite with regards to Iran, they do not have a WMD program at a level which should be of concern, so we are going to disregard that intelligence because it may be wrong to justify an invasion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top