Why Bush's tallking points on Iran changed
There's an aspect of this that I haven't seen covered yet. Apparently the Bush administration has known for nearly a year that Iran had halted is nuclear development program back in 2003. So a lot of people in the blogosphere have been talking about how the administration has been hyping the threat even though they knew it was false.
However, it occurs to me that the administration actually backed off the "nuclear Iran" talking point quite some time ago. For the last year, they've been pushing the "Iran is helping insurgents in Iraq" talking point. I've read speculation that this shift occurred because the "nuclear Iran" narrative just wasn't working as well as the Iran hawks liked.
But what if there was another reason for the shift? What if they changed the dialog when they were informed that it simply wasn't true?
Just a though.
posted by Chris Andersen at 4:09 PM
2 Comments:
Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all?
From IranAffairs.com:
Iran NIE report: Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
If the 2005 NIE report was wrong when it claimed with "high confidence" that Iran had a active nuclear weapons program, why should the 2007 NIE be any more credible when it claims that Iran had a nuclear weapons program until 2003? If Iran really had a nuclear weapons program until 2003 as the new report claims, then why has the IAEA found no evidence of it?
At this point, I can't believe that anyone would believe Bush on anything. My interpretation of this is that the evidence within the intel communication (or lack of evidence in this case) was so glaring that the Bush administration were worried about a leak.
Post a Comment
<< Home