rhinefire

Everyone jumps on this newsbit as 100% true as YOU same losers bought on WMD's in Iraq. Now you say Iraq was a lie but somehow this Iran "story" is all true. Based on what?! What you read or what you saw on Teeee Veeee?

__________________
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

-Thomas Jefferson (who owned slaves and had sex with them)

Goldenboy219

No, i find that the NIE lacks the ability to gain true intelligence in Iran. Therefore, their particular "estimate" loses quite a bit of credibility. Why details of national security such as these are not only reported by the MSM, but expected to be is beyond my comprehension.

If the public wasnt fully aware of matters of national security, then how could anyone criticize any of it? But, they are willing to play the public relation game, therefore its open season on them.



Why do they allow their "limited intelligence" to be broadcast? In the private sector, people would be losing their jobs because of this type of faulty intelligence... I guess when it comes to turning a profit, accountability for ones actions is much more so mandated as opposed to "running a war"...

Mostly because we are in the middle east with military capabilities to collapse any Middle Eastern nation we so choose.

As for Israel, I could really care less. Thats like me moving back to the neighborhood where my father grew up because "its in my heratige". If i were to do that, i might have to face specific consequences.

link

Ill post this just in case...

__________________
Be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the present. For in the present is where we shape our future.

Khayembii Communique

Iran never pledged to destroy Israel.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Are you the minister of propaganda for Jihad?



TEHRAN: Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesdaythat Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.



Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says - International Herald Tribune

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

Trajan Octavian Titus

He stated that Israel should either be: "wiped off the map," or "erased from the pages of time,"

Regardless of the translation you choose both are calls for the destruction of Israel he has, also, said that:

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,"

"Israel can not continue it's life,"

"Israel is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence,”

"This regime (Israel) will be gone, definitely,"

"The arrogant superpowers and the Zionist regime invested all their efforts during the 33-day war, but after 60 years, their pride has been trampled and the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started by Hizbullah fighters,"

"with the help of all the Lebanese and Palestinian fighters, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future… Anyone who works for God and believes in the power of the people will prevail,"

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,"

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

Khayembii Communique

Covered months ago. It was a mistranslation. Whether it was purposeful or not is the real question. If you ask anyone that speaks Farsi if that's what he said they will say no, and they will say it is quite obvious that that is not what he said.

I've also personally asked Mr. Cole as well as some Persian friends I have that are fluent in Farsi (which I'm not expecting you to believe, but offering as support nonetheless).

Supporting the removal of a regime is wholly different than calling for the destruction of a state. That is, unless you're one of those wackos that equates anti-Zionism with anti-semitism.

Stinger

Interesting




NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?
Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

• Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?

• Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?

• Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?

Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)



Posted by Thomas Joscelyn on December 5, 2007 12:01 PM
The Weekly Standard

Is this another Wilson/Plame type plot to undermine US Foreign policy?

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

jallman

So...uhhh...to Hatuey specifically:

What was that about waiting a couple of days to see how it plays out and get ALL the information? And this is just day two...

Still reserving judgment for now.

__________________
Prayer and blasphemy...the two are so narrowly separated in these trying times.

oldreliable67

Oh, dear. Rhetorical or not, please refer to post number six in this thread, where you will find that I addressed several issues. I offered a couple of quotes from the first reports that I read (Yahoo and the NYT) supporting my assertion that, as of that moment in time, it was way too soon to conclude anything sinister or otherwise about the administration's actions with respect to this matter, that it was way too soon, not enough was yet known, to conclude "Wow another bull**** lie from this administration."

I offered my opinion that (wonder of wonders!) that Harry Reid was actually most likely correct in his initial assessment, as was Stephen Hadley with his initial assessment.

I concluded with: "On the surface, one would have to conclude that this is a favorable, though still rather tenuous, development. Tenuous in the sense that the report is still pretty dependent on the CIA's assessment, and we know how good that was leading up to Iraq. Hopefully, more will become known in the coming days."

You might also reread post number 21 in which I offered a bit more argument and in fact, agreed with SouthernDemocrat's take on a couple of aspects of the situation, which you should make note of given that SouthernDem though not as extreme as some here at DP, is nonetheless typically considerably more liberal than I, to say the least.

Is that not enough for you?

Billo_Really

It wasn't that long ago that the IAEA stated (with certainty) that they were satisfied Iran's nuclear program had not been weaponized. In fact, they said this was no longer an issue (in their eyes). Now we have this corroborating NIE.

In contrast, all this time, we have Bush and Co., being briefed on a daily basis, constantly talking about WWIII.

Do the math!