On Demand
Questions on Iran
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
We take the live White House press conference where President Bush answered questions about the new National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation and the TheWashingtonNote.com, gives us the play by play.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
I am one of those voters who promised myself that nobody who gave Bush the Blank Check that led to the Iraq invasion would not get my vote, ever.
Now we have the US gov. reversing its assertion that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction.
But given the incompetence reflected in the first stance and in the case of Iraq, I hope the president explains why we are wise to trust its judgment now, tempting though it may be to do so.
So far remarks I've heard from Iran regarding this reversal were more barbaric than polite.
About Barack/Barak. Barack (as in Obama) is an Arabic cognate with the Hebrew "Baruch," meaning to bless. As far as I know, the Hebrew last name Barak (as in Ehud) has to do with the word for thunder.
Grammar correction to my last comment -- ignore the double neg, sorry.
ignore double neg in first comment sorry.
could bush's comments about the lack of transparency in Iran's regime apply to any certain regime in america...?
Iran's strategy has been effective, start program when no one is looking, stop program when the heat is on.
Iran is going to build a bomb. Sooner or later they will reach the goal.
We should just keep engaging diplomatically with Iran and let the "soft take-down" take place.
Attaboy, Georgie! Turn this on its head! The NIE report doesn't undermine his case at all! This proves that they COULD start a nuclear weapons program. Apparently our foreign policy should be based entirely on hypotheticals.
"Iran will be a danger if they every start up their program again." Wrong. They had it started & shut it down, making the world a safer place. Duh.
BTW, it is perfectly legal for Iran under IAEA rules to enrich uranium. U.S. calls that they not do that is completely out of keeping with the treaty.
Shame on me, expecting that W cared about any treaty.
oh why oh why can't our president say "nuclear"??!?!
By the way, I think Barak actually means lightning in Hebrew, not thunder.
I would ask Bush about the oil in Iran. Also why do we care so much about Israel's security and care nothing about security elsewhere in the world.
Ahmadinejad is NOT the leader of Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone who has a triple digit IQ knew there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. It's all very apparent from open source.
Am I the only one having a moment of patriotic pride that we -- the most powerful country in the world -- were able to get our president to admit that he was wrong about something so crucial to his heart and his legacy? To the cynical: Imagine Iran's leaders doing this.
He's not turning it on it's head. The fact is Iran is building a bomb.
They can start and stop as they see fit.(see North Korea)
Ok so in 03 they stopped the program we found out today.
So in 4 years time do you think Iran will have started it up again?
The answer is yes, why do we know this for a fact?
Iran know what every country knows, "If you have a nuke you don't get invaded.
Nuclear deterrence works.
and Israel, do have it the bomb? it is a danger?
Excuse me but my english is very little, what means NIE? it is the number identification for the foreign residents, perhaps?
Iran is not the enemy.....
Iranian nuclear activity is perfectly peaceful...
for the manufacture of gumdrops and flowers.
Evil Bush is the enemy & much worse than Ahmadinejhad who is a man of peace demonized by Fox news, Zionists, neocons and Walmart.
American democracy is truly dangerous and not the will of the people.
Long live glorious Islamic Sharia and let us pray for the coming of the 12th Imam so that capatilism can finally be destroyed...
and oh yeah, viva lifelong power for our supreme Leader, Comrade Chavez.
Remember: Bush and our government is the real enemy. Bin Laden, Chavez and Ahmdinejad are our Saviors.
The Iranians even as late as last year were willing to talk about stopping enrichment. What they rejected was that they had to stop enrichment as a precondition to such talks. And I have to say, I see their point of view. I mean, how can you say to someone: "We'll negotiate with you once you give us everything we want." America would never agree to such preconditions, so why should they?
Do I think this is a serious issue? Yes. Do I want to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Yes. But the rhetoric around this is just surreal.
Regardless of what the press conference is about, once more President Bush has managed to embarrass himself. Not only he can't pronounce "nuclear" but he can't put two logical sentences together. And as usual, his way out: trivialize things with stupid comments and chuckles.
Way to contribute to the conversation, Allison.
"The answer is yes, why do we know this for a fact?
Iran know what every country knows, "If you have a nuke you don't get invaded.
Nuclear deterrence works."
No it doesn't. Look at Israel and Pakistan and the USA. All invaded though armed.
Every country that doesn't have WMD is 3-4 years away from having a nuclear weapon. Look at the ridiculous rhetoric about the Israeli invasion of Syria in September.
Bombing Iran would be ridiculous. It's all for oil.
If Bush cared so much about rogue nations obtaining WMD, why didn't we bomb North Korea before they started testing?
No oil!
Paulo...you need to chill out a bit when posts someone you disagree with (as most people inevitably do). Satire may be too subtle for you, but no need to for you to try to disparage others, just because you don't like their opinions.
Satire is strictly a literary genre, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an often quite angry attack on something the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.
My theory:
Cheney/Bush have realized that the Administration can't bomb Iran in an election year, and so have either caused to be generated, or publicized, a report that suggests that there is nothing in Iraq to bomb.
My husband's theory:
The report is real and somebody in the media had it, so the Bushies needed to release it as "damage control."
I'm voting for Obama.
Obama skipped the recent Iran invasion vote.
Allison in comment #20...AMEN!!!!
My AHA moment of the day: press conferences with President Bush are not about getting information, but rather to raise important questions. That man says a whole lot of nothing.
One question that I have (which I'm not sure was raised) is how can we be critical of other nations developing nuclear weapons when our own country continues to do so without restraints and our ally, Israel, has nuclear weapons as well? Seems like we never address the danger of the Zionist program, which is as dangerous as any radical program (be it Muslim, Christian, or Communist).
There won't be any progress until the double-standards and the hypocrisy is stopped.
Who invaded the US, Israel and Pakistan.
Non-state actors
i'll restate
Nuclear deterrence work to prevent large power wars.
Your right it doesn't prevent kidnappings and acts of terrorism.
Some would say Israel was invaded by "state terrorism" I guess they pick and choose the terminology?
ALL ABOUT OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Harry" -- fyi Zionism is the concept of right to return by Jews to Israel, fought and won by Jews.
If there is something else to what you call the "zionist program" and how that it "as dangerous as any radical program" please explain. When I hear these things I think propogandist or college kid and never seem to see a reply after the accusation. But if there is something else I sincerely would like to hear it/contemplate.
Why doesn't the U.S. apply the same standards to Israel's nuclear program as it is doing to Iran's?
What I wonder is how the narrative of hawkish media outlets will or won't change regarding Iran and how many will admit their own complicity to nearing war with yet another Mideast country.
"What I wonder is how the narrative of hawkish media outlets will or won't change regarding Iran and how many will admit their own complicity to nearing war with yet another Mideast country."
Well I think this show is probably as "mainstream left" as you can get and that's not too far and look how Brian spun this.
Basically
1. the media will say what Bush said, we have no reason to trust Iran.
2. Israel says Iran has started a WMD plan though it is only an energy plan.
3. Ahmedinejab is a really bad guy and he wants to bomb us.
One doesn't have to be privy to our country's secret sources to know that this last statement strains credulity. Iran has been enriching uranium, or nuclear fuel, for nearly two years despite two Security Council resolutions urging them to suspend. To believe the Mullahs have halted their nuclear weapons program, one has to believe that all of those spinning centrifuges in Natanz are to fuel power plants in a country that is the world's third leading exporter of petroleum and natural gas.
So much for diplomatic pressure in the run up before the mullahs have their bomb. And so the options for preventing the Islamic Republic from going nuclear get progressively more narrow. What it means is that when the historians look back on this period, they will see that by sabotaging our diplomacy, our intelligence analysts have clarified the choice before the free world — appeasement or war.
Allison,
I just don't see what interest the US has with Iran. I can see a humanitarian one, but Iran can not physically hit us with a nuclear bomb even if they had it.
Just not possible.
Why should we bomb a country of 70 million people and expect it to "go well."
There are ways to improve things in Iran but bombing is not the answer here. Israel will pay dearly for that. Look at Iraq and there were only 25 million people there.
I just don't understand how we can assume Bush and Israel are correct when they have been wrong before. It is also not a convincing argument when this administration allowed North Korea to go nuclear. That is a HUGE problem, not to mention Pakistan which is host to plenty of terrorists.
This is all and only about oil. I think Israel has some vested interest in "her" security but that is not for the US to defend. The people of Israel are certainly not happy with their leadership either. We bought one mess, we don't need another.
Think about the lives at stake. All for what? Do you understand if we topple their weapons, it can just happen again in another 3 years? Do you understand that?
I no longer believe a thing that the president says nor do I believe the new analysis -- or the old one for that matter -- released regarding Iran's nuclear program. After being lied to so much over the last 7 years, how can anyone make an intelligent assessment of the "facts" as presented by this administration?
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.