Here’s the guy in charge of monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN:
“I have not received any information that there is a concrete, active nuclear weapon program going on right now. … We have information that there have been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. But we are looking into these alleged studies with Iran right now. … But have we seen having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns.”
This contrasts what our Vice-President (and his network of warmongers keep telling us):
“Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this.”
If we are to give Cheney the benefit of the doubt, we can agree that Iran’s avowed desire to develop a nuclear energy program could conceivably lead, in the future, to knowledge that could be converted to a weapons program. But there is no evidence at all that they are currently pursuing a weapons program. Are we going to go to war over such things?
The most important thing is the Democrats not fall for this rhetorical trap. They need to call Dick Cheney a liar. People are not going to believe Dick Cheney.
I think the administration made a significant shift in their rhetoric when it referred to Iran’s possibly gaining knowledge to make a nuclear weapon. The standard for sanctions and pre-emptive attacks is now not possession nor imminent possession, but rather knowledge, and future knowledge at that. The burden of proof will wrongly be placed on the pariah country to prove its innocence. How exactly will our intelligence prove the non-existence of another country’s technical knowledge? How do we distinguish between knowledge leading to nuclear energy and knowledge leading to nuclear weapons?
We’re no longer threatened by a non-ally’s arms, but by their level of education. Iran has always valued engineering, science, and medicine as fields of study. By criminalizing a country’s advanced knowledge, we’ll be able to attack any country which threatens us economically and politically, as well as militarily.
And who is going to lead the charge? we need; we need; we need! Who?
just look at the sunday follies.Not the individuals but the focus of the shows! Do you realize that not a single comment regarding the FEMA’s latest disgrace!
So- who?
Actually there are plenty of people who will believe Chaney. The MSM believes him. Apparently so do most of the people running for pres.
Iran seeking nuclear weapons is stated as fact almost everywhere you go.
Check out Chaney’s quote;
—————
“Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this.”
—————-
“is pursuing”
“that could be used”
That could cover any person/country that researches the nuclear cycle, even in an academic setting. Notice he does NOT say ‘creating nuclear material’. It’s quite shrewd. Once the bombs fall they won’t need fallout or actual material to make their case. All they will need is a research paper from some Iranian University.
“The banality of evil” is certainly a quote that matches Chaney.
nalbar
They need to call Dick Cheney a liar.
Care to give odds on anyone taking you up on that?
No.
But something has always bothered me about Cheney — he always needs to put a tagline on his lies… usually something to the effect of “the world knows this”. In fact, its a hallmark of these gangsters, even the 2nd and 3rd level, always needing to justify their lies by cloaking them in a fog of “common knowledge” or the familiar “proven fact”.
These guys have got the American people cowering in fear, behaving like whipped dogs. They’ve got Congress falling over itself in the hallways to cringe and fawn.
Why the need to appear reasonable? Its always bugged me. Yeah, somebody will say its just because they’re insecure bullies yada yada or they want the appearance of reasonableness. I don’t agree.
Having seen this type of personality up close — its usually a personal internal thing out of whack that compels them to reach out to their victims for some weird affirmation of the justice of punching them in the gut or sucker punching them in the side of the head.
I have a horrible fear they’re working themselves up into some kind of psychic frenzy to overcome any final inhibitions about doin’ something REALLY big and shitty. We’re so worried about our precious constitution and right to bitch out our congressmen for being lazy, lyin’ turds that we sometimes forget Cheney has his rigid member on the Big Button of everlasting nuclear holocaust.
I don’t think Bush would do it. But remember Cheney is the guy who usurped power and ordered Flight 93 to be shot down (whether it was shot down or not doesn’t matter compared to Cheneys power grab… and how easily it was swallowed).
I haven’t felt this chilled to the bone since I was under the desk at school during the Bay of Pigs.
he always needs to put a tagline on his lies… usually something to the effect of “the world knows this”.
…
Why the need to appear reasonable?
It’s not a psychological need to appear reasonable. It’s because if you repeat something often enough and sure enough and never back down from what you’ve said and never give any wiggle room or admit that you might be wrong, some portion of the citizenry will believe that it’s true. Because no one could “get away” with lying like that.
It’s the Big Lie theory – not to Godwin this thread but these guys have been using Goebbels’s playbook since day one. Tell a lie, make it big, repeat it often, never admit that you’re wrong.
To this day 30% or so of the country still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Dick Cheney continues to repeat every time the subject comes up that there were WMDs in Iraq. These two things are not independent from each other.
Q. How do you know when Dick Cheney’s lying?
A. George Bush’s lips are moving.
Hm. One reason that Cheney’s statement is taken so seriously by the foriegn policy establishment (and politicos of all stripes) is that it does reflect a basic reality. As I learn to read these things, it seems to me that he is saying “Iran seeks to defy our imperial will, and to establish a basis (nuclear technology) whereby they may do so more or less in complete sucurity and for perpetuity.”
Remember that most of the “people who matter” in this discussion are philosophically oriented toward the atom age, and see the acquisition of nuclear technology as a strategic perogative that must be managed in a hegemonic fashion.
While I feel a bit nuts here saying this, they’re not that wrong! Iran would love to be able to be that much more of a pain in our side. “Everyone” does know this.
The place where Cheney goes off the rails is how this should be dealt with. The man clearly wants to establish a rationale for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. “Everyone” also knows this. And that is the wrong choice by miles and miles.