Printable View
Don't put to much credence in the recent NIE report...All you need to do is examine what the NIE experts put together just FIVE months before the Iraq attack. http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html Key judgments from October 2002. Why would you believe this latest "NIE" report is accurate after checking this out. KEEP the pressure on IRAN!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big
Flop and Berean presumably would dispense with our intelligence agencies altogether since nothing they say is reliable.
Intelligence reports are just one part of foreign policy decisions or strategies. They are not dispositive of such decisions.
I see Republican Chuck Hegel finds cause to back off on an aggressive policy based on the latest report. Some posters here say, nay, go at em, but they don't offer any reason for such a policy (but maybe such things are common knowledge).
Flop and Berean presumably would dispense with our intelligence agencies altogether since nothing they say is reliable.
That's not at all what I'm trying to say, so my previous post may have been confusing. Just because intelligence agencies have done a very poor job over the years doesn't mean that we should abandon the effort. You just have to take what they say with a grain of salt. It's not surprising to me that we were wrong on WMDs in Iraq, given the colossal misjudgements CIA has made previously.
You just have to take what they say with a grain of salt.
Agreed.
It's not surprising to me that we were wrong on WMDs in Iraq, given the colossal misjudgements CIA has made previously.
Perhaps President Bush should have taken your advice. Or perhaps he just took what intelligence supported his already established plan, while discarding what didn't.
Agreed. I don't trust that little Iranian president in elevator shoes anymore than I could (fill in the blank). Why should we? He denies the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Germans in WWII, and yet -- he promises a new one by saying they should be 'wiped off the face of the earth'.
U.S. intelligence hasn't exactly been very good either. We didn't predict the fall of the Soviet Union, so it surprises me very little that we've missed other opportunities as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berean
No, not dispense...examine what they say. If you read the October 2002 NIE report it gives all the reasons that you later find fault with. I think the latest report is political and in error, so do others. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59120 Also see: Iran much closer to Nuke than West admits, http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1315Quote:
Originally Posted by matclone
Flawed U.S. Intel... http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=4858Quote:
Originally Posted by Big
I think the latest report is political and in error
What makes you think that this one is any more political or in error than any of the other ones? Didn't we go to war in Iraq based on politically motivated and incorrect intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs? Wouldn't it be a good idea to then err on the side of caution in the short term given past mistakes?
I'm just asking because I don't think any of the intelligence is free of political pressure in it's findings. I also don't think we know nearly as much as we think we do about Iran's nuclear program. Keep in mind that debkafile also claimed to know when Saddam was going to use the WMD's that he never had, so they're not exactly batting a thousand either on this stuff.
I don't think this one is in error, it's Israeli Intelligence. The intelligence that was correct in taking out the Iraq site 20 yrs. ago and the Syrian site this past summer. To err on the side of caution when your the size country that Israel is would be fatal in a one hour nuclear war... don't you think? Israeli intelligence also reported the movement of Iraq's WMD through Syria with Russian involvement, prior to the U.S. intervention. No country has all the information and all of what is introduced in the news is political.Quote:
Originally Posted by therick