The horrifying truth has to be faced, and accepted, that George W. Bush Jnr is a dictator. His propaganda machine blew a fanfare of trumpets in praise of "liberty" when he invaded Iraq - but the ironical fact is that in doing so he tore up the UN Charter and invaded a sovereign member state without a mandate, and without any threat, on the part of Saddam Hussein, towards the USA. It was sheer dictatorship.

This unfortunate down-grading of US policy ethics is going to present a serious problem to David Cameron. Two of the central planks in Conservative Party policy are (a) the rule of law and (b) the Atlantic Alliance. But how are these two policies to be reconciled if the President of the USA is a gun-slinging cowboy who thinks he rules the world and doesn't give a toss either for democratic procedures or for international law? I hope and pray that there are enough law-abiding Americans who are aware of this contradiction, and who will get rid of Bush at the next election.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Dave, Rutland, The real thera in the Middel East are US and Israel. Just count the deads or Irakis and Palestinian an you will see who are the trigger happy in this story, Don´t try to mislead people. Bush and Olmert are good at that without any help.

Bruno Zapatero , Buenos Aires,

Bush may be a dimwit - he probably is. But his policies are exactly right - for the US armaments industry and oil cartels.
Every round fired in Iraq, every helicopter that crashes, all the diesel, petrol and kerosene guzzled every day by the US boys in Iraq - this all needs replacing ... by the US armaments and oil industries.
Same goes for US reconstruction firms. First smash it up, then rebuild it - at a price. And the "security" firms, yes ... and even the manufacturers of crutches and artificial limbs.
All of these US firms and their shareholders will no doubt be full of praise Bush for being the president sent by god himself to lead his own (god's) country.
So is Bush as stupid as we tend to think? Or just totally immoral?

alan, cologne,

You're all missing the point here:

Bush thought they were talking about NEW CLEAR, a car windshield product....

because when he talks about atomic energy, he says:
Nuke U Larr

Phillip, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

The US and UK went into Iraq claiming Saddam had weapons of destruction, now they have been trying to do the same with Iran. All they are after is the control of the Region and the oil. They have exhausted their own resources. Their greed can never be satisfied. They are destroying the world.

MBalikci, London,

I agree with Asad from Oldham, Iraq hid their wmd, probably in Syria.

A. Campbell, Glossp, UK

I expect G W Bush to stand for charges of war crimes in a few years. It would be justice to over a hundred thousand dead civilians in Iraq

Dantisimus, Split, Croatia

Isn't the most important detail in the NIE the admission that Iran was pursuing nuclear wepaons capability up to 2003? If that is true, and that is the very first time a US intelligence report was so candid (I think), then can we really assume that the current regime in Teheran has now abandoned the program? It would seem to me that the most prudent course of action (post the 2003 admission) is to assume otherwise and investigate further.

Ben, Ottawa, Canada

The publication of NIE is irrelevant since it has never said the Iranian will not make the bomb after they successfully produce the nuclear fuel. The Iranian simply decided to put the horse (the production nuclear fuel) in front the carriage (making the bomb). The Iranian regime poses danger to both the west and Israel because of the fact that it uses proxy radical Islamic ideologists such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaida to carry out its military objectives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, by arming them with the most advanced weapons including a nuclear bomb if it is developed. It is the responsibility of every reasonable person in the world to stop the Iranian madness of developing the A-BOMB which can lead to a catastrophic war of extinction of the ME civilizations. Since Iran with nuclear arsenal can not be contained by deterrence, it should be prevented by all means from acquiring the BOMB.

Dave, Rutland,

Leanne opinion mirror that of Bush, Blair,Howard and the neo-con. Government should deal with facts not opinions.
People who cannot distinguish bwtween facts and opinion are classify as being crazy.

Glen, Brooklyn, New York

What i find particularily worrying about this is that it seems so black and white. The intelligence agencies (15 of them) are saying 'no credible threat' and yet bush is clearly saying there is. To act like a bully is one thing, to fly in the face of the completely obvious and transparent is completely another.

Is there, and i must say I find it extremely difficult to believe, something that he knows that has not been made public?

Surely his governement is not full of such bufoons and blinkered morons to not have learnt from the WMD and the Iraq war political fallout.

What else is going on here?

Howard, Tokyo,

I can think of a handful of dictators from around the world that I'd rather have as our President. Shameful. Pathetic. Scary.

Michael, Portland, Oregon, USA

The current BBC TV series "Spooks" has a better grasp of reality than George Bush when it comes to a nuclear Iran and that is clearly fiction.
At least you can be certain he will go next year.

Dave, slough,

Petulant and nearly clueless to the bitter end. Believe me, 70% of Americans have had enough of Little George Bush Jr. The other 30% are in a trance. So what's new?
This isn't an 'American' thing- this is a spoiled, disconnected, and pretty stupid rich kid, with his Daddy's car keys.

K. Bennett, Kansas City, USA

Bush works for the American arms industry as did his father and other presidents in the past like Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war so what else would you expect? Incidentally WHY should Israel be allowed nuclear weapons but none of the Arab states should have them?

George, Glasgow, UK

What a sad state of affairs that all the 9/11 goodwill towards USA was completely lost after the Iraq debacle.
USA has brought the world closer to WW111 with the help of the Blair poodle who now spends his time buying lavish properties from all the money siphoned off by his cronies.
If the Iraq intelligence was the benchmark then we can assume that Iran does have nuclear weapons!!??....or this is also just about about oil and money?

paul anthony, epping, uk

Blair was the same. If intelligence tells you something you don't want to know 'dismiss' it, say 'well yunno, I just don't agree', or order them to change it. That's why Britain's in Iraq. And then when it's proven that there are no weapons of mass destruction just gradually change your reasons for invading to 'regime change'. In Britain we call it lying - and is the reason Blair is no longer Prime Minister.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

The trouble is that Bush is seen as a congenital liar. And with good reason (weapons of mass destruction??)! Therefore, even if his assertions were to be true (doubtful), no intelligent human-being will believe a word that he says. Maybe his mother should have told him about the little boy who cried, "Wolf".

The other problem with Bush is that his critics use the word, "Americans" when they mean George W. Bush. I live with an American, I meet and dine with Americans and I have many American friends. They are not George W. Bush. They don't like George W. Bush and they don't want to be thought of as having the same opinions as George W. Bush. So, please don't use the word, "Americans" unless you mean, at least, the majority of all Americans.

Marc, St. Barthelemy,

It is rare in one's life to have the capability and authority to make somewhere a safer and better place. The place is the world right now. By pandering to the vested interests of Halliburton et al, AND Israel, Mr Bush (No, I won't give him the distinction of "Mr President") as he has put the World in a more dangerous place as it's been in a long time. I wish him a long but early retirement, he will not admit his duplicity or that of the rogues surrounding him.

Fish

Mike Fisher, Saratoga, CA USA

If Iran had no nukes....why do they still not let the UN weapons inspectors in??
If they let them in now....well,they've had years to hide them. Although the destruction of the Syrian site would have been a blow, I'm sure they have others set up.
And if Iran had no nukes, why does the Iranian president continually publicly boast to his Islamic buddies that Iran does indeed have nukes and will continue to enrich uranium? Why does he, in the next sentence say that he'll wipe Israel off the map.
Bet any money that Putin, any day now will start new threats against the U.S, will visit Iran again soon, and jump to the defence of his Iranian 'nuke weapons' buddy. After all, Russia put a lot of time and effort into setting up the reactors and teaching Iranians how to enrich the stuff!
Iran.....suspended it's nuclear enrichment? Unlikely.

Leanne, Gold Coast, Australia

The Middle East has done its own thing for centuries: even as far back as the Crusades these people stood up against Western influence and never backed down. The quickest route to diplomacy is to realise the fundamental differences between the East and West and, if its not too late, forge a relationship based on respect for these differences.
If we are ever to reach this stage, this terrifying cowboy must be completely removed from the equation.

charlie, cambridge,

Bush, (and the rest of his administration) should just be quiet, serve out his term and go away. His words no longer have any credibility.

DSA, San Diego, USA

When it comes to Iran, Bush is like a dog with a bone, he is not going to let go of it, no matter what. One can only wish he will bury it.

margie, victoria, australia

Americans need to realize, and foreigners too, that Bush is mentally disturbed, to be indirect about it. His inability or unwillingness to confront facts and the truth is a symptom of a very troubled psyche and very sick mind.

Hal, Tucson,

On the basis of Georgie Boys' evaluation, every country in the world without nucular (his pronounciation) capability is a threat because they "might" get it - let's not confuse the issue with the facts - AGAIN !

Andy Ralphs, New Plymouth, New Zealand

According to an international poll, US and Israel are the greatest threat to world peace. Not Iran

Mohammed, London, UK

Could it really be a coincidence that President Bush's thumbs down on the Iran Intelligence report echoed so closely and immediately the Israeli assessment? It's amazing to think that people still underestimate the strenghth and efficiency of the Israel Lobby in the United States, and, indeed, some go as far as denying its very existence.
Ugo Caroli
Rome, Italy

Ugo Caroli, Rome, Italy

In October Mr Bush stated that Iran could start world war 3. Yesterday he stated that Iran is still a threat because they 'might' start the programme back up again.

People need to face facts, Bush is exploiting this issue to scare the american people. It's what the republicans always do in order to distract the public from the tax cuts for the rich, deepening poverty, crumbling infrastructure and a massive government deficit.

Owen, London, UK

irans nuclear weapons programme is hidden in the same place as Iraqs weapons of mass destruction!!

asad, oldham,

This idiot has been dismissing intelligence for seven years now

chris , arizona,

Israeli hypocrocy. They have nuclear weapons but still get aid from the Bush administration. WAKE UP!!!

gareth thorrington, swansea, wales

Did you expect him to change his tune ?

Obi Mgbatogu, London, UK

Bush needs to realise "his" international coalition started to fray at the edges when we discovered that he tells porkies a lot

Udo , melbourne, Australia

I have to agree with Tarquinis that the US is by far the greater threat to world peace and is more likely to start WW3.

The US is behaving as a bully and any regime in the world who does not agree with the US must already be planning what to do when the get invaded. This means that where possible places like Iran, Venezuela who have oil reserves should look for protection.

joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Five years ago Bush already insisted on chemical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was sure about it. And, of course, he had lot of "reliable reports" from CIA.

Now US intelligence try to avoid shameful mistake and fairly said that they have no data about nuclear program in Iran. But Bush continues his brainwashing speaches.

What is motivation of Bush? Next step in "democracy export" fiction? Next great market for Halliburton? Oil protection? It seems that there is no fair reason for next war. The only reason is rigid minds of some politics.

Sergey, Moscow,

“Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” ... says George Bush?

What country has Iran totally destroyed for specious reasons? How many hundreds of thousands are dead because of their actions? Was Iran dangerous when it fully cooperated with the West in the overthrow of the Taleban? Is Iran dangerous in its total opposition to Wahabi and al-Qaeda fanatics wherever they may be? Does Iran possess, and continue to develop massive stockpiles of advanced nuclear weapons? Etc.

This is not in denial of the many deficiencies of the Mullah dominated regime, which also will "vanish from the pages of time" if we just let the demographic bulge of youth in Iran play out in due course.

Tarquinis, Seattle, USA