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.
The Flaws In the Iran Report
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by baptistteacher, Dec 7, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
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. -
It's John Bolton. That's hardly an unbiased source. Bolton never saw a war he didn't like.
-
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. -
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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. -
==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. -
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah, moondg, let's just incinerate a few million innocent Iranian civilians - just because we can. :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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. -
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
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. -
The masses are more easily moved to war after a perceived attack by the chosen enemy.
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. -
-
-
1) Aborting babies = wrong
2) Starting unnecessary wars = not wrong -
Page 1 of 2