BushCo: After Iraq invasion, Europeans hid Iran intel because they feared a U.S. attack

By GottaLaff

The next time anyone tells you how beneficial the Iraq War has been, or how we're safer today because of Bush's policies, show them this little gem:

Today in an email to Fox News, David Wurmser, former top aide to Vice President Cheney, cautioned the Obama administration on its hopes that Russia is willing to get tougher on Iran regarding its nuclear program. But [...] Wurmser basically says that it was the U.S. invasion of Iraq that led to less cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program from Russia and other European countries:

But the American-led invasion of Iraq complicated the Bush administration’s efforts to persuade other countries to take aggressive action to contain Iran’s nuclear threat. […]

“Every time in this period I landed in a European capital at [U.N. Ambassador] John Bolton’s request to discuss Iran, the first thing I got was: ‘What is your end game here; are you going to use the information to pull another Iraq? Tell us where you are going with this before we tell you how much we will admit Iran is going down the path to a bomb in the U.N.’ When I failed to give them a guarantee that we will not strike Iran, they stalled on moving ahead with acknowledging or using the evidence in public which in private they accepted.”

Bolton also indicated that the Iraq war stifled progress with Iran. “Before the Iraq war, I thought we were breaking through to [the Russians],” Bolton said today. “Since 2003, they have been very resistant to the idea that Iran was a proliferation threat.”

There is so much we still don't know. I'm almost afraid to imagine what else will come to light. It seems like every day, we get another boogey man story that leaps out at us and screams, "Surprise!!", scaring the living daylights out of us.

Odds of Israeli strike on Iran before Jan. 2009: "Slightly above 50-50"

By GottaLaff

Simultaneously wringing my hands and typing is not easy:

While Israeli national security experts say that Israel would not act without coordinating with the US, and there are other significant factors weighing against prospective Israeli military action on Iran before the Bush term ends, there are also emerging differences between the US and Israel on the accepted intelligence over when Iran would be considered to have a nuclear breakthrough, as well as what would constitute a "redline" that would prompt military action, Washington analysts say.

In addition, the US, unlike Israel, feels more deeply constrained by the considerable investment it has made in blood and treasure in stabilizing Iraq, which could be risked by the tumult that could follow military action on Iran. "My sense is the Pentagon would be worried or opposed to an Israeli attack," says David Wurmser, former Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, who left the White House job late last summer. [...]

US sources who did not wish to be identified describe a disagreement between the US and Israeli intelligence communities over the timetable of Iran's alleged weaponization and research and development efforts. [...] The Israelis allegedly presented the US with Iranian weaponization evidence that they consider very credible, which the US intelligence community allegedly did not consider credible. [...]

"Even beyond the question of whether McCain or Obama wins, the Israelis are afraid that no new administration is really going to be able to get its act together quickly to be able to mobilize a plan and do something," Wurmser said.

Wurmser put the odds of Israel striking Iran before Bush leaves office at "slightly, slightly above 50-50."

But let's not talk about this on the Big TeeVee Broadcasts. The new iPhone, now that's news.