"[T]he Bush administration knows full well that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran."

[SteveLaura 0]

Before the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter claimed that the vast majority of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed or accounted for. Yet the Bush administration invaded anyway—and found no WMDs.

Five years later, it’s deja vu all over again, only this time the target is Iran.

Ritter is concerned that the Bush administration will bomb Iran because it claims that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons and therefore poses a threat to the United States. But, just like before the invasion of Iraq, inspectors have found no evidence to back Bush’s claims. Ritter says that the Bush administration has offered no proof, either.

Shepherd: You’ve written that the war with Iran “is on,” that it’s already under way. I think people would be surprised to hear that the United States has gone beyond the planning stages to actually being at war with Iran.

Ritter: I ask all Americans, “What would constitute an act of war against America? What actions would a nation have to do before we said that’s war?” Again, I would imagine, if a nation sent commandos into our cities to blow up bridges, I would say that’s an act of war. If they sent terrorists in to assassinate our political leaders, I would say that’s an act of war. If they sent in proxy military forces to blow up trucks and kill soldiers, that’s an act of war. If they violated our airspace to gather intelligence that would be used in a military strike, we would say that’s an act of war. We’re doing all of this against Iran.

Shepherd: Why is the United States taking such an aggressive stance toward Iran?

Ritter: In the post-Sept. 11 world, the Bush administration has defined American interest in the Middle East as being one which involves what we call “regional transformation,” to transform the region into a manner which is more in keeping with the goals and the objectives of the United States. That includes regime change of nations that we deem to be incompatible with the United States’ vision of what the region should be like. Iraq fell into that category. Syria falls into that category. And Iran falls into that category. Iran is a nation that we have labeled a rogue nation. We have said that our policy against Iran is regime change. This is what’s going on. This is the larger picture in which the statement “we are at war with Iran today” should be viewed in. This isn’t something out of the blue where Americans can say, “Why would we be doing that?” Something has been going on for some time.

Shepherd: The Bush administration is saying that Iran has a nuclear program and it must be stopped before it can develop nuclear weapons. How accurate is that?

Ritter: I think that what the Bush administration is saying is that Iran has a nuclear program that the Bush administration contends is geared toward nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that Iran has a nuclear program. Iran doesn’t deny that. Iran is permitted to have a nuclear program under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Iran is a signatory power to. Iran has signed what’s called a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency [iAEA], which allows more nuclear inspectors to operate inside Iran to monitor Iran’s nuclear program.

So it’s not that Iran is trying to do something in secret. Iran has declared its program and has subjected it to international compliance inspections. And, indeed, the last technical report of the IAEA inspectors says that Iran is in full compliance with its obligation to the Safeguards Agreement.

The Bush administration, however, contends that there’s no justification for the Iranian nuclear program other than to develop technology that is used in a nuclear weapons program. […] The thing here, though, is that the Bush administration has produced no evidence whatsoever to back up its rhetorical claims. So we have a problem here.

As a longtime intelligence professional, one of the things we do to judge intent of any party is to examine past patterns of behavior. When you take a look at the Bush administration and the clear example of Iraq, where the Bush administration lied, exaggerated or misrepresented claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of implementation of the policy of regime change against Saddam Hussein, I would say that today the same pattern is being repeated.

The Bush administration once again is lying, exaggerating or misrepresenting the data on Iran’s nuclear program, contending that it is a weapons program. Not because the Bush administration is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program. Believe me, the Bush administration knows full well that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Just like they knew that there were no active WMD programs in Iraq. They’re simply using this as a cover for their broader policy objectives. In the case of Iraq, that was getting rid of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Iran, it’s get ting rid of the theocracy.

Shepherd: Is Iran a threat to the United States?

Ritter: Iran doesn’t pose a threat to the United States in any way, shape or form. It has some ballistic missile programs. If I were an Israeli I might be concerned about Iran’s ballistic missile programs, just like Iran is concerned about Israel’s ballistic missile programs. There’s nothing illegal about Iran’s missile program. We can’t sit here and say that because Iran is developing a missile with the range to hit Israel at the same time that Israel has a complete arsenal with the range to hit Iran, that somehow it is Iran that is the global pariah.

I think the best thing to do about any nation’s arsenal in that region is to take measures to instill stability and confidence-building measures so that people don’t feel the need to build these expensive weapons programs. But the best thing the United States can do would be to seek to actually enter into discourse with Iran. Right now we’ve isolated Iran. We’ve refused to talk to Iran. This is absurd.

Shepherd: Many people argue that Bush won’t bomb Iran because he’s a lame duck. Do you agree?

Ritter: I go off of past patterns of behavior. And we also have to talk about intent. It is the intent of the Bush administration to achieve regime change in Iran. They may not be able to achieve that in its totality in their remaining time in power. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t still have this objective.

I think the big concern right now isn’t that the Bush administration is going to launch this massive invasion of Iran. The big concern of the Bush administration is that come November the American people very well may pick a candidate who is going to deviate meaningfully from the track undertaken in the last eight years by the Bush administration. Again, this is where we have to take a look at past patterns of behavior. In 1993 the last executive order given by George Herbert Walker Bush was for the U.S. military to bomb Iraq. The reason was that there was much concern in the outgoing Bush administration that the new Clinton administration would deviate meaningfully from the Bush administration’s Iraq policy of regime change. Bombing Iraq, a limited airstrike nev ertheless, tied the hands of President Clinton so that the first action he had to deal with in regard to Iraq was war, that we were bombing Iraq.

I’m very concerned that this same pattern may very well repeat itself if Barack Obama is elected president, that the last executive order of a lame duck president named George W. Bush might be for the military to launch a limited airstrike against Iran. Then Barack Obama now finds himself boxed in with limited maneuver room, having to view Iran as a threat and having to deal with the consequences. In 1993 there wasn’t much the Iraqis could do. If we bomb Iran, however, the Iranians can and probably will do some severe retaliation, which only expands the conflict, thereby guaranteeing that Barack Obama is not only trapped but will probably continue the policy objectives of the Bush administration. This is what concerns me.

Source

[IAMX 3,055]

Of course they know. But American people will spoonfeed from them garbage through the media once again, and once again pulled into another stunt of a political war that will kill more soldiers and deplete the military and tear ### on the U.S. economy for nothing. Evidently we're still not into learning lessons the easy way so if it must happen the hard way, I guess that's the only way. Bring on Iran, and North Korea, and Venezuela, and Russia, and China. Being that smart people have been warning this country and it's citizens, most smart people might not be around here to face the consequences with those who didn't heed the warnings.

[buckeye6976 0]

I'm not certain that Scott Ritter is completely up to date on this subject

UN nuclear agency criticises Iran

The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has not resolved questions about a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme.

In its latest report, the UN nuclear watchdog said it had failed to make meaningful progress in assessing Iran's past nuclear activities.

Iran was also continuing to enrich uranium in defiance of a UN Security Council resolution, it said.

The US said Iran could face further sanctions unless it changed course.

Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed solely at civilian atomic energy, but Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.

'No credible assurances' In its report, the IAEA said that Iran was failing to co-operate with its investigators.

Regrettably the agency has not been able to make any substantial progress on the alleged studies

IAEA report

In May, the UN watchdog said Tehran was withholding information about projects to develop a nuclear warhead, convert uranium and test high explosives.

It called for access to key sites, documents and officials so that investigators could assess Iran's position that its nuclear work was for peaceful purposes.

But, said the IAEA, no such access had been granted.

"Regrettably the agency has not been able to make any substantial progress on the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues which remain of serious concern," the report said.

Without greater transparency from Iran, the IAEA would "not be able to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran", it added.

Iran says documentation on its alleged projects has been fabricated.

The IAEA also said that Iran was continuing to install new cascades of centrifuges to enrich uranium in defiance of a UN Security Council order.

Around 3,800 centrifuges were now in operation at Iran's enrichment plant in Natanz, an increase of 300 since May, the report said.

Responding to the report, the US said Iran could face more punitive measures.

"The Iranian regime's continued defiance only further isolates the Iranian people," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

Iran should suspend uranium enrichment or "face further implementation of the existing United Nations Security Council sanctions and the possibility of new sanctions", Reuters news agency quoted him as saying. The report will be discussed by the IAEA's board of governors next week.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/midd...ast/7616744.stm

Published: 2008/09/15 14:24:53 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

[GaryC 7]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

[symbiosis 0]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

Translation: if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you are unpatriotic.

It's wearing thin.

Colin Powell too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ran-intel_N.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_form...ff_on_0205.html

Edited September 15, 2008 by symbiosis

[GaryC 7]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

Translation: if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you are unpatriotic.

It's wearing thin.

Colin Powell too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ran-intel_N.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_form...ff_on_0205.html

They are both out of the loop. They have no more information than you or I do.

E.T.A.

We are talking about Iran here, not Iraq. Try and stay in the same country.

Edited September 15, 2008 by GaryC

[symbiosis 0]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

Translation: if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you are unpatriotic.

It's wearing thin.

Colin Powell too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ran-intel_N.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_form...ff_on_0205.html

They are both out of the loop. They have no more information than you or I do.

Uh, so the Bush administration sent an "out of the loop" secretary of state to present the case for war in Iraq to the U.N. Security Council ...?!

[GaryC 7]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

Translation: if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you are unpatriotic.

It's wearing thin.

Colin Powell too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ran-intel_N.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_form...ff_on_0205.html

They are both out of the loop. They have no more information than you or I do.

Uh, so the Bush administration sent an "out of the loop" secretary of state to present the case for war in Iraq to the U.N. Security Council ...?!

Hello???? This is about Iran, not Iraq. Get with it man!

[symbiosis 0]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

Translation: if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you are unpatriotic.

It's wearing thin.

Colin Powell too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ran-intel_N.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_form...ff_on_0205.html

They are both out of the loop. They have no more information than you or I do.

Uh, so the Bush administration sent an "out of the loop" secretary of state to present the case for war in Iraq to the U.N. Security Council ...?!

Hello???? This is about Iran, not Iraq. Get with it man!

Indeed, I saw Ritter and thought Iraq.

[GaryC 7]

Scott Ritter has become a partisan attention #######. I give him no more consideration than any other pundit. Most of the other western countries believe it and even the UN believes it. Who cares what this idiot thinks.

Translation: if you don't drink the Kool Aid, you are unpatriotic.

It's wearing thin.

Colin Powell too?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ran-intel_N.htm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_form...ff_on_0205.html

They are both out of the loop. They have no more information than you or I do.

Uh, so the Bush administration sent an "out of the loop" secretary of state to present the case for war in Iraq to the U.N. Security Council ...?!

Hello???? This is about Iran, not Iraq. Get with it man!

Indeed, I saw Ritter and thought Iraq.

It's OK, you were just one letter off.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who cares what they know or don't know - their term of office is almost done and they have spent what little moral capital they ever had several times over.

Noone other than a complete moron is going to push for a war with Iran. That would be dumbest thing ever.

[zqt3344 21]

Iran is an insect waiting to be swatted or stepped on and crushed by the USA and don't ever forget that.

Also just what the hell is Iran doing with nuclear reactors? Do they not sit on a vast resource of energy with natural gas and oil? More than that little country will ever want or need to use? So you think it makes sense for them to build nuclear reactors with all that oil they have for their own energy needs? Do you really? What Kool Aid have you been drinking?

Who cares what they know or don't know - their term of office is almost done and they have spent what little moral capital they ever had several times over.

Noone other than a complete moron is going to push for a war with Iran. That would be dumbest thing ever.

Edited September 15, 2008 by zqt3344

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iran is an insect waiting to be swatted or stepped on and crushed by the USA and don't ever forget that.

Also just what the hell is Iran doing with nuclear reactors? Do they not sit on a vast resource of energy with natural gas and oil? More than that little country will ever want or need to use? So you think it makes sense for them to build nuclear reactors with all that oil they have for their own energy needs? Do you really? What Kool Aid have you been drinking?

Who cares what they know or don't know - their term of office is almost done and they have spent what little moral capital they ever had several times over.

Noone other than a complete moron is going to push for a war with Iran. That would be dumbest thing ever.

Ummm... what is it you think I said?

Not what I wrote apparently...

[nowhereman 1]

The Bush administration is just like the boy who cried wolf... they started a war in Iraq based on a bunch of trumped up intel. They have lost credibility & couldn't muster support for a war with Iran if they wanted to. Iran should be watched by competent people WITHOUT AN AGENDA but that definitely isn't the Bush administration.

As for the remark about Powell (I don't recall who made it) I doubt you have served a day in the military. He was being a good soldier when he made that presentation about WMD's in Iraq. Does he regret it? I have absolutely no doubt that he does... Bush used Powell's credibility to sell what he knew was a bunch of BS. Powell is a respectable man and a veteran who was put in a nearly impossible situation. You should look down on Bush and his cronies for this, not Powell.

Edited September 24, 2008 by nowhereman

[HAL 9000 96]

The Bush administration is just like the boy who cried wolf... they started a war in Iraq based on a bunch of trumped up intel. They have lost credibility & couldn't muster support for a war with Iran if they wanted to. Iran should be watched by competent people WITHOUT AN AGENDA but that definitely isn't the Bush administration.

As for the remark about Powell (I don't recall who made it) I doubt you have served a day in the military. He was being a good soldier when he made that presentation about WMD's in Iraq. Does he regret it? I have absolutely no doubt that he does... Bush used Powell's credibility to sell what he knew was a bunch of BS. Powell is a respectable man and a veteran who was put in a nearly impossible situation. You should look down on Bush and his cronies for this, not Powell.

Hence Powell got himself away from that debacle.

No longer being a military man, orders were something he could replace with doing the right thing.