Brits Question NIE’s Conclusions
December 11th, 2007 at 08:08pm Mark Noonan
Just a quick note about how pretty much everyone in the whole world - other than American lefties - is going “what?” to the NIE claiming that Iran stopped its nuke program in 2003:
British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.
The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.
The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA.
The report used new evidence - including human sources, wireless intercepts and evidence from an Iranian defector - to conclude that Teheran suspended the bomb-making side of its nuclear programme in 2003. But British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein’s weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.
A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.
At bottom, it is absurd to think that Iran has given up its nuclear ambitions - while there might be a delay in this or that aspect of the program, the plain fact of the matter is that once you start on the path to build a nuclear weapon, you’re not going to be easily deflected from your course. With the Iranian leadership getting ever more lunatic in their pronouncements, there’s just no way to reasonably believe that they’ve taken nukes off the table. Only the most rigorous inspection regime could demonstrate one way or the other, and the Iranians won’t allow that.
In my view, American policy-makers should proceed on the assumption that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons - in this very crucial area, it is better to be safe than sorry. We must err on the side of caution.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
119 Comments
1. William Teach | December 11th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Unfortunately, the American Left would rather believe the Iranians then Bush, they are so deranged and divorced from reality.
I really do not understand how anyone can possibly believe that the Iranians are not looking to develop nuclear weapons, considering they say they, you know, want to.
2. Diana Powe | December 11th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Uh, William, President Bush’s official position is that the latest NIE is, umm, correct. However, I guess he could be mistaken or lying and the Iranians are still pursuing nuclear weapons.
So, what is your plan to “err on the side of caution”, Mark? Bomb a sovereign nation whose own Supreme Leader issued a fatwa on August 9, 2005 ruling that such an act [obtaining a nuclear weapon] is forbidden under Islam. Bomb a sovereign nation whose credibility with their Shi’a Muslim constituency throughout the Middle East would be compromised by having their own religious leader having to, as you are so fond of saying, flip-flop? Bomb a sovereign nation which is still within striking range of Israel which has an estimated 75-200 nuclear weapons? Oh, I know, they’re all crazy and we can’t believe anything they say.
3. Casper | December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Just one suggestion before everyone starts commenting on the NIE. Read the darn thing. Yo will find it at
http://www.dni.gov./
4. Diana Powe | December 11th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Such as the statement that:
Don’t they know that Iranians don’t follow any of the usual traits of human beings in their decision-making and are just crazy people who want to kill us? You just can’t get good government help in a Republican administration anymore.
5. Ricorun | December 11th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.
I think it’s possilbe to suspect this is part of the plan. One thing I found truly incredible about the recent pow-wow with Israel, other countries in the world, and virtually all of the Arab nations — including Syria — is that it took place so close AFTER Israel bombed a super duper double-secret site in Syria. That to me seems VERY interesting.
6. searp | December 11th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Unfortunately, the American Right would rather send other people to fight a war they start than, um, think of something more constructive to do, like maybe read a book or actually think about things some.
Thinking about things or reading books is such hard work, ask the Decider. No, I emphatically do not underestimate him, I have seen him many times on TV.
7. Ricorun | December 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I forgot to mention that despite what little is known about Israel’s attack, the speculation is that it had something to do with nuclear program, and North Korea was involved. And yet it didn’t seem to have any effect on the currently on-going nuclear talks with NK either. Pretty interesting.
8. Mark Noonan | December 11th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Diana,
One of the more absurd parts of the NIE is the assertion that Iran makes decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis…the entirety of the nuke program in Iran - even if it were entirely for peaceful purposes - is an un-necessary cost on the Iranian economy. Iran doesn’t need nuclear power, period. Given this, it is clear that factors other than cost-benefit are used in making decisions about nuclear issues in Iran - such as, perhaps, a lunatic desire to use nuclear weapons against Israel, the United States, our allies, etc, etc, etc…
Once again - THINK about things.
9. Mark Noonan | December 11th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Ricorun,
There is clearly change in the air in the middle east - our success in Iraq is driving it, and that is why - in my view - Syria just swallowed the Israeli attack without much response. Its a careful balancing act right now - Iraq will be a free nation growing in strength and wealth; America under President Bush will stay the course. These are things inducing the recalcitrant to be willing to talk…on the other hand, President Bush leaves office in a little more than a year, so everyone is going to want to leave themselves some wiggle room at least until its known who will replace him (if its a Democrat, Syria et al will scuttle all talks of peace - because they can count on a flabby response by the Democrats).
10. Retired Spook | December 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I think it’s possilbe to suspect this is part of the plan. One thing I found truly incredible about the recent pow-wow with Israel, other countries in the world, and virtually all of the Arab nations — including Syria — is that it took place so close AFTER Israel bombed a super duper double-secret site in Syria. That to me seems VERY interesting.
VERY, VERY interesting, my friend. I’ll have some interesting reading in your in box tomorrow morning.
11. Diana Powe | December 11th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Mark,
I didn’t know that you were such an expert on the Iranian economy and the internal deliberations of the Iranian government. You shouldn’t hide your lamp under a bushel like that. Did you get a chance to contribute to the NIE? I guess the fact that in 2005 Iran imported 2.074 billion kWh of electricity (Source: CIA The World Factbook) has nothing to do with their thinking because, after all, you just told me they’re just unreasoning lunatics. Darn, I just need to THINK more about things.
12. Mark Noonan | December 11th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Diana,
Don’t make it this easy for me - you did note the entry above that one, didn’t you? Iran exported 2.761 billion kWh of electricity making Iran, presto!, a net exporter of electricity.
Once again, THINK about things…once you do that, you’ll stop cherry picking data to support your pre-concieved notions.
As for the Iranian economy - some other stats from your own source:
40% are below the poverty line (and “poverty” in Iran is a much more severe thing than “poverty” in the US).
Inflation was 12% last year.
The official unemployment rate is 15% (its probably a lot higher than that).
Iran is an economic basket case and it doesn’t need nuclear power - heck, even Iran’s oil extraction industry is antiquated and in need of upgrades - and now that oil is riding high, it is time for Iran to re-invest its money in its basic industry…but, they are pissing it away on arms and nukes…
Yeah, real good use of “cost-benefit” for the Iranians, huh?
13. Ricorun | December 11th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Mark: Once again, THINK about things…once you do that, you’ll stop cherry picking data to support your pre-concieved notions.
Oh Lordy, I wish I had the time. But to keep it short, haven’t you just indicated why Iran is very susceptible to diplomacy and international sanctions?
14. Kahn | December 12th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Diana - “You just can’t get good government help in a Republican administration anymore.” Now didn’t you just above that say Bush’s official position was that the NIE was accurate? Which, as you know means he scored a MAJOR victory?
Which is it? You’re worse than Hillary Clinton. Is it accurate or isn’t it?
15. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Mark,
So, did you notice that another country that is an importer of electrical power is the United States and - guess what - we have many nuclear power plants? Again, we have nothing but your say-so that the Iranian leadership’s decision-making process is “lunatic”. I’ll stack my “pre-conceived notion” that the Iranians engage in decision-making like every other government in the world against your “pre-conceived notion” that they’re lunatics any day. Is it possible that they may renew or continue a push for a nuclear weapon despite the fact that there is no clear advantage to them to do so and obvious disadvantages to them if they do? It’s possible. However, assuming that they’re some kind of scary Other isn’t going to answer those questions.
Kahn,
Normally, I do try to avoid overt sarcasm but I gave in to the impulse there.
16. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 3:55 am
There is every reason in the world for the United States to work vigorously against the continued proliferation in nuclear arms. However, something that I never hear mentioned in the speculation about an Iranian nuclear weapon is any discussion of the realities of possessing such a weapon, especially in the context of deterrence theory. Let us assume that Iran, despite its being very publicly on record that building a nuclear warhead is forbidden under Islam, decides to press ahead. Why might they do that?
1) To enhance national prestige. (”Hey, we’re one of the Big Boys now! We’ve got The Bomb!”)
2) To engage in self-defense. (”You can’t casually attack us. After all, we’ve got The Bomb.”)
3) To threaten it’s regional neighbors. (”Do what we want or we’ll use The Bomb on you!”)
4) To use it to attack someone. (”Even if it means the destruction of our country, it’s important that we use The Bomb to attack [fill in the blank].”)
The discussion in certain circles seems to assume only the last two rationales, with most of the emphasis being on the last. So, what is the reality for the Iranian government in that instance?
1) They launch/deliver a nuclear warhead or warheads against a city or cities in, for instance, Israel.
2) The Israeli government, having long been worried about this possibility, then proceeds to strike back at Iran with some of their much larger nuclear arsenal.
3) There is no longer any Iran in any meaningful sense.
Given that the realities of possessing nuclear weapons requires multiple cooperating authorities for their use, the fact that Step 3 above is the likeliest outcome requires more than a “single madman” if it is to be given any credibility.
So, what if the Iranians wanted to try to use a nuclear weapon against someone without having it traced back to them? They would have two avenues. One would be to use covert Iranian operatives to deliver the weapon in some “low-profile” manner such as inside a cargo container on a freighter. The other would be to release the possession of their nuclear weapon into the hands of a terrorist organization. In that case, though, the terrorists might decide to attack a target other than the one selected by the Iranian government or might even sell the weapon to a third party for the cash it would generate. Given these possibilities, it seems more likely that the weapon would be kept under direct Iranian government control even if it was covert. Either way, in the case of an attack on Israel, it seems unlikely that the Israeli government would be especially fooled or interested in niceties of proof, in which case it ends up at Step 3 again.
Of course, this assumes that the weapon actually works. As part of their calculation, the Iranian government has to consider the possibility that their attempt at waging nuclear war goes awry when The Bomb fails to go off. In this case, they’re left without the presumed satisfaction of using The Bomb while still facing the distinct possibility of Step 3.
What about an attack on the United States? Would an American president refrain from using nuclear weapons against Iran if a nuclear bomb were to detonate “out of the blue” in say, the Port of Los Angeles? Would the President, in this hypothetical, even ask the Iranians if they were responsible or would he or she just automatically make use of our completely untouched nuclear weapons stockpile on reliable platforms to cause Iran to cease to exist in any meaningful sense?
Does the Iranian government know the answer to that question? Are they willing to gamble that the answer is “no”? What assurances/threats have been communicated to them from Washington at any time in the last several years regarding this scenario?
In fact, the only credible threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon is that they would somehow prefer to gamble that they could cause some amount of damage to another country in exchange for what they can reasonably infer would be national suicide.
Of course, all these objections to the Iranians wanting to get a nuclear weapon because they’re itching to use it against someone apply even more forcefully in the case of threatening their regional neighbors (”Do what we want or we’ll nuke you.”) because it would provide all the multiple potential sources of nuclear retaliation with evidence to justify said retaliation. So, where does this leave us?
The Iranians decide to obtain a nuclear weapon or weapons for national prestige and/or self-defense. It is absolutely to be preferred that not one single additional nuclear warhead is ever built, however, these two possible rationales put our efforts to prevent an Iranian nuclear warhead in a rather different context than if we assume that possession is tantamount to use.
17. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Need I point out that dealing with the possibility of an Iranian Bomb on the basis that they’re seeking it for national prestige and/or self-defense is, as a practical matter, exactly what we’re doing with North Korea which truly does have someone whose sanity can be questioned at its helm? Norman (”I hope and pray that President Bush will [bomb Iran]”) Podhoretz must scowl mightily when he thinks about that. I mean, come on, not only is he weird, but Kim Jong-il is a Stalinist.
18. Kahn | December 12th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Diana -sooooo, Bush DID score the trifecta? You think disarming three hostile nuclear powers rates a Nobel Peace Prize? If not him, maybe for Condi Rice?
19. OhioOrrin | December 12th, 2007 at 6:55 am
does the NIE exclude the chance that the mad mullahs re-started the programme after 03?
20. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Kahn,
Goodness me, you do have this obsession with President Bush’s legacy, don’t you? From the general tenor of the comments here, I don’t believe your fellow readers even believe that Iran has been “disarmed” as you put it, despite the fact that no one is even claiming they were “armed” to start with. I’m not sure what their views are on whether North Korea has been disarmed or not. Perhaps you can ask them.
However, if it will make you feel any better, I will unequivocally state that if President George W. Bush or Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had any positive influence on limiting the proliferation of nuclear arms to any nations then good on them, as we say in Texas. As to the Nobel Peace Prize, I’ll leave that up to the Committee, but I thought they were a bunch of commies or something since they awarded one to Vice-President Gore. Maybe President Bush should just give himself a Presidential Medal of Freedom on his way out the door just to be on the safe side.
21. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Diana,
Can you please put more of your words and phrases in BOLD, that should make it easier for the rest of us to discern the parts of your statements you want to emphasize (which evidently is every other word)
The current NIE bolsters your view, and agenda, so it’s very easy to understand why you defend it so. However, we have had faulty intelligence in the past, so why are glomming on to this report as absolute truth? And why do you defend rogue tyrants so vociferously?
Re: an earlier thread. Why do you condone the brutal torture/murder of innocent American babies and yet condemn rough interrogation techniques on alledged mass murderers?
And if you claim that America needs to be a nation of laws and must follow the laws, then why do you overlook our immigration laws?
22. Christian Wright | December 12th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Israel has a secret nuclear weapons program with an estimated 200 warheads. The US should go after them, not Iran who has nothing.
23. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 7:57 am
The Nobel committee gave the “Peace” prize to Arafat. Which completely discredited the committee and the award.
Gore won over so many more deserving recpients, including:
Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women’s Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.
The peace price has become a joke.
24. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 8:00 am
And Israel has had the arsenal for many years sans one deployment of even one missle, proving that Israel is a responsible nation and deserves to retain their nuclear arsenal like other countries that include Pakistan, India, Russia, the US etc.
But Christian would like to preemptively attack Israel without cause.
What a warmonger. I am tired of you war mongering liberals.
25. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Diana,
Please answer my question. I am curious as to why you condone torture in one area, yet condemn it in another.
Also, why you uphold laws in one area, and disregard them in another.
I am just trying to understand the liberal mindset.
26. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Neocon,
There you go reading my mind again about my unstated views on abortion which (guess what) is the same pet red herring of yours that you brought up previously, apropos of nothing, in a discussion about the CIA destroying videotapes of the interrogations of terrorism suspects (or, as you previously said, in your most obsequious and slavishly government-trusting manner) “terrorists” and “mass murderers”. However, I do note that this time you added the word “alleged” to the phrase “mass murderers” so I take it that you are in favor of doing whatever to people who have been properly “alleged” of wrongdoing. Interesting.
“My agenda”, hmm. Now what would that be? That we remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation to any nations, including Iran? Why, yes. You’re right. That would be “my agenda” and part of that agenda is looking at Iran analytically (see my post # 16) and not based on hysterical notions that they are ipso facto lunatics and madmen.
Finally, I’m looking up in the sun for the ball out here in center field and I get konked right on the noggin with this gem…
You have a real knack for the non sequiter, there’s no doubt about it. Well, while I ignore that bit of further mind reading on your part, why don’t you hie yourself back over to the relevant post on the destruction of the videotapes by the CIA and take up my as-yet-unanswered challenge to justify why it’s apparently okay with you and your fellow true-believers that the CIA violated a U.S. District judge’s explicit court order.
I’m just trying to understand the authority-worshiping faux-conservative mindset.
P.S. Do I get any extra points for not putting anything in bold?
27. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Mrs. Clinton (Diana)
Just please answer the question. Do you support a womans right to a late term abortion? That’s a yes or no question. It shouldn’t be too difficult.
Now re: the destroyed tapes. Sen. Rockefeller knew that those tapes existed and knew they were destroyed in 2005. That’s the leading Democrat on the intel committee and he seemed to have been fine with it for the last year. Maybe you should consult your representatives and seek answers from them.
I wonder why the Dems didn’t investigate this in 2005, when the tapes were destroyed?
So, do you think you can bring yourself to answer a yes or no question Mrs. Clinton, oh I mean Diana.
28. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Neocon,
I just looked again at what you wrote - “…if you claim that America needs to be a nation of laws and must follow the laws…” - and it just occurred to me to ask, “Why would such an assertion be some sort of “claim” to an American?” I’m just thinking out loud here, but I would think that everyone here would agree with that “claim” or…maybe not. Anyone care to vote for the “claim” that “America does not need to be a nation of law and need not follow the laws”?
29. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Anyone who believes that Iran has given up it’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons is a naive misinformed fool, a Democrat (Liberal) propagandist, or BOTH!
AAR
30. DM | December 12th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“P.S. Do I get any extra points for not putting anything in bold?” – Diane
Absolutely! And like a true politician for rambling on and not answering the question, bravo.
31. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Diana,
You might want to consider other POV’s on the issue before decreeing your position to exalted. Much like fascists do:
>>>>Department of Justice attorney Steven Lane argued that US District Judge Leonie Brinkema had no power to order to the government to turn over the evidence and that no precedent exists for allowing civil plaintiffs to interfere with a criminal proceeding.<<<<<
Here’s some more intersting reading:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16982581
32. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 8:54 am
>>>>>Anyone care to vote for the “claim” that “America does not need to be a nation of law and need not follow the laws”? - Diana<<<<<
That’s another yes or no question Diana. What’s your answer?
33. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I wonder if liberals are able to answer direct questions without pontificating.
34. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Neocon,
There is a thread titled by Matt, More Democratic Grandstanding On Destroyed CIA Tapes, which is where you can go and actually address my substantive question as to whether you agree that it was okay for the CIA to violate Judge Brinkema’s order and, if you do agree that it was okay, how you justify that position. Believe it or not, the issue really isn’t about Democrats or Republicans, it’s about the rule of law. In fact, if you were paying attention over there you would notice that your comments implying, without evidence, that somehow Democrats knew and approved of the destruction of the tapes is contradicted by Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra’s own statement on Friday (quoted in that same relevant post as opposed to this one).
As to this:
Oh my GOSH! Steven LANE argued it! He’s just so AWESOME!
Please. There’s no attribution and no context offered. If a DoJ attorney argued in her courtroom that Judge Brinkema didn’t have the power to do what she, in fact, did, he apparently lost that argument or he actually just went into a closed room by himself to make it. The last time I noticed, judges trumped attorneys each and every time. Maybe you’re saying that it’s okay for the CIA to disobey an court order as long as an attorney tells them the judge can’t do what the judge did. Another fascinating notion.
However, I predict with high confidence that you won’t address the real questions (either here or where they belong) but will rather try to change the subject to something else as trying to square that circle is more of an effort than changing the subject.
If you’re all fired up about abortions then why don’t you get Mark or Matt to do another posting on their website on abortion and then you can, with perfect justification, talk about it all you want. Or, what the heck, get your own website where you can fully dictate the items on the agenda. In the meantime, my suggestion is that you stop trying to cover up your lack of substantive response with red herrings.
P.S. In consideration of the other readers, I won’t fill up this thread with any more off-topic responses to neocon.
35. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:19 am
>>>>>Let us assume that Iran, despite its being very publicly on record that building a nuclear warhead is forbidden under Islam, decides to press ahead. Why might they do that? - Diana<<<<
I just found this little gem from Mrs. Clinton. Evidently building a nuclear arsenal is forbidden under Islam but beheadings, suicide bombings, and taking hostages is encouraged.
Good to know.
36. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I wonder if so-called conservatives are able to answer direct questions with substantive responses without changing the subject to something totally unrelated.
37. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Thank you Mrs. Clinton for your non-answers. And for discrediting the opinion of a DOJ official.
And for putting words in peoples mouth, (I never said Dems approved of the tape destruction, just that they knew of it), which by the way both Harmon and Rockefeller acknowledge.
By the absence of any answer from Mrs. Clinton, I can only assume that she condones killing innocent American babies. Sad.
And once again, Mrs. Clinotn lectures us on the “rule of law”, but only as it pertains to her agenda-driven issues.
How ignorantly bliss is she?
38. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 9:29 am
The Australian, December 13, 2007…
AAR
39. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Well, neocon, I based my statement on the public statement of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. What’s your similarly-ranked source for these other actions being “encouraged”?
As to your other comments, I refer you to the P.S. in post # 34. Reading…it’s FUNdamental!
40. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Diana,
Please provide the information wherein Judge Brinkema ordered the CIA tapes not be destroyed. I can only find where she ordered that Mr. bin al-Shibh could be questioned by Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers.
41. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Diana,
I base my statements on the ACTIONS of Islamists and the lack of condemnation in the Islam community. If it were “forbidden”, don’t cha think they would stop? Since they’re such strict followers of Islam and not building up a nuclear arsenal as you suggest?
Oh my……LOL.
You are delusional.
42. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
AAR,
It might well be that your extended quote from The Australian would be quite interesting. However, it would be a service to the readers if you put in a link to the item so that readers might know if the “I” in the first sentence is the current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister John Howard, some miscellaneous member of the government or just some random bloke off the street.
43. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Mrs. Clinton,
Are the answers; yes and/or no, even part of your vocabulary.
44. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Mrs. Clinton,
I fully understand your reluctance to address my posts, as they ask you specific questions you can not answer and also point out your blatant dishonesty and ignorance.
Have a nice day.
45. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Uhh, neocon,
You said such actions were “encouraged” by Islam. So, I asked you to back that up with some similar external source, as I did with my statement. However, what we get is your personal inference about the religion based on your remote understanding of what the average Muslim thinks about the actions you describe. Not really the same thing, I’d say.
But, let’s get to the heart of the issue here. What do you suggest we do about Iran NOW? Are you in favor of answering Norman Podhoretz’s prayer and dropping bombs all over a sovereign nation that has not attacked us? My position is that we continue to follow the President’s stated intentions to use non-military means to motivate Iran to conclude that having a nuclear weapon is more of a disadvantage to them as a nation than an advantage.
46. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 9:58 am
The Sunday Times, UK, December 9, 2007…
AAR
47. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Diana,
I fully support the Prsident in this matter as well. His record of success in terms of NK and Libya in terms of nuclear weaponry can not be overlooked.
I am glad to see you support President Bush.
Re: Islam “encouragement” of barbarity, you only need to read the words of UBL, Zawahiri, and to some extent Ahmendijad. Not exactly peaceful rhetoric. And incidentally, ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS.
48. William Teach | December 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Whew! Look at the liberal Iranian apologists go!
49. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Perhaps the quote…
“…I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available.”
Should read…
“…I think they did the best job they could, with the information available, their own agenda, and the ‘intelligence’ they have!”
It’s time we start removing incompetence from our intelligence agencies…
STRIKE ONE: They missed the planning and events leading up to 9/11 resulting in the loss of 4 commercial airliners filled with people, the destruction of the World Trade Center and surrounding buildings, the destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the deaths of 3,000, and the losses suffered by their friends and relatives!
STRIKE TWO: They missed the WMD in Iraq which lead to the Iraq War, the results and costs of which Democrats have described too many times to repeat!
STRIKE THREE: They said Iran was developing nuclear weapons!
STRIKE FOUR: They now say they have been wrong and were mistaken for the past FOUR YEARS in their assessment of Iran’s nuclear programs — based in part on “defectors” — JUST AS THEY DID IN IRAQ!!!
STRIKE FIVE (???): Now we wait! ! ! ! !
We wait to see the results of the Intelligence Community’s next intelligence failure!!! How many Americans will die next time as a result of their analysis and assessment — believing Iran has given up it’s nuclear weapons program!
NO RATIONAL thinking person would believe that lie! … Democrats do!!!
AAR
50. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Neocon,
Yes, as I said in post # 20, to any extent that President Bush or any member of his Administration has brought about any positives in the universal desire to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, then, good on him. True, actions do often speak louder than words, but that still doesn’t provide any documentation of a similar type to support your contention that Islam, as a religion, “encourages” suicide bombings and such.
However, as I pointed out in post # 45, this is incidental to the real question which is what precisely do we do, as a nation, in response to the known or suspected nuclear activities of Iran?
51. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I was hoping for someone to address my analysis in post # 16, but such, apparently, is not to be. By the way, neocon, could you ask AAR to turn down the exclamation points?
52. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 11:00 am
We continue dialogue and leaving every other option on the table in regards to Iran.
Do you have a different idea?
As far as Islam encouraging barbarity, I refer you to the following: (But of course, I anticipate that you will blame America)
http://www.rightsidenews.com/editorial/a-letter-from-sheik-osama-bin-laden.html
53. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am
AAR,
You might want to check out this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence
You’ll notice that all of the heads of the National Intelligence Program were appointed to their jobs?
“NO RATIONAL thinking person would believe that lie! … Democrats do!!!”
Bush has said he agrees with the assessment. Are you sying he isn’t rational?
54. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Diana,
Your #16 post asked no questions. It was merely a dishonest lecture of liberal talking points.
And, why would we answer your questions (if you have any) when you don’t return the favor?
I am still waiting for a very simple answer from you regarding your support for late term abortions.
55. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Casper,
Bush agreed to another intelligence assessment of WMD’s in Iraq, for which he has been crucified.
But now you support his agreement?
Wow.
56. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Neocon,
Oh, it’s not that you want to try to point out any possible logical flaws in my analysis, you just want to squinch your eyes really, really tightly shut, plug your ears and shout, “Liberal talking points! Liberal talking points!” Check.
Otherwise, I refer you to the P.S. of post # 34.
57. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 11:14 am
neocon,
Did I say I agreed with Bush? There you go putting words in someone’s mouth again.
I do find it interesting that Bush rebuilds the intelligence community, and now according to a lot of people on this thread, seems to have made it worse.
58. Jay Gaultieri | December 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Diane, Don’t bother trying to reason with neocon. Look at this link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071212/sc_nm/armadillo_fossil_dc
It’s about a fossil that was just discovered in the Andes mountains of Chile, remains of a tank-like mammal similar to a large armadillo that roamed that area 18 million years ago. Neocon will tell you that this never happened because the Earth was created on Sunday September 23rd, 4004 BC at 4:30 AM. He will tell you that God put those bones in the ground to test our faith. You can’t reason with someone like that.
59. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Also, neocon, since I chose to swear an oath and put myself out on the streets in the line of fire as a police officer for 30 years just as my brothers all did in their military service and my nephew is now doing in Iraq, I’ll choose to rise above your smarmy and classless crack “But, of course, I anticipate you will blame America”. For your information, I love our country which is why I agree so strongly with retired CIA case officer John Kiriakou when he says he now opposes waterboarding, “Because we’re Americans, and we’re better than that.”
Instead, I will follow the helpful link you provided all the way down to the bottom where it reads (sorry, I just had to use bold here), “Ernest McDermon is a former Army Officer, a website designer, and a conservative writer commenting on domestic and foreign affairs, and satirical whit! (sic)”. Your “letter” is an editorial by Ernest McDermon.
60. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Jay,
It’s not even so much the question of using reason but the complete lack of introspection that you see here. As anyone with even a slight grasp of political history can see, the Republican Party has undergone a seismic shift (heck, that might even have unearthed a few fossils) from where it was when Senator Barry Goldwater stated that it was the “…cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public” and “[a]bsolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed” to the current paternalistic and authority-worshiping entity you see defended here.
Goldwater spoke of liberty and here you mostly see Republicans only, in effect, begging that their Republican leaders do anything, anything to protect them from the scary dangers they see everywhere just so long as those same leaders soothingly assure them that whatever steps the leaders take that it was with the very noblest of intentions. I think the late Maj. Gen. Barry Morris Goldwater, USAF (ret.) would have to wonder why he worked so hard flying aircraft “over the hump” during WWII if he could see the GOP as it is today. However, that just goes right past people here.
61. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Casper,
President Bush made the public statement he had to make in view of the circumstances and the current political environment!
The majority of Americans have not yet fallen for the Democrats’ spin…
You and the rest of the suicidal Democrats (Liberals) may believe Iran has suddenly changed it’s spots and intentions. That’s your choice as a Democrat!
AAR
62. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Casper,
“You’ll notice that all of the heads of the National Intelligence Program were appointed to their jobs?”
You’ll notice that neither President Bush nor the heads of the National Intelligence Program wrote the report.
You’ll notice there are hundreds of thousands of Democrats (Liberals) who work within the government, including our intelligence agencies.
You’ll notice that the three main people (analysts) involved in writing the report were anti-Bush?!!!
The report could have been — should have been — written with a different conclusion, even using the same information!!!
AAR
63. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
AAR,
Since you reject the NIE, does that mean you think Bush has done a bad job of rebuilding the intelligence community?
Also, if you read the report, you will notice that Iran is still considered a threat, and still need to be taken seriously. As for the poll, you can also find polls showing just about anything you want.
My question to you is: Do you have information our intelligence community doesn’t? If not, why do you disagree with the professionals of the Bush reorganized intelligence community?
64. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“You’ll notice that neither President Bush nor the heads of the National Intelligence Program wrote the report.”
True, but they signed off on it.
65. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
neocon,
What do police do when “threatened” by a speeder who turns his back on the police officer and places his hand near his pocket? They TASER him with 50,000 volts!!!
What do police do when they feel “threatened” by a youth or a pregnant woman? They TASER them with 50,000 volts!!!
What do police do when police feel “threatened” a person with an unknown object in his hands, they shoot the guy full of holes and then check to see what he was carrying!!!
What do police do when they feel “threatened” by a known criminal who says the gun isn’t real or isn’t loaded? They shoot the guy to protect themselves from a “potential” threat!!!
What does a police officer do when faced with a nation like Iran which is developing all the components for a nuclear weapon and which could kill millions of Americans, but which “claims” those components are for peaceful purposes?
They downplay or deny the threat and mislead the American people! And why not, the “threat” isn’t pointed at them!!!
AAR
66. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Casper,
True, but they signed off on it.
I’ve got errands to run, so you and the rest of you Democrat friends will have to carry on without me.
AAR
67. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
AAR,
So, why not try (without ending every paragraph with three (count ‘em, three) exclamation points to explain what you perceive as the flaws in my analysis which is based on nuclear deterrence theory? By the way, for your information, I never carried a Taser, I never shot at anything other than a target on a range and trying to draw an analogy between split-second use of force decisions and long-range strategic foreign policy decisions is more that just a little silly.
68. Mark Noonan | December 12th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Diana,
Geesh - your position crashes and burns and you still hold to it and switch over to an entire non-sequiter. Typical liberal.
Try this, instead: THINK about it. Seriously. Quietly review in your mind the entire situation in Iran since 1979 and come to a conclusion without reference to President Bush.
69. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Jay,
I anxiously awaiting for you to find whaere I stated unequivocally that I support the strict interpretation of Creationism.
If you can’t provide the proof, then I will know that you are lying, again and will aks you to STFU.
You’re a waste of flesh.
70. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Mrs. Clinton, (Diana)
Your litany of brain dead observations and talking points in post #16 is embarrassingly juvenile and warrants zero response.
Do you support a womans right to have a late term abortion?
It’s a fairly simple question, don’t cha think?
71. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Diana,
I couldn’t care less about your police service. In fact, I would not want anyone like you defending me. I will take care of myself, thank you.
72. SteaM | December 12th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Welcome to a more balanced government and life after the Republican controlled Congress.
Also, I should note, that Bush usually doesn’t care what the political environment is, in my opinion, when he makes statements. He has toned down his rhetoric a little bit but otherwise he is the “never back down” and “stay the course no matter what the majority of the People have to say” kinda guy. That’s why his supporters love him so much.
It also would seem that with all of these past inteligence issues/failures that the intelligence community has taken precautions to make sure they are not just throwing out crappy halfass politically influenced reports and are actually double checking and verifying a little more this time. It is, after all, cover-your-ass time in Washington.
73. Joe | December 12th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
neocon,
why the hell do you bring up views on late term abortions in EVERY FREAKING POST???????
It doesn’t matter what the topic. Late term abortions appear to always be tops on your mind.
What is up with that?
This is about the NIE and the Brits vew of it.
But it doesn’t matter if it is the NIE, waterboarding, the presidential election or the Patriots being 13-0. You consistantly bring up late term abortions whenever someone doesn’t agree with you.
Chill.
74. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Mark,
Okay, as you patronizingly say so (sans any actual examples of what you’re talking about), I’ll just try some of that darned thinking I just never seem to do. Hmm, sounds like typical Republican Daddyism, I’d say.
75. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Joe,
I bring late term abortions up to point to the hypocrisy on the left. Those that condemn any type of “torture” yet condone late term abortions would be extremely hypocritical.
I can not think of a more repulsive and brutal torturous proceedure than partial birth abortion. In fact waterboarding would be a walk in the park compared to that proceedure.
Anyone who condones that proceedure has zero moral authority to speak about torture.
76. Ricorun | December 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
neocon: Anyone who condones that proceedure has zero moral authority to speak about torture.
Is it necessary for you to think a person has “moral authority” on any topic, no matter how unrelated, in order for you to follow their logic on some other topic? That doesn’t make any sense. It just gives you reason to conclude, for reasons that have nothing to do with logic, that a person is or is not logical. The entire premise is false.
77. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Joe, Ricorun and neocon,
I apologize in advance to Mark for it being off-topic here, but I would direct you to my latest comment over at “More Democratic Grandstanding On Destroyed CIA Tapes” for some brand-new (and completely shocking) evidence of the moral authority of the Administration relative to torture.
78. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Rico,
Don’t liberals usually attempt to usurp moral authority in any argument?
How can one vociferously condemn the waterboarding of extremists, that have already demonstrated their desire to kill and had timely information, and yet condone a partial birth proceedure?
There can be no logical explanation for that.
79. Mark Noonan | December 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Diana,
You’re just refusing to think - because you know full well that if you consider the whole picture, you’d have to concede that I am correct about Iran, and that opens the possibility that I might be correct about other things…heck, admit that you’ve blown it entirely here and you might even have to give up some of your hatred of President Bush…which is why, of course, you bring up the off-topic subject of torture, because you know you’re defeated here and don’t want to admit it.
Really, its rather sad…and you’re a rather bright person; in a normal world where you didn’t live on Bush-hatred, you would have figured Iran out all on your own quite a long time ago.
80. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Mark,
Rather than simply patronize me, why you don’t offer specifics in where you think my analysis if flawed?
81. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
As to my reference to torture being off-topic, if you read my exchanges with neocon further up the thread where he insisted on being off-topic despite my specific requests that he go to the appropriate post to comment and where you would see neocon also engaging Ricorun in off-topic discussions then I think my apology in advance in post # 77 might have been met with a gentlemanly “thank you” rather than trying to claim it as some kind of “evidence” for my “failure to think”. But, I may have overestimated you.
82. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Mark,
I’ll ask you the same questions I asked AAR.
Do you have information our intelligence community doesn’t? If not, why do you disagree with the professionals of the Bush reorganized intelligence community?
And BTW, have you read the NIE. Iran is still considered a major threat. They are just not considered an immediate nuclear threat. No one that I’m aware of is suggesting that we suddenly ignore them.
Also Mark, Diana made some very good points on post 16. No one has offered any kind of serious rebuttal. The best anyone has done is to call them talking points, which translates to “I can’t answer them”. Can you do better?
83. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I answered Ricos question Diana. I know you’re a little challenged with that, but I try to respond to questions.
84. neocon | December 12th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Casper,
Please, Dianas #16 post is astonishingly juvenile. First of all, the entire litany of assumed events and outcomes is premised on the Iranian leadership being rational. A common mistake amongst liberals.
Secondly, there was not one mention of Hamas, Hezbollah, the attacks on our troops in Iraq, or of Irans past in terms of sponsored terrorism. So the dishonesty is amazing.
Finally, her summations and quotations were embarrasing, so if you call that post thought provoking, I feel sorry for you.
85. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Diana,
!!!’s? I don’t need to count them again. I did that when I typed the cute little things! And I didn’t end “every” paragraph with them.
Oh, so you don’t actually work a “beat”? Desk job?
Glad you aren’t protecting my town! In your mind, it’s okay to shoot someone whom “you” perceive to be a “possible threat” to “you”, but you downplay and mislead the American people about the real threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons.
Do you really believe Iran is developing those expensive, long range missiles to deliver a few hundred pounds of conventional explosives half way around the world?
Do you really think Iran is working toward 10,000 centrifuges and heavy water reactors for “peaceful” purposes?
Once Iran has perfected the missiles, and has the nuclear material, how long do you think it will take to marry the two with the nuclear weapon’s technology they are secretly working on even now!
I can understand your propagandizing and trying to mislead your Liberal Lambs and the American people, but come on, you aren’t personally falling for that line, are you?
Surely a police officer can’t be so naive as to believe that fairy tale!
AAR
86. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Yes, neocon and AAR, you’re correct. The question is where your worldview starts. Do you believe that Iranians are some kind of comic book never-before-seen scary Other incapable of engaging in rational thinking or do you see them as potential opponents whose real-world interests can be engaged while moving them towards the desired goal of them not making the decision to build nuclear weapons. The essential elements of your worldview are exactly the same as those expressed about the monolithic Red Menace during the Cold War when the then-Soviet Union, as the Russian Republic does today, had, not the possibility of building one or more nuclear weapons but thousands of nuclear weapons mated to delivery systems programmed to strike the United States. Now which is or was the greater risk? The Strategic Rocket Forces of the USSR or the theoretical Iranian bomb?
87. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Casper,
You may believe Diana made some “very good points on post 16″. I don’t!
Apparently you believe Islamic religious extremists behave “rationally”, and they think and act in the same manner as Westerners do. You apparently believe that “Mutual Assured Destruction” would work with Islamic extremists just as it did with the former Soviet Union. I don’t!
You apparently believe that Iran would be satisfied with “just one little nuclear weapon for ‘national prestige’ and/or self-defense” after putting the time, effort, money, and resources into developing that first nuclear weapon. I don’t!
You apparently do not take Iran’s or the Muslim community’s threats seriously about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth, believing Iran would stop and rely on just one little nuclear weapon to achieve that one goal alone. I don’t!
You apparently believe that after Iran has the first nuclear weapon, it will be easier to stop them from making more. The opposite is in fact true. After they develop the first weapon, they are in the driver’s seat, threatening to launch that weapon to who knows where if we do take action.
Who knows what Democrats would concede to Iran if that nuclear weapon were aimed at New York City, Washington, D.C., or Los Angeles!
Do you believe that the holocaust never happened? The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says it never happened. Do you and he think the same way???
AAR
88. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
So, AAR, are you with Norman Podhoretz in “hoping and praying” that we bomb Iran as soon as possible?
89. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Diana,
I am for allowing the President to do what is necessary.
Unfortunately, Democrats have weakened and undermined our ability to effectively deal with Iran diplomatically — this being just the latest!
AAR
90. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Ok AAR,
Let’s look at your points.
“Apparently you believe Islamic religious extremists behave “rationally”, and they think and act in the same manner as Westerners do”
“I never said that. I don’t think they are rational by our standards.
“You apparently believe that “Mutual Assured Destruction” would work with Islamic extremists just as it did with the former Soviet Union. I don’t!”
What do you base this on? I don’t believe they are rational, but I also don’t believe they are suicidal. If their goal is to spread Islam, how are they going to do that if their country is turned into a parking lot?
“You apparently believe that Iran would be satisfied with “just one little nuclear weapon for ‘national prestige’ and/or self-defense” after putting the time, effort, money, and resources into developing that first nuclear weapon. I don’t!”
Again, I never said that. I don’t want them to have a nuke anymore than you do.
“You apparently do not take Iran’s or the Muslim community’s threats seriously about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth, believing Iran would stop and rely on just one little nuclear weapon to achieve that one goal alone. I don’t!”
Iran doesn’t have the ability to wipe Israel off the map. If they had the ability to hit a couple of targets, would they be willing to take out a city or two in Israel it they knew it would result in their total destruction. I don’t think so. They’re crazy, not stupid.
“You apparently believe that after Iran has the first nuclear weapon, it will be easier to stop them from making more. The opposite is in fact true. After they develop the first weapon, they are in the driver’s seat, threatening to launch that weapon to who knows where if we do take action.”
Again, where did I say that. If you want to have a debate, at least let me come up with my own answers.
“Who knows what Democrats would concede to Iran if that nuclear weapon were aimed at New York City, Washington, D.C., or Los Angeles!”
They would probably turn Iran into a parking lot. Remember, the only president to use a nuke was a democrat.
“Do you believe that the holocaust never happened? The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says it never happened. Do you and he think the same way??”
Now you are just being silly. If you want to have a rational discussion at least come up with rational points.
91. Mark Noonan | December 12th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Diana,
I did - several times. Once again, try to view things outside the prism of Bush hatred.
92. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Specifics? MIA.
93. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
neocon,
“Please, Dianas #16 post is astonishingly juvenile. First of all, the entire litany of assumed events and outcomes is premised on the Iranian leadership being rational. A common mistake amongst liberals”.
If her post is so juvenile you should be able to counter her arguments fairly easily. While i would agree that Iran’s government is irrational, I don’t think they are suicidal. Do you have any evidence they are?
Secondly, there was not one mention of Hamas, the attacks on our troops in Iraq, or of Irans past in terms of sponsored terrorism. So the dishonesty is amazing.”
You do realize that Hamas is a Sunni organization and Hezbollah is Shi’a. They hate each other.
94. Mark Noonan | December 12th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Casper,
I have my own fund of knowledge, my own ability to analyse data and a healthy doubt about the product of any government agency - and a larger doubt about the joint product of several government agencies. It just isn’t credible to conclude from any set of data other than a complete, on-site, neutral inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites (known and suspected) that Iran has given up its nuclear program. That a whole bunch of people came together to write an NIE saying just that shows that we’ve got a massive problem with our intelligence agencies and a need to clean house from top to bottom (my preference has always been to disband the CIA altogether and rebuild a new intelligence agency from the ground up, using only the most reliable FBI and Special Forces personnel to set up the system and vet the initial applicants; this prefence of mine dates from the 1980’s…so long have I had grave doubts about the efficacy of the CIA).
As for Diana’s #16 - a collection of what-ifs unsupported by the known facts about Iran and its criminal regime.
95. Mark Noonan | December 12th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Diana,
No, thanks - not in the mood to debate about the debate. Your position in this issue is in shreds, and I’m not about to get you off the hook by changing the subject.
96. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
So Mark,
At what point did Diana express her BDS?
And again, I’ll ask. Do you have information our intelligence community doesn’t? If not, why do you disagree with the professionals of the Bush reorganized intelligence community?
97. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Casper,
You said Diana made some “very good points on post 16″.
I say, only if you think and believe as I stated; although, I’m not even sure what she really meant by some of her statements. I didn’t actually think you believed all of the statements and points I made. You confirmed that!
…So, where does this leave us? The Iranians decide to obtain a nuclear weapon or weapons for national prestige and/or self-defense. It is absolutely to be preferred that not one single additional nuclear warhead is ever built, however, these two possible rationales put our efforts to prevent an Iranian nuclear warhead in a rather different context than if we assume that possession is tantamount to use.
What was Diana’s point by this statement?
Apparently we do agree that Iran would not stop with one nuclear weapon, as that would do them little or no good!
You might go back through some of Almiranta’s posts about the way Islamic extremists think! She explained it much better than I could.
Being silly? Not at all. Just checking to see if you were thinking straight!
AAR
98. Diana Powe | December 12th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
AAR,
Reread post # 86 and you’ll find the answer to your question.
Mark,
Okay, fine by me. New rule: You win a debate by stating you won. Pretty lame, but that’s the hand you gotta play. By the way, is the notional BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) anything like OCBCDS (Obsessive-Compulsive Bill Clinton Derangement Syndrome)?
99. Casper | December 12th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Mark,
The NIE is the opinion of 16 intelligence agencies, not just the CIA. Bush has had the last 7 years to rebuild our intelligence agencies. The agencies are headed by people Bush appointed.
100. Joe | December 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Mark,
To your point… have you ever thought outside of your “Bush is always perfect” views?
101. AAR | December 12th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Diana,
I guess it depends on which alternate universe you live in!
You can call it a “theoretical Iranian bomb.” I take it far more seriously than that. Iran will have a real nuclear bomb, and another, and another, and another — sitting atop real missiles — unless they are prevented from doing so.
Democrats (Liberals) continue to undermine our efforts to stop them — this being the latest!
Hopefully a majority of American people don’t fall for your version!!!
AAR
102. Jay Gaultieri | December 13th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Neocon,
You’re a follower of President Bush. So you fervently believe that:
1)Earth is 6003 years, two months, two weeks, four days, 20 hours, and 32 minutes old (as I type this)
2)God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith
3) The Ice Ages never happened
4) Jesus turned the water into a nonalcoholic wine
5) The Sun revolves around the Earth.
6) Vows of chasity made at Purity Balls (ick) never break but condoms ALWAYS do.
7) Prohibition should be reinstated
8)Spongebob Squarepants is gay
9)If you play rock records backwards you will hear subliminal mesages telling you to worship Satan
10)Gay civil Unions should be outlawed but Republican politicians on the dl should be defended at all costs.
103. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!! | December 13th, 2007 at 6:01 am
I’m just trying to understand the authority-worshiping faux-conservative mindset.
You’ll never be successful in doing so, Diana, in your current lemming, brain-dead, BDS-infected state…
104. keef--Not Cruisin--Yet!!! | December 13th, 2007 at 6:06 am
You’re a follower of President Bush. So you fervently believe that:
Jay Gutless, you’re a brain-dead lemming, so you fervently believe that anyone here besides cowjane and Diana agrees with you. You’re wrong, boy. You’re an a**hat with no brain, a waste of oxygen. A girly-man…
105. neocon | December 13th, 2007 at 7:40 am
SpongeBob is Gay?
Casper and Diana,
Iran funds both Hamas and hezbollah to the tume of millions of dollars per year. The fact that both of you gloss over that in your juvenile suppositions of world events and outcomes reveals your liberal dishonesty.
Debating Dianas #16 post would be akin to debating my grandsons third grade book report.
Both you have very naive, under-informed political views that play well with the theoretical dailyKos crowd but are ultimately dangerous in reality.
106. Tractatus | December 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am
That a whole bunch of people came together to write an NIE saying just that shows that we’ve got a massive problem with our intelligence agencies and a need to clean house from top to bottom
“Everybody in the intelligence community is wrong, and I am right!” This is the product of Mark’s “fund of knowledge” (read: firmly entrenched talking points). What makes it even funnier is that he takes himself absolutely seriously. “How dare those people, with their experience and expertise and working knowledge, come to a different conclusion than I reached using my conception of a fantasy world and my uninformed armchair analysis! Get them out, I say!”
have you ever thought outside of your “Bush is always perfect” views?
Rarely, if ever, has he done this. This is why when the facts and Bush’s view are in opposition, it is the facts that are wrong and must be changed. For Mark, dogma always trumps reality. Hence the comedy he provides for the rest of us.
107. Mark Noonan | December 13th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Not only is Sponge Bob gay, but he’s also a card carrying member of the ACLU…
108. Mark Noonan | December 13th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Casper,
President Bush made on really glaring error at the start of his Administration which has proven impossible to correct as time has gone on - he didn’t fire everyone he could fire who had been hired or promoted during the 8 years of Clinton. So, we’re stuck with a lot of liberal dimwits who, unfortunately, get to write these reports because writing reports is all we let them do…the real work is done by people who know what they’re doing. The bad side to this is that the reports are written by dunces, broadcast by the MSM and eaten up by lefties…ah, well, nothing we can do about that right now.
They’ve got it wrong, Casper - I know they’ve got it wrong for the same reason that Patton knew the itel folks were wrong in December of 1944…not because Patton (or I) have access to secret info, but because common sense dictates conclusions opposite of what the intel people are asserting. Never underestimate just how wrapped up in preconceived notions intel bureaucrats can get…
109. Casper | December 13th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Mark,
I’m beginning to think you haven’t ever read the NIE, nor do you know much about the NIC which produced it. If you had, you would know that the principal author of the report was promoted to his position during the Bush Administration, and that the report was approved by the heads of the CIA, the NIC, (both Bush appointees) and the heads of 14 other intelligence agencies.
Frankly, if you aren’t willing to do the research, you shouldn’t create the thread.
While I’m not ready to take everything in the NIE as the gospel truth, I give it a little more credence than I do your common? sense.
110. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Mark’s theory about the Clinton-era (thank you OCBCDS) gnomes getting into the broth requires one to have the credulity to accept that the Bush-appointed people at the top couldn’t keep sending it back…and sending it back…and sending it back until they got the desired answer. I’m just guessing here, but I suspect that Mark either hasn’t read or is not a fan of Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone.
111. Ricorun | December 13th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Mark: They’ve got it wrong, Casper - I know they’ve got it wrong for the same reason that Patton knew the itel folks were wrong in December of 1944…not because Patton (or I) have access to secret info, but because common sense dictates conclusions opposite of what the intel people are asserting.
What an extraordinarily arrogant thing to say. Not only are you saying that the NIE is wrong — based on stated reasons no more substantial than your impression that it must be — but then go on to employ employ those impressions to make further conclusions — again based on no other stated reasons than your impression that they must be right. And if that wasn’t enough, then you have the further audacity criticize anyone who disagrees with you as if they were beneath your contempt.
And THEN if that display of self-proclaimed authority wasn’t enough, you have the FURTHER audacity to proclaim yourself a Christian. Pardon me for saying so, but pretty soon your head is going to get too big to fit through most doors, much less the eye of a needle. Perhaps you need to consider washing some feet.
112. Diana Powe | December 13th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Ricorun,
Mark’s just trying to save bandwidth here. I write out a complete chain of logic (well-constructed or not). He says he won’t dignify it with a response. The public conclusions of the NIE, work product of dozens (hundreds?) of professionals, are released. He dismisses it as not being based on the common sense he shared with George S. Patton. No need to elaborate, just issue proclamations.
113. Ricorun | December 13th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Diana Powe: He dismisses it as not being based on the common sense he shared with George S. Patton. No need to elaborate, just issue proclamations.
I don’t think Mark is a bad person. I just think he’s gotten too carried away lately with his own self-importance. And that is neither Christian or, more generally, healthy.
114. Paulitzky | December 13th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I admit I’ve skipped through most of this comment thread, but I’m fairly confident no one has bothered asking this (rather obvious) question: Honestly, even *if* Iran were to be pursuing a weapons program, what right do we have to decide whether or not that nation is justified in moving forward with one? Yes, this will seem mind-bogglingly naive to most of you, but perhaps that’s only because I question the ‘unquestionable’ supposition that a nuclear Iran would be the nightmare-to-end-all-nightmares. Really. Get over it.
115. Casper | December 13th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Paulitzky,
Actually, it has been covered. Start with post 16. If you want to make a comment, at least take the time to read everyone else’s comments.
116. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Casper,
I did read it - its worthless, for reasons I’ve elaborated previously.
117. Mark Noonan | December 14th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Ricorun,
Hardly. The writers of the NIE have fallen into the cardinal sin of strategy - ‘forming a picture’. In other words, they’ve constructed for themselves a picture of what the Iranians must be doing, and built their report to support their pre-conceived notions.
British and French military intelligence divined long before the start of the First World War precisely what sort of offensive the Germans would take at the start of hostilities. Carefully looking over the available data, they understood that Germany would post only 1/8th of its armed forces against the slow-mobilising Russians and throw 7/8th of their army against France, using Belgium as the avenue of attack. All well and good - but it was Winston Churchill who divined, with no access to military intelligence, what would really happen. The intel people, you see, ‘formed a picture’ - they assumed that Germany would keep to common military practice and keep reserve formations separate from active formations and thus the thinking was that the Germans either wouldn’t have enough force to really develope their thrust through Belgium or, if they did apply sufficient force, they would be fatally weakened where the French intended to attack. Churchill figured the Germans would be clever enough to amalgamate the reserve and active formations and thus have enough power to both strongly thrust through Belgium as well as keep sufficient forces elsewhere to crush any Franco-British offensive.
Churchill didn’t ‘form a picture’ - he didn’t KNOW the Germans would combine reserve and active units, but he knew they could and thus correctly figured that the best way to cover all contingencies was to concentrate the Anglo-French forces on the defensive just south of the Belgian frontier. Had Churchill’s advice been taken, WWI would have ended in 1915, rather than 1918.
Similarly, I don’t KNOW what the Iranians are up to - but I do know what they might be up to, and prudence dictates that I prepare against the worst possible set of circumstances. To believe a report which is written - even if unintentionally - to lull me to sleep about Iran is foolhardy. If I prepare my actions based upon the assumption that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon and it turns out that I am wrong, then no harm done…if they are seeking a nuke, then I’m fully prepared to deal with that as necessary. The report, as I’ve said, is worthless…and just a bit of THOUGHT on your part would bring you ’round to my point of view.
118. Ricorun | December 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Mark, even if you’re inclined to believe that the NIE was politically motivated, there are at least a couple of ways to look at it. You assume it’s some kind of hit job. But it’s also possible that Bush sanctioned it. In fact, there’s more evidence of the latter than the former. He certainly said he accepts it.
Something unusual is going on in the Middle East. As I pointed out in a previous post, it seemed to me more than unusual that Syria decided to attend the Anapolis conference so soon after Israel staged a major raid on them. North Korea was heavily implicated as a partner on the site Israel struck. So likewise, it seems more than a little odd that there appeared to be not so much as a ripple in the talks with them. There are a few other curious indications as well. For example, Syria is an ally of Iran. And though Iran didn’t attend the Anapolis conference, Syria did. Iran did, however, attend the Gulf Cooperation Council meeting in Qatar — the first time they were ever invited. There are photos of Amadenijad and Saudi King Abdullah walking hand-in-hand — the two guys whose states have been backing different sides in Iraq. Then there’s the fact that Iran’s smuggling of arms into Iraq has significantly decreased of late. All of those things may be coincidence, but considering their confluence, it’s a little hard not to see a pattern.
You say, “prudence dictates that I prepare against the worst possible set of circumstances.” No one is arguing “you” shouldn’t. The NIE didn’t suggest Iran is no longer a threat. It didn’t indicate that Iran did, or is in the process of, dismantling their nuclear weapons program. It also didn’t indicate that they have stopped their uranium enrichment program. What it does indicate is that Iran is susceptible to international pressure. All the other evidence I mentioned suggests that some kind of deal is afloat.
A few days ago Spook sent me a lengthy article from Debka files, and they suggest the same thing. They argue that the NIE was a subtle way to take the military option off the table, or at least move it away from the middle of it. So you see, there are other ways to THINK about things. And with reference to your WWII analogy, if you THINK about it, the mistake the Brits and French made was jumping to the wrong conclusions.
119. Alex | December 15th, 2007 at 8:16 am
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?