Apparently not. As some here rushed to make up their own facts, accusations and allegations driven by the contagious BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) Flu, additional information comes out that paints a completely opposite picture: NIE: An Abrupt About-Face Now we know the truth behind what's going on. Abrupt change of strategy and delusion in 5...4...3...2...
there was an article in new york post final edition that i can not find it online yet. authors opinion is that iran and US has already reached an agreement or are very close and are trying to get the public ready for this. can this be a possibility?
I guess its not surprising for the "Hyper Partisan (to borrow a phrase ) neo con supporters to immediately attack the validity of the report. It only took one day. Anything that doesn't fit in with the hyper-partisan neo cons gets attacked. In this case an immediate smear campaign is assigned to 3 people who the hyper-partisan neo cons address as the authors of the report. Yet the NIE is supposedly the end result of the input of 16 different intelligence groups. Way too much input to attach a smear campaign against 3 individuals. I guess the hyper-partisan WSJ and other neo con supporters were in the information gathering the interaction of the 16 agencies that assembled the report, and the interaction that occurred to put it into final form. I guess they knew that 3 people twisted the input of 16 agencies to get it to reflect what the 3 wanted. One would hope that the work of the NIE is far different and superior to the presentations made to Bush prior to the war in Iraq. One would hope that there methods on collecting and studying information was dramatically improved and that the Administration had less opportunity to cherry pick information and present it to the public. As Condi Rice just said, one positive element of the process is how honestly transparent the process is relative to more controlled governments and how different it reflects classified information flowing to the administration than prior to the war in Iraq. But it only takes a day for the HYPER-PARTISAN neo cons to go on the attack and start a smear campaign.
Earl, setting aside the op-ed punditry, opposite reality and delusion...I'm presuming you are not saying this was a "smear campaign" against Bush, right? Because only an anti-Bush partisan who has apparently been caught red handed, selling out the security of the USA???? over partisanship, could possibly be the victim here, right? Just want to check. I believe I know the answers, given the history, but...well...entertain me Is neocon still code word for Jews? My it got awful silent when this came out. Everyone celebrating, without the facts, then suddenly reality set in. ummm, ummm, ummm! All that and some sweet potato pie
GTech: 1. I'm Jewish. you are way off base on that. 2. The smear campaign is against Fingar and the so called authors of the NIE report. How does the WSJ know enough to know how the thing was authored. 3. Of interest John Bolton wrote an editorial questioning the report and providing reasons to question its results. No smear campaign on his part. not even close. 4. The Isreali's came out and questioned the report. No smear campaign at all. There are many ways to look at the NIE report, to digest and interpret it. In fact Bush gave his interpretation. No smear attack on others. The report is deeply interpretive. Every comment is prefaced with institutional phrases that "rate" their confidence in statements. There is nothing absolute about it. It does conflict with the most previous report on Iran nuclear efforts, but if written in NIE language, there was nothing absolute about that one also.
I thought zionists was the code word for Jews? Everyone knows that the Iranians are building a bomb. Iran was a customer of the Khan network the black market network run by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan that was selling technology for enriching nuclear fuel, blueprints for nuclear weapons and the hard-to-master engineering secrets needed to fabricate nuclear warheads. Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency by delivering blueprints that show how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday, in an apparent concession meant to stave off the threat of new U.N. sanctions http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7075213,00.html Why did Iran have blueprints to make a nuclear warhead? Iran has already copied the nuclear warhead plans and all they need is enriched uranium.
I have a simple answer for you sir. Maybe Iran was trying to go nuclear as the following countries already are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
It's not the knowledge of how to build a nuke that is dangerous. It's obtaining all the needed materials. If building the bomb is a security threat than the U.S government is totally incompetent for uploading instructions on how to do it to the internet. Only a fear mongering piece of trash would say that knowledge is dangerous.
That's what I figured. So it's not a legitimate question as why the sudden and abrupt change, given the information that he and two of his colleagues are notoriously anti-Bush? One month, theres a threat, a few months later there's not??? Come on earl, put the partisanship away, for just one thread, and look at it logically. Do you believe it's in the best interest of America, for someone to play partisan hackery with our national security? Or better, yet, let me rephrase it....Is it more acceptable if an anti-Bush person plays partisan hackery with intelligence that could affect or national security? Come on earl, you're a better man than that
cripes. The WSJ FIRST published its report highlighting partisanship. It is the one claiming partisanship. You published it here. The NIE report puts everything in language of probabilities. There is nothing definitive about it. What is different are the probability results based on the efforts of 16 different agencies that suggest different intelligence than some years ago. It is also the result of different methods as to evaluating intelligence as has been reported. The claims of partisanship started with the WSJ and you through it in here. I read the information and look at it in terms of probabilities. It does change the picture, but there are no assurances written into that report. As I said earlier, John Bolton, a serious hawk and neo conservative if there is one, editorialized on the issue, argued with how the report can be read, reported, and analyzed. Of course he disagrees with its widespread interpretation. BUT he didn't turn his editorial into a partisan game. Also, as referenced above, the Israeli's disagreed with the report. They didn't turn it into a partisanship game. I believe strongly that the current Iranian regime is a threat to American, Israeli, and Western values. I believe they sponsor and support specific terrorism. I believe they supported terrorists that killed over 230 marines in Lebanon in the early 1980's and were never held accountable for that and we never responded. But I also take the report as a change in aggregated intelligence from 16 groups. If the final report of 16 agencies was severely twisted by 3 so-called partisan people as the WSJ indicates and as you have reported. If such an action was allowed by the heads and vetters of 16 agencies and reported to the White House before it ever became public then the world is flat and Barry Bonds never took steroids and his head grew because he got to be incredibly smarter in his old age. The report is just that, a report. Don't turn it into some partisan game
I hate partisanship, I think it is counterproductive to effective government. But the problem in this whole situation has been a departure from an important partisan aspect. Core Republican values. The only thing I have seen this administration do that is remotely conservative, was vetoing SCHIP.