We have all been told that the Bush/Cheney administration held up the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran for about a year. It goes to show that the administration is in charge of such NIE's. It decides what goes into them. All sixteen of the agencies that have input into the NIE's are within the executive branch and as such are under the office of the President.
Bush regularly appeals to "national security" as a blanket and unquestionable cover for certain actions taken by his administration. So, what does it mean that Bush has agreed to release the 2007 NIE on Iran, which NIE states that Iran stopped its alleged nuclear-weapons program back in 2003?
There have been many reasons given for Bush allowing his previous claims to be refuted by his own administration. We've given a number of them in earlier posts. We'll reiterate them here and then reveal the most important new information.
"Trick Revealed in the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran"
Posted: Monday, Dec. 3rd 2007 by Tom Usher
The latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (2007) states that Iran halted its program to develop nuclear weapons. However, where's the proof it ever had such a program?
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is a tricky maneuver by the neocons to make the U.S. intelligence community appear to the public as being much more reasonable and cautious and deserving of trust than earlier. It is a much more subtle approach that is still designed to maneuver the U.S. into a position of attacking Iran.
The NIE is designed to give the U.S. and Bush administration more psychological cover for attacking Iran later after cloak and dagger operations get to a critical point.
The most important thing to see is that the U.S. is accusing Iran of having had an up-and-running nuclear weapons program even though the U.S. has no proof of any such program. This is a perception-management, psy-ops move on the part of the U.S. People will be relieved that the Iranians stopped a program in 2003, but the U.S. has then herded the masses into thinking that Iran had such a program. This thinking will then be used later when the U.S. says it has evidence that has been recently discovered that Iran really didn't stop its program but just drove it deeper underground. The people are being set up to later more readily go along with military attacks on Iran. It is part of the wearing down process by the powers that be.
The people are given so much garbage to consider that they, the people, just become tired of it all and then acquiesce under the attitude that they, the people, can't stop or control those powers that be. Of course, it isn't true that they can't stop or control the situation.
The people can just stop choosing bad leaders. It's that simple. Just start following those who follow Jesus's real lead.
"Condi Rice: Revealing More of the NIE Trick on Iran"
Posted: Wednesday, Dec. 5th 2007 by Tom Usher
So, Condi Rice says that diplomacy worked in forcing Iran to stop a nuclear-weapons program back in 2003, so the world should continue applying force to get Iran to stop all nuclear activity including for energy. Nothing has changed. This is just a way for the neocons to take away the argument and focus on the fact that the Bush administration could not prove that Iran ever had a nuclear-weapons program.
Those who are anti-attack can't now insist that the U.S. prove that Iran has an on-going nuclear-weapons program. This is a way for the neocons to remove having to supply evidence from consideration. It's a dirty, dirty trick. Anyone who falls for it is being extremely gullible.
Now Iran will push on with its peaceful nuclear-energy program, and the U.S. won't be able to get enough support to continue hammering Iran so the U.S. and/or Israel will consider attacking Iran under the pretext that the rest of the world is being too reckless in not supporting greater sanctions.
"Prove It, Liars: Prove Iran Ever Had a Nuclear-Weapons Program"
Posted: Thursday, Dec. 6th 2007 by Tom Usher
The NIE on Iran says that the Iranians had a nuclear-weapons program going on until they suspended that program in 2003. Prove it, liars. You neocons are known and proven liars. Just look at all your lies that have resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We don't trust you any farther than we can throw you.
Iran says it never had a covert nuclear-energy program. They always stated openly that they were going ahead with nuclear energy. They are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but that treaty pertains to weapons and not peaceful-, civilian-energy production.
The neocons have never offered up any proof that Iran has ever been engaged in nuclear-weapons development. The neocons are hoping that their latest trick with their NIE on Iran will change the subject and get them off the hook on having to prove their unsubstantiated allegations. They are hoping that the people will now just speak as if Iran did have a program.
We don't buy this trick. We are calling the neocons on it. Again, we say prove it, liars. Prove it, you Machiavellian devils.
"John Bolton's Trick on the 2007 NIE on Iran: Which side is leaking disinformation?"
Posted: Friday, Dec. 7th 2007 by Tom Usher
If the neocons had had their way, they would have attacked Iran long ago and based upon the previous NIE (2005) that they now say was in error. Who can trust these people? We don't. We don't trust them at all. They are paid to be pathological liars. They are Machiavellians — not to be trusted with power ever!
John Bolton is claiming now that the 2007 NIE on Iran may have been politicized by intelligence people who disagree with George W. Bush's policies. He says that the findings may be based upon disinformation given out by the Iranians to seem like real leaks.
However, the intelligence community is all part of the executive branch. The President can order those agencies around. Only impeachment and removal from office can stop him in that regard. The Bush administration drove intelligence with its policy in the lead-up to the attack on Baghdad. Everyone knows that. The leaked Downing Street Memos shows it clearly. Bolton is disingenuous.
The 2007 NIE on Iran was released by the administration, because it has been designed to twist the arguments. It has been designed to appear more reasonable. It is a ploy to put the Iranians more on the defensive. It is designed to change the subject. It is designed to take the spotlight off the neocons unsubstantiated allegations that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. It is designed to get the anti-war movement that opposes Bush and the neocons to argue somewhat in favor of the NIE thereby supporting the position or lending credibility to the NIE stating that Iran did have a nuclear-weapons program and therefore had lied before and can't be trusted not to start up that program again. The neocons have miscalculated however.
The flip-flopping of the NIE's has just served to further discredit the administration.
This is all psy-ops being used against the American public and the world at-large. The neocons set up the view that the U.S. obtained secret notes that the U.S. has now divulged, which notes claim to show the Iranian military upset that Iran stopped a nuclear-weapons program. So, the neocons figured in advance for many months how to suddenly appear so credible by sharing (leaking disinformation) sources and methods. They've shared that they can obtain secret notes. Well, since they've shared this information, then share the notes. Make them public. Publish them so the world may analyze them.
Also, it is the U.K. that supposedly gave the U.S. much of the information. Remember the bad info (disinformation) that came from the Brits about Iraq being able to launch chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so. It was a lie. Why trust them now?
"More NIE on Iran Tricks: When Did Bush Know is Just a Trick Question"
Posted: Saturday, Dec. 8th 2007 by Tom Usher
The neocons believe that once the dust settles over arguments about when Bush knew that Iran had supposedly stopped a weapons program that the subject will then be only stopping all enrichment including by military attacks. Well, we don't buy the argument about when Bush knew. He always knew that the U.S. has never known whether or not Iran has ever had a nuclear-weapons program.
Now it's down to the subject of Iran stopping enrichment, period, the neocons think. The Bush and Cheney neocons think they've changed the subject off whether or not they can supply proof of their allegations against Iran that it has an on-going nuclear-weapons program. We were calling for them to prove it. They couldn't, so now they've done what they always do: Change the subject.
It won't work though. They are beginning to look more and more foolish to more and more ordinary people who are beginning to see right through all their deceptions. The psy-ops isn't working. The people aren't falling for it.
The Bush and Cheney neocon crowd still cannot prove that Iran ever had a nuclear-weapons program and Iran has just as much right as any other nation to have a peaceful, civilian nuclear-energy program, not that that's a smart thing to do. It isn't.
"Bush, Baker, and Gates: That's Bush-41, James Baker, and Bill Gates"
Posted: Wednesday, Dec. 12th 2007 by Tom Usher
Have James Baker and George H. W. Bush, through Bill Gates and Gates' networking on the inside with Condi Rice, somewhat successfully influenced George W. Bush, especially during the Presidential election season, to back away a little from Israeli's most rabid false-Zionists? Did George W. Bush need the NIE on Iran as a cover not to attack Iran before the upcoming Presidential election? Bush-41 and his group know that an attack on Iran without convincing, clear, substantiated evidence of an Iranian intent to attack Israel with nuclear weapons would sink the Republican Party, possibly forever.
Bush-43 is allowing Condi Rice to appear to be using more evenhanded diplomacy concerning Iran and the Palestinians. This has been design to shore up the broken Republican Party — broken by the neocons (pro false-Zionists, mostly Jews themselves by a huge percentage). Rice has recently been openly critical of continued Jewish land grabbing and so-called settlement construction during her attempts at making peace with the Palestinians. She has also been calling for opening up a dialogue with Iran even while hardliners (war mongers) in Israel condemn such attempts at negotiating.
We see others in the U.S. still doing the neocons' bidding. The major newspapers ask why does Iran need peaceful civilian nuclear energy when it has so much oil and gas. Well, oil is causing global warming. It is not always easy to extract or refine. It is also going to run out. In addition, these same neocons weren't upset about Iran getting such nuclear energy when the Shah was the U.S.'s puppet dictator of Iran.
Now, here comes the most revealing aspect.
Bush could attack Iran, but it would mean crashing the Republican Party. Not only would they lose the White House, they would lose huge portions in both the Senate and the House. They would be hurt in all the states and local governments as well. Bush has therefore been convinced not to take the lead on attacking Iran, but he had to have cover.
As dumb as the 2007 NIE on Iran has made him appear, he can hide behind it. It can be used to deflect much criticism that would otherwise come from the anti-war movement in the U.S. for instance.
Bush has been accused of being a puppet of the Israelis. This move of letting out the NIE with its flip-flop on intelligence makes it appear that Bush is less in lockstep with the false-Zionist hawks in Israel and the U.S. The argument that he is in lockstep has been weakened in appearance only. This is perception management (propaganda, psy-ops) in action.
At the same time that this NIE has come out, we find Olmert, the head of government in Israel, declaring that he openly discussed with Bush Israeli unilaterally attacking Iran. Olmert says that Bush understood and did not object. This of course in the language of so-called diplomacy means that Bush will not take actions against Israel when Israel attacks Iran. He may speak against it in public for appearances sake, but behind the scenes even before the attack, he has agreed with Israel.
The way this is supposed to play out:
Russia and China will balk in the U.N. about increasing sanctions against Iran. Israel will declare its right to preventative, preemptive, self-defense. It will claim to have sufficient evidence against Iran to justify attacking Iran, evidence that it has been "giving" to the U.S. stating that Iran really didn't stop its program but just drove it deeper underground. Bush/Cheney will cite this Israeli evidence as being worthy but won't have to take the lead. Bush and Cheney won't have to convince the American people to attack Iran unlike what they did against Iraq. Israel will bomb Iran. Iran will retaliate. By then, everyone will be swept up in a different level of debate with all of this nearly forgotten, at least by shallow thinkers. The U.S. will be called upon to defend Israel by virtue of treaties and alliances, etc. Iran will be attacked again but not just by Israel but also by the U.S. All of this will happen if Israel and the Bush/Cheney neocons can continue the ruse under enough cover, meaning if they can keep the anti-war and peace movement from controlling the subject.
Controlling the subject isn't very difficult for Bush/Cheney since most of the mass media remains ultimately pro-Israel and anti-Iran. The mass, mainstream U.S. media (and much of the media in the West in general) are propaganda instruments for global plutocrats (bankers) the American Empire in reality and the Israeli Empire in the making. They are desirous of overlooking Israeli wrong-doing, as is quite evident concerning Palestine and especially Gaza and also was quite evident when Israel savagely attacked Lebanon in reaction to Hezbollah retaliation against earlier Israeli aggression. The media acted as if the whole vicious cycle began with Hezbollah and that Israel hadn't done anything against Hezbollah before that. That is not to pardon Hezbollah. As Christians, we can never excuse violence even when it is reaction to violence.
So, now you ought to have the blinders off concerning why the NIE, as is, was released. Cheney and his neocon ilk were given more than a year to come up with a ploy (cover) to carry out what Cheney would love to just do nakedly: Bomb Iran for the sake of the American Empire and its military-industrial complex that has made Cheney a very, very rich man and will make his family much richer still if they get their antichrist way.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)