The nuclear reason is just the excuse. The real reason for a desire to attack Iran is to privatize the entire region. Same in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction and connections to al Qaeda were just fearmongering and flimsy excuses for the larger goal of changing the Middle East to be more favorable to Western interests. I support democracy and open markets in the Middle East, but I don't the President should mislead the American people in order to use military force to make the changes.

I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE estimate doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world - quite the contrary. - G.W.Bush, 12/4/2007

How much more dangerous can it be when a leader ignores his advisers?

George is like that old Texan drunk who insists he's got another fight in him. Won't admit he's had it. He wants to go swaggering out of office so there is no telling what this mental midget will do. Good luck world.
Hoa binh

The new "NIE" supposedly released as embarrassment to Bush is precisely the opposite. It is the planned means by which America's real foreign policy can back away from a new war (a bad idea that we're too stretched to wage anyway) while Bush can continue tough-talking to his base right through election 08. The neocon voters are to believe Bush has been back-stabbed by nameless government liberals and their duty is to vote for military strength as a slap to those "traitors" who released the nefarious NIE.
Please don't help anyone bite by thinking the NIE is giving Bush some repudiation. The NIE is giving him and the GOP what they want--no obligation to bomb and every opportunity to keep talking about the "danger."

RE "I have said Iran is dangerous ...": Shouldn't someone tell George W. Bush that the Iranian president did not vow to wipe Israel off the map?

"There is nothing puzzling ... about America's gratuitously aggressive foreign policy or about the oligarchs' successful efforts to drag the Republic into five wars. What an aggressive foreign policy accomplishes by slow degrees, a state of war accomplishes in a trice. Overnight [war] kills reform, overnight it transforms insurgents into traitors and the Republic into an imperiled realm. Overnight it strangles free politics, distracts and overawes the citizenry. Overnight it blasts public hope."
Walter Karp

Excellent point, Daniel David. The tone of the NIE clearly establishes plenty of ground to keep seeing Iran as a "danger." The document is replete with the language used by Bush and his neocon hacks: "Iran might," "Iran could," etc. As long as we continue to deal with "what if's" rather than tangibles, NOTHING Iran says, does, or does not do will matter. Because this administration continues to deal with "what if's" the rest of us can expect more preemptive strikes followed by "Whoops! We were wrong, but hey at least we rid the world of another tyranny. Let's stick around and create a 'democracy' for these ungrateful inhabitants and grab some oil while we're at it."
When the US takes military action and declares that it was done to advance democracy or protect human rights, many rightfully suspected ulterior motives (usually economic). When it came to invoking self-defense due to external security threats, however, I'd say most Americans believed what they were told. This administration has now made it so that any claim of self-defense due to external security threats will be forever held to scrutiny. Has Bush not heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

I cannot agree with the conclusion of the article, that Bush will force an armed conflict with Iran regardless of his advisers. It is more likely - not wanting to scare everyone with facetiousness - that Cheney will have Bush assasinated, take the crown and then invade Iran.

With the US seeming more the pariah than Iran, and that nuclear weapons cannot be used, and with internal and external resistance to Neocon agendas building, Bush's threats are making him every day more like the Vladamir Putin's apt caricature "a madman waving a knife".

Time to taser him but not humour him

We have met the terroristas and them is us
GWB and his Dick

Hillary Clinton supports Bush in his aggressive stance and plans to attack Iran. She voted for the war on Iraq and then pretends to have misunderstood the intelligence at the time. She's a liar and is as dangerous to world peace as the psychopathic, trigger-happy cowboy in the White House. In addition, I don't see her stopping the exporting of American jobs to other countries. Obama isn't any better regarding these issues.

Can a country that kills and maims a couple million innocents in about four years be declared a WMD? It's a good thing the rest of the world can't get organized, cause if they could, they'd take us down in about two shakes. Not that we deserve it or anything...

There is a huge disconnect between the bellicose rhetoric of the Bush administration and the intelligence of the US. If intelligence says that the Iranians have STOPPED building the bomb and Bush continues to harp to the tune that Iran is a threat to the world, then world public opinion can be forgiven for being confused about Iran as well as the Bush administration.

No wonder both Iran and the Bush govt are considered by the bulk of world public opinion to be threats to world public opinion in their own respective rights.

Iran was of little danger to anyone, but the neocon fantasy has made the world including Iran more dangerous.

When the US is out to get you PARANOID IS JUST GOOD THINKING. Another year of these stupid US policies both foreign and domestic should destabilize enough of the world for WW3.

All other problems are made worse by the delay and expenditure caused by military empire.

We might as well quit worrying about it, as there is not one damned thing any of us can do about what this miserable excuse of an administration says or does, and all our representatives do is hold their finger in the wind and talk -talk and let everything take it`s own course. We have endured 7 years of this, maybe we can hold on for one more, and if we cannot get change and some people with principles, bye-bye, America. Then will be plenty of time for worry.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/unsanam2

can we please stop fiddling while the world burns?

It would seem to me that everything dates from the revolution and subsequent hostage crisis. There has hardly been a time in the last twenty seven years when the US has not wanted to criticise/humiliate/attack Iran. This is all about revenge and greed, allied to an all consuming desire to control the region.
Iran are not the major sponsor of terrorism in the World (let alone their own region), but it could be argued that the US and the UK (slobbering faithfully behind) are.
Most of the terrorist acts have been carried out by Saudi/Yemeni/Pakistan etc., and here in the UK, by homegrown Muslims of Pakistani origin.
There has not, to my knowledge been a suicide attack by an Iranian, or for that matter any kind of attack. Yes, they may be supplying arms to the Shia militias in Iraq, but this is because the Shia people (particularly in Baghdad and Karbala) were being slaughtered.
To accuse Iran of being solely responsible for IEDs is laughable. This technology has been with us since the second World war, when Russian resistance used shaped charges against the German Panzers. They are an improvised explosive device - improvised means that they can be produced simply and quickly, without sophisticated equiptment.
If you are looking for a terror act linking the US and Iran, then read up about the USS Vincennes (most Americans and British need a reminder about this in my opinion). A US guided missile destroyer which shot down an Iranian airbus over the Straits of Hornuz.
As for nuclear technology, Iran have signed up to the NPT, and have in no way broken the terms of that agreement.
This whole thing stinks of lies, spin and deception. These are the modern tools used to initiate wars.

Bush spends his time seeing enemies to his middle-eastern ambitions of being the man to tame the 'big bad Muslim boogie man' around every corner. He spins the truth for his own entertainment. I don't think the man has a clue what the truth is anymore. It's made up in his sick little mind to suit the tale he wants to spin at the moment. Just like all the terrorist's who have been killed in US raids. They could be anything from insurgents to hapless people who wandered into the scene. They all get the label of terrorist. He spins it to suit his ambitions. There is literally nothing that comes out of his mouth that can be believed. So most of us are ceasing to place much truthfulness to his Iran assertions.

"...the NIE estimate doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world - quite the contrary. - G.W.Bush, 12/4/2007
How much more dangerous can it be when a leader ignores his advisers?"

To the contrary, how many might wish Carter had ignored his-advisers, and not elevated/enabled Al Qaida as political/covert tool against rival USSR?
Like Kissinger, or more-to-point, the 'ColdWarriors-cum-neo-Cons' who had all outlived their so-called 'Enemy' (who also, and throughout, could have been friend/partner since WW-II -- had the US not found an enemy more-'useful' regards our real-Interests).
Advisers almost always are multi-Administrational -- surviving and thriving much-longer than Presidential authorities/policies, and longer than many Congressional-careers. As such, these soon-compromised 'thinkers'/Realists/ideologues can wield much-more harm and covert-influence than most Americans are allowed to realize. They shelter and manipulate from key-Industries and Corporations, in 'Think-Tanks' and advisory-boards, in Academia and Media, and in globalist bureaucracies. And, when allied more with Special-Interests than Public-interest, they maintain their Policies and Interests completely outside any oversight/knowledge/control of the Public.
"Be careful what you wish for" when opining that 'leaders should heed advisers' -- you'd be much-happier today if Bush (for example) 'had not'...

This link is to a great article and should be shared with others... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/weden2.html

The king of the USA simply has no shame; but this is not the only thing he lacks. He also suffers from decreased cognitive complexity. After all, one shouldn't expect much from a fellow whom one "elects" on the basis that one prefers to drink beer with.

It has been reported that when Saddam was sure that the attack was imminent, he made some generous concessions to the Bush regime, but the king laughed if off. The king was dreaming about having his own gas station right in the center of Baghdad.

There is another way to look at the NIE. Considering Bush's incessant warmongering chatter coupled with Cheney's promise to AIPAC and Israel to attack Iran, the Bush regime suddenly found itself facing the recent positive reports from the UN's IAEA to the effect that there was no evidence Iran was producing nuclear weapons. At the same time, saner heads—those pulling Bush/Cheney strings—have apparently calculated that a war with Iran is not going to be a slam-dunk, that it would be much costlier than they can afford. So, they needed an alibi for Bush to back down. Hence, they decided to come up with the NIE report.

The NIE report was a face-saving scheme for Bush and Cheney. Now, Cheney can tell AIPAC and Israel: Hey man, our hands are now tied.

As I had mentioned on a previous post a few month ago, there is not going to a war with Iran. I'll bet your bottom dollar on that.