It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Well which is it Rumsfeld??

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:30 PM

The intelligence community in the United States and around the world currently assess that Iran does not have nuclear weapons," Mr Rumsfeld said during a visit to the southern German town of Garmisch-Partenkirchen.

"The assessment is that they do have a very active programme and are likely to have nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time."

The defence secretary went further than experts from the UN's monitoring agency, the international atomic energy agency (IAEA) who visited Iran last week

june 2003

Rumsfeld, whose country led the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of what proved to be false reports that Baghdad possesses banned weapons, was cautious about the accuracy of intelligence estimates on Iran's nuclear programme.

"...they're some years away according to the estimates, but I don't know if the estimates are correct or not," he said.

Feb 2005

Two years ago it was a short period of time. But today They are still 'some' years away.
Well which is it Rummy?
Or is 4 or 5 years a short period of time?

Edit: The us itelligence is supposedly the 'best' in the world, Why can't they get this stuff right?

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Halfofone]

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:36 PM
When it comes down to a radical, terrorist-supporting regime gaining nuclear weapons, I consider 1 or 2 years a very, very short amount of time.

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:44 PM
I don't see a contradiction here at all. I guess you'd have to ask rummy to define "reltively short period of time"

(and all you canadians should remember the reason you've had it easy for so long is your neighbor to the south does all of the dirty work and takes the heat for it)

[edit on 7-2-2005 by radagast]

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:59 PM

as posted by Halfofone
Edit: The us itelligence is supposedly the 'best' in the world, Why can't they get this stuff right?

I have my thoughts on this, but I would imagine that perhaps you might want to talk with Clinton and his admistration, since they amassed 8 years worth of Saddam/Iraq possessing and acquiring WMDs. They also amassed the information that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda and terrorism. This information was being amassed at the same time that the same Clinton Administration was putting the clamps on the CIA and FBI, along with virtually castrating them. So you have intelligence services being castrated and the military being downsized......but you insist on starting with Rumsfeld, all the while ignoring just where and who the gathered intelligence information was originally gathered under. Okie dokie.

Well which is it Rumsfeld??

As for Iran, Rumsfeld is playing it smart. Called calculated political chess. Rumsfeld's comments will either give Iran room to still handle this diplomatically, or gives Iran enough rope to hang themselves.


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:12 PM
Seekerof will you leave Clinton alone all he did was to lose "his head" in the white house

Bush has taken us thought the worst 4 years in our time with his war.

Perhaps the change of hart coming from Rumsfeld is due to the turn around in Iraq, or has everybody forgotten who is the winner in Iraq?

Yes Rumsfeld has to play very smart or US will lose any the rest of the littler control it has in Iraq now that the dominant group in there has a Cleric leader that is Iranian.

Yes, US can not lose Iraq now in a war against Iran. After all we are spreading democracy.

Yes Iran is going to turn into a very good country.......for now.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:13 PM
Well that's the problem he should not have to define anything.

The IAEA is in Iran now.

Iran asserts its military is not involved in nuclear activities, and the IAEA has found no firm evidence to the contrary. The agency also has not been able to support U.S. assertions that nearly two decades of covert nuclear programs discovered 2 1/2 years ago were aimed at making nuclear weapons and not at generating electricity, as Tehran claims.

Your right there is no clear contradiction. He is just backing off on his estimation of time.
But why then is he asserting that they still have working a programme dispite The IAEA's lack of evidence to support it?

I do not doubt that American proximaty to Canada is positive, but I think that the view of Canadians around the world is MUCH higher than the view of the Americans. I wonder why?? Your childish statement can be rebutted with this;

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:23 PM

I'm talking about Iran, today, The current admin. has had years to right any wrongs that Clinton has made. Just because I have problems with the republicans you assume I do not know about the corruption on the other side.
The current intel on Iran has nothing to do with the 8 years prior to 2000.
see my above post.

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:36 PM

Edit: The us itelligence is supposedly the 'best' in the world, Why can't they get this stuff right?

Because lately it's been amateur hour at Langley...IF they were doing their job....

If they were really up to snuff, we'd have KNOWN where Iraq's WMDs were and prevented them from getting out of the country.

If they were competent, they would have PLANTED some WMDs to cover up for the first foul-up.

Not to mention, Osama would have simply ended up dead before ever even being in the news if they were doing things right....

We would have organized an Iraqi uprising (or at least the appearance of it) to coincide with the ground invasion...not just a few forces....i.e. the CIA should have had ground ops already there months ahead of time to coordinate with local malcontents....

We would have had such jokers as Al Zarqwari, etc. already imprisoned or dead.

Pakistan and India would have never become nuclear powers.

Kim Jong would be dead by now, or out of power.

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:05 PM
Wow! Bush has been in power for 4 years and the Republicans still blame Clinton for everything bad that is going on. You can only blame the former president for so long until you are just being stupid. Also, Bush was president for 8 months when 9/11 happened, so again, his fault. Also, he was given documents telling him that his old oil buddy OBL was going to attack us with airplanes, he did nothing. So, blaming Clinton for Bush's stupidity makes no sense. Bush was in power, had been in power, was given documents telling him it was going to happen, was given 8 months to do something besides go on vacation, and he did nothing!

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 04:29 AM

The us itelligence is supposedly the 'best' in the world

lol, it's nice to know there are a couple of people her with a sense of humour

top topics


log in