Give Admiral Michael McConnell credit for trying to walk back the cat. Questioned this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence defended the “integrity and the professionalism” of the process that produced last December’s stunning National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program. Yet his testimony amounts to a reversal of the previous judgment.
******
Admiral McConnell’s belated damage repair ought to refocus world attention on Iran’s very real nuclear threat. Too bad his NIE rewrite won’t get anywhere near the media attention that the first draft did.
Forsooth, dude.
I don’t give him any credit. Idjit let it happen in the first place. Dumbass. Sniveling dumbass, really.
Care to bet on whether this gets even 1/50th the media coverage that the initial analysis received?
But… It’s not like that. The media all knew it was bullshit when they collectively orgasmed the first time. NPR is still quivering.
So if the media knew it was bullshit and yet hyped it as the truth anyway, then what exactly does that make them?
It’s not what it makes them. If you’re consuming them it’s what it makes you.
Obviously the december leak was purely political. This man should be fired for treason.
Screwed?
Complicit.
From now on, it’s the NIG: National Intelligence Guesstimate
So now one guy backtracks on the original report, stresses a few things the original mentioned, and we’re all supposed to be absolutely sure that Iran is an imminent threat? Sure. What’s the new evidence? What’s the new information? I know: one guy wanted to say that the assessment in the original report was wrong.
The original report didn’t even say that Iran wasn’t a threat, but it couldn’t put forth much evidence that Iran was, either. And now, using that same information and one guy’s new assessment, I’m supposed to believe it is. Here’s what I think: Iran is capable of becoming a nuclear power, acquiring bio and chemical weapons, and really making a mess of its region. Iran is also looking to stabilize its new, American-made position of power in the region and will say the usual anti-Israel stuff Arab and Middle-Eastern nations have been saying for the last six decades.
They may be crazy, but they don’t want to shit in their falafel. They’re sitting pretty with their enemies in messes to the East and West, oil isn’t getting any cheaper, and as long as we jump when they say boo, they’re going to keep on saying boo. Iran is certainly worth watching, but it’s going to be difficult for Republicans to complain about their nuclear programs after Bush commended the recent Iranian and Russian nuclear cooperation deals where Russia supplied uranium and Iran promised to use it only in peaceful ways.
Unless there’s some actual evidence to report, I’ll remain a skeptic. Fool me once with Iraqi WMDs? shame on you. Fool me with Iranian WMDs? shame on me. Yes, there’s a possibility that Iran could nuke me tomorrow, but I’d still put a hold on that attack/infiltration/invasion force until we get some solid evidence that that chance is bigger than the possibility that Russia, China, or Pakistan will. Or at least bigger than the possibility of global warming.
Collins;
For someone so disposed to confusion over simple economics in the comparison of Iraq to Afghanistan, (return on investment,,,remember?)
you jump the shark over Iran. I wonder why.
“Elsewhere, the NIE complicated U.S. efforts to deploy an antiballistic-missile shield in Central Europe. The Israelis worried that the report signaled the death of American seriousness on Iran, possibly requiring them to act alone.”
What about Pakistani Nucleodoom and Missilocity? Iran’s threat is a distant cousin to this Bush Ally. Now if he were to start working on
Afghanistan and Pakistan the way Israel gets him to work on Iran, maybe he’ll get some more corporate welfare for Boeing, or whoever else he wishes to write blank checks to.
Once again, ‘cleo . . . what do you advocate? Draw it for me.
How, exactly, would you propose to collect such evidence? Which international agency would you accept as a neutral enough observer to report on what little evidence Iran allows them to gather?
The IAEA? The UN Security Council?
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sc8792.doc.htm
Dan – Silence from the imbecile is all you will ever get when confronted with the insurmountable obstacle of expressing an actual postion.
Drumwaster, I guess you’d get that evidence by finding it. The report didn’t find it, said so, and said it doesn’t mean it’s not there. That’s all. Not too hard to figure out. And yes, it would be nice if there was some international or even national body I could trust on the issue. But there isn’t. So I’m left with my own biases and opinions. So until I see really good evidence from someone not associated with the Bush Administration, its Pentagon, or a rightwing columnist or a rightwing blogger, I’ll take their opinions with a grain of salt.
Will Bush or Cheney back this guy up in his assessment? Probably not, since Bush can’t convince a thirsty dog to stick its tongue out and Cheney probably hasn’t even attended a press conference since the 2000 campaign.
The same intelligence community that produced the NIE was dumbfounded when Pakistan tested 6 nuclear bombs. The guy at the top may change when a new administration comes in, but just about everyone else stays put. Should we think they are any more competent now than 10 years ago? Any less?
If you want to blame the president for everything that happens during his administration, then it’s fair to say that Hillary will get a chance to clean up Bill’s leftover mess in Pakistan.
I’ve decided that the intelligence community is working from a non-standard definition of “intelligence.”
And Jon, as long as it’s just you, your family, friends, political supporters, etc. and not mine, at the GZ of that Iranian nuke, I won’t give a single shit.
I will SDN. It’s likely my IRA will be depressed by such an event, and I hope to retire in style some day.
Anybody else find it funny that cleo used the phrase “simple economics”?
Wrong analogy. “Walking back the cat” refers to examining the events leading up to a particular conclusion, not going back and rethinking the conclusion.
But I don’t got no degree, so I may be wrong.
Back in WWII, there was that fantastic intelligence operation by the Brits where they planted a briefcase with a bunch of fake but veddy interesting papers concerning an imminent British invasion through Greece on a dead body, to divert the Nazis from the the Allies’ upcoming assault on southern Europe through Sicily. Where motivation to deceive is high, “found” evidence may not be what it seems. And un-found evidence may mean nothing at all.
Jon. Do you own a gun?