So, the NYT is O.K. with U.S. intelligence community estimates that confirm their bias, but protested when the same folks said Iraq had WMDs.  Gee, and I thought we didn’t have any human intelligence assets in Iran.  In the case of Iraq, the mistake, if indeed it was a mistake, had negative but manageable consequences.  If there is a mistake this time, the consequences will be disastrous, starting with the destruction of Israel and potentially beginning Armageddon, which is what the twelvers in Tehran want.  But hey, as long as the Obama regime confirms the secular liberal world view, what could go wrong.  This feels like a malevolent version of the foreign policy stupidity of the Carter administration.

There are none so blind and those who will not see, don’t want to see and ignore what there is to see.

Can you say “Neville Chamberlain”?

Re No. 3, a comparison of the New York Times to Neville Chamberlain seems a bit off.  In the latter’s case, the intelligence available to HMG at the time later proved to be pretty accurate.  England was at a significant disadvantage in air power of virtually all types.  Much of the “Munich” strategy was intended to avoid going to war at a time when British air power was decidedly inferior to that of Germany, but within striking distance of being a viable defensive force if hostilities could be put back by a year or more.  Chamberlain was not acting from minimisation of a German threat.  Quite the opposite.  In any event, newspapers and heads of state are very different things with different sources and different responsibilities. 

As No. 1 points out, there are reasons to be concerned that we do not have the intelligence assets on the ground to draw and accurate picture of either the intent or the current capabilities of the Iranian nuclear programme.  Nonetheless, our intelligence work re Iraq was fairly accurate (although the intelligence community got pretty roughed up by the Chaney-ites in the Administration who wanted more dire predictions than the analysis supported).  If there is a strong consensus within the Community that weapons development halted prior to 2007, that’s worth a hard listen before we or a local power plunge over the precipice into a war that will have incalculable results.

As to No. 2, if you or any of your buds have better information about the state of the Iranian nuclear program than the US government, pick up the phone.  Please.

Just like there was no way the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

Not sure I follow that last remark.  What is the link between the Pacific military situation in 1940-41, Great Britain’s calculus about its preparedness to confront Hitler militarily in 1938, and the intelligence community’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear programme in early 2012 (or 2007, for that matter - they’ve been pretty consistent in their assessment that Iran is not actively weaponising their nuclear capability, but, rather is trying to keep options open to permit a capability to ramp up to weaponisation if it were determined to do that)?

Well then I won’t worry.  A nuclear Iran is no big deal anyway if you are wrong.

Actually, it was a question. 

A nuclear-armed Iran is a very big deal, No. 7.  Don’t kid yourself to think otherwise.  Of course, a nuclear-armed Pakistan may be what really does us in.  But that’s another story.

This is sounding eerily like the drum up to our war against Iraq. The difference is, of course, that Iran would put up a much more vigorous defense (hence the use of the word “against” rather than “with” regarding war and Iraq). The Bush Administration got the intelligence they could manipulate to make the case for war and I’m sure the Obama Administration could (and may) do the same.

What I don’t understand is how the Republicans and their supporters can criticize Obama on Defense. It’s been ironic to me that the same president the gang loves to call a Socialist and a closet Muslim has been quite successful at our Defense interests. He’s gotten Bin Laden, attacks have been thwarted, he’s been competent on the Iraq and Afghanistan timetables and, in short, hasn’t been the “let’s hold hands and sing, ‘Kumbaya’ ” I rather thought he’d be.

So, if he uses a page out of the Cheney playbook, errr, Bush playbook, and starts the war drums over Iran with scant (or no) evidence, will the GOP support him? Will the Dems?

8, then I am confused.  You said that Iran wasn’t working on a nuclear bomb.  Teatime2 sure doesn’t think they are.  So you and he are in agreement.  In any event it’s all Bush’s fault.

I guess if they pop a nuke over DC we will know.

Sorry, No. 10, I simply can’t make sense of your last couple of statements.  You’re apparently confusing me with someone else.  I was commenting on the NYT article in the post.  Actually, now that I look at No. 9 closely, he didn’t say what you attributed to him, either.  My advice is to read more closely.

Finally, your negativity toward Bush (I assume you mean the most recent one) is misplaced.  I don’t think he has much to do with this.  Cut him some slack, please.  The most that could be said, I suppose, is that I doubt that he would be handling the current situation much differently than is the current Administration.

First off, “he” is a she!
Br. Michael, I personally have no idea what Iran is or isn’t doing—I was only remarking on the political spin and maneuvering which occurs to achieve particular political results. Whether it is based on truth isn’t the point for the politicians.

Teatime2 - You assert POTUS has been a success with national defense.  What do you think about his plan to unilaterally disarm the U.S. nuclear arsenal by a minimum of 80%, leaving us with no credible nuclear deterrent and at a time when China and Russia are expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals?  I think from a strategic perspective he is a disaster and is putting the U.S. at significant risk.

#13—And your source for that is ...?

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/06/01/idINIndia-57439520110601

how the Republicans and their supporters can criticize Obama on Defense

Using information, techniques, assets developed during the hated Bush administration, POTUS takes out Bin Laden.  What was his choice with Bin Laden in the cross hairs?  Think he might have had a “bad press day” if he let that go by the wayside?  Iraq will self-destruct soon, Afghanistan is in the process as we alert our enemies to our strategic intent.  How are we doing on securing our own borders?  Iran talks to Venezualia about a missle base.  Wonder why?  Iraq conducts non-ballistic missle tests for what?  Maybe hi-altitude non-ballistic nuclear blast—ever hear of EMP?  Defense budget to be cut by trillions with no strategic committment to containing growing cadre of enemies-aided by the Republicans and their mindless debt deal in the summer of 2011.  POTUS wants to eliminate 80% of US nuclear capability.

Yes, if y’all say our defense is solid and our security assured by all this, then no worries.  Why wouldn’t we want 4 more years?

#14 - Try this one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9083148/Barack-Obama-weighs-major-cuts-to-US-nuclear-arsenal.html

Obama will go down in history as the U.S. version of Neville Chamberlain.  He was mentored by Marxists, as was his closest adviser Valerie Jarrett, to believe all U.S. power is illegitimate, and in his quest to right this perceived wrong, he is doing grave harm to our national security.  Think it’s just a coincidence that Barry’s Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis was also a close Jarrett family friend?

My personal prediction is that an unnoticed, rusty freighter about 200-300 miles off the East coast will launch a medium range Iranian
missle with a nuclear warhead at either New York city or D.C.  If they hurry up and do it Obama’s watch, there is no chance we would retaliate by making Tehran a molten slag heap.

“He’s gotten Bin Laden, attacks have been thwarted, he’s been competent on the Iraq and Afghanistan timetables”...

Bin Laden was “got” as a springboard off the Bush administration and all the intell that was initiated and gathered through that time period.  Don’t ask me for links or references because I won’t give them to you, but it’s my understanding that it was Panetta and Clinton who “got” Bin Laden, whilst the figurehead had to be pulled off the golf course and his arm twisted to spur the proper action. 

Thank God the military, FBI, and CIA continue to do their jobs despite the self-serving frontrunners in their lives.