The Flaws In the Iran Report

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by baptistteacher, Dec 7, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. baptistteacher

    baptistteacher
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's an interesting analysis, by someone who's actually read and has credibility to understand the new National Intelligence Estimate released this week.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../12/05/AR2007120502234.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    The Flaws In the Iran Report

    By John R. Bolton
    Thursday, December 6, 2007; Page A29

    Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the "intelligence community" on issues such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.

    All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.

    … First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout."

    The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause.

    … One contrary opinion came from -- of all places -- an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that "we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran." When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda.


     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    I like John Bolton, but.....

    Borders first, Illegals second, energy restrictions lifted third, welfare ended fourth, political correctness defeated fifth, Iran is way down on the list of things that immediately threaten our nation, and to focus on them now is to say none of the others are important.
     
    #2 Bro. Curtis, Dec 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2007
  3. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    It's John Bolton. That's hardly an unbiased source. Bolton never saw a war he didn't like.
     
  4. baptistteacher

    baptistteacher
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nobody said he was unbiased. But then neither is the NY Times, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. He brings another perspective to the report, and some insider thoughts. If you will read his comments carefully, you will see that there is little difference between the current report and previous ones, except for the spin put on it. Some of the spin comes from liberal idealogues within the agencies who prepared the report, and then amplified by the media. :BangHead: :BangHead:

    As for war, that comment is totally uncalled for. But since you bring it up, the idea is to prevent a radical state from going nuclear, and then sharing the same with various terrorist groups.
     
  5. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    A typically cheap modern tactic to nullify an opinion one does not like, BUT cannot logically and/or effectively contradict!
     
  6. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    John R. Bolton?

    I believe this guy is a big government neocon, is he not? He is one of these "its America's job to police the world" folks.
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==The problem here is that you have not read the report and therefore cannot back up the statement you just made. You don't know if the report is simular or different because you have not read it and you have probably not read the old report either! You are basing your conclusions on a bias, secondary source. You are accepting what someone else is saying about the report and that someone else has a political bias and agenda. Since we don't know what the whole report says, we are not really in a position to judge it. We are left listening to the spin machines of the RNC, DNC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and all the other machines out there.



    ==O yea, and starting a unconsitutional war with Iran is going to stop that country from going radical or nuclear. Right! If we attack Iran we will only harden the resolve of the hardliners and turn many of Iran's citizens into hardliners. How do I know? They don't want their country attacked anymore than we would. The "problem" with Iran will not be solved my military action, it will only be worsened by military action.

    Notice I said "unconstitutional war". I don't care about international law or neocon propaganda. Nor do I care about liberal talking points or professing conservatives who are really nothing more than big government liberals. America needs to go back to Washingtonian isolationism (a conservative foreign policy). Want to know what that is? Read Washington's farwell address.
     
    #7 Martin, Dec 7, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2007
  8. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Hannity sent you over here didn't he? :laugh:
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can argue over the latest NIE all we want. I'm just very, very thankful that it will prevent President Bush from starting another war in the Middle East before his term expires.
     
  10. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think if they want nuclear weapons we should give them some. Make a big hole in the ground. Let the big dog rule if you got them shoot them.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, moondg, let's just incinerate a few million innocent Iranian civilians - just because we can. :rolleyes:
     
  12. moondg

    moondg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yea either we win or they win. Either way we do not have a problem any more. And who ever wins no body else will mess with them.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your attitude, moondg, is antithetical to that of Christ Jesus.

    Matthew 5:9 (ESV)
    "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Do you honestly believe that kind of response will solve any problems? I hope not.
     
  15. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2

    Don't say that. If we can't win the argument with common sense, don't drag the savior into it. Self piety is not the way to go. Let them use this argument.
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Maybe that's been the whole idea all along. It's diffcult for those in Washington to just go out and start a war because of the limits put on their power by our constitution but if they can provoke, provocatuer or even stage a hostile action by the "chosen enemy" against the supposed "nation interests" (namely transnational power brokers interests) that can be used for grounds to start one all the better.

    The masses are more easily moved to war after a perceived attack by the chosen enemy.

    I wouldn't call it isolationism, anti interventionism is more accurate imho. What we have now is isolationism. Now any nation that isn't doing what the "international community" aka the NWO feels is in their best transnational interests they move to isolate and punish that nation with military intimidation and sanctions until it complies with the NWO's demands. Which is usually forced membership in the not so distant future world government by agreeing to hand over their national sovereignty and living under "friendly" (to the NWO) puppet regimes dressed up as democracies that have no choice but to answer to the unelected global lords who stand to benefit from this imperial policy.

    Along with an old fashion strategy of tension thrown in for good measure. Such as what the Bush regime is doing in Iran right now to destabilize and fan the flames of hatred there and in the greater Islamic world. Which could if given enough time take us to the "perceived attack" needed to start the bomb invade massacre stage that the population of the "injured" nation will see as just and deserved and so will support it whole heartedly. Cheer for it even! While they call those who disagree unpatriotic pacifists and appeasers. (I do think the number of foks still duped by and cheerleading for this insane old policy are quickly declining as more of em are being educated in how all this really works and who really benefits and who doesn't, still a few hold outs though...mostly folks who listen to the likes of John Bolten, Hannity and the other neocons and their tv/radio talking head shills)

    That's what interventionsm and isolationism is all about as I see it anyway. And that's why I'm opposed to it.
     
    #16 poncho, Dec 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2007
  17. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    The job of protecting and promoting democracies in the world has fallen to us, and if we fail, the world will fall into complete governmental bondage, of one form or another.
     
  18. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally disagree. By butting in, trying to be the world's cop, we end up isolated, hated, and a target. We need to mind our own knitting.
     
  19. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    Typical neocon logic:

    1) Aborting babies = wrong

    2) Starting unnecessary wars = not wrong
     
  20. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    72
    I completely agree with you. Democracy cannot be forced.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...