"did anybody in those agencies say to the President, this is a major threat, the nuclear program in Iran"
As per Clinton, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
The actual thing we want to know is were the Iranians continuing with their nuclear program, would it be a major threat in the future, and when would that be?
Tucker knows the questions to ask, Kiriakou knows we want to know what Iran was doing and when they would accomplish it. But they're not asking and answering those questions.
The reason is totally obvious: Iran was continuing the program and they would get a nuke but in well more than "2 weeks", putting it into the gray area of do we solve the problem now when it's minor or inevitably later when it's major. But then Iran war is a judgement call that you disagree with, not an atrocity by a madman.
It's even more obvious when the news says "but Iran wasn't an imminent nuclear threat", implicitly acknowledging that they would be a future one.
As per Clinton, it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
The actual thing we want to know is were the Iranians continuing with their nuclear program, would it be a major threat in the future, and when would that be?
Tucker knows the questions to ask, Kiriakou knows we want to know what Iran was doing and when they would accomplish it. But they're not asking and answering those questions.
The reason is totally obvious: Iran was continuing the program and they would get a nuke but in well more than "2 weeks", putting it into the gray area of do we solve the problem now when it's minor or inevitably later when it's major. But then Iran war is a judgement call that you disagree with, not an atrocity by a madman.
It's even more obvious when the news says "but Iran wasn't an imminent nuclear threat", implicitly acknowledging that they would be a future one.