Now that the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate has stated quite unequivocally that Iran doesn't seem to have a nuclear weapons program, it behooves us to ask just how Canada's neo-cons are going to spin this. And, by God, we have a talking point (all emphasis added):
Intelligence, Or Lack Thereof
We are all familiar with the argument about the "lapses in intelligence" that culminated in the invasion of Iraq. Because of this huge mistake, the argument goes, how can we ever have faith in intelligence reports again, if a similar sort of crisis arises in the future?
No doubt those critics were predicting that the Americans would ultimately trot out something similarly dubious (or fabricated, if you’re inclined to believe that) with respect to Iran’s nuclear program. So I’m very, very interested to hear what those same critics have to say about US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons.
Did the Americans get it right this time? Or should we be equally suspicious of this report? I can’t wait to hear how we square this circle.
Quite right, Aaron -- given that the early intelligence on Iraq was filtered, massaged, politicized and "stovepiped" straight to the White House where it was subsequently mangled, butchered and outright fabricated, that's clearly exactly equivalent to a National Intelligence Estimate that is the result of 16 independent intelligence agencies pooling their best results, while resisting the pressure from the Bush administration to sanitize it to their liking.
Yes, Aaron -- those are clearly equivalent situations and, for the life of me, I don't know how anyone could distinguish between the two of them.
P.S. For the hard of thinking, that was sarcasm. It's what we do here.
UPPITY DATE: Apparently, Aaron's position of "Well, they were wrong before so why should we trust them this time?" is all the rage. Give the neo-cons credit -- at least they're consistent some of the time.
24 comments:
Did the Americans get it right this time? Or should we be equally suspicious of this report? I can’t wait to hear how we square this circle.
What an odd statement...is he really suggesting that we can determine the truth purely through reason and discussion rather than, say, examining evidence?
And if the NIE had reached the opposite conclusion on Iran, would you be signing the same tune then then, CC? Or you ti-guy?
Yeah, exactly.
Gira! Gira! Gira!
Iran hasn't had a nuclear weapons program since 2003, the year they shoved Valerie Plame out into the cold. What nonsense. I, for one, am confident we cannot believe them this time.
But allow me to point out that my original and consistent take on Valerie is that Joe Wilson is a red herring. This liberal CIA bitch Valerie absolutely refused to support the program on Iraq. She was the one who was supposed to be undercover, tracking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and in Iran. She knew what the President wanted for Iraq and refused to give it to him. What do you suppose she was telling The President in 2003 about Iran's WMD?
Libruls complain The President shot himself in the foot when he outed Valerie cuz shortly thereafter, they really needed intelligence on Iran's weapons of mass destruction. Can you believe it? A complete and obdurate failure of truthiness. Now, because of this leak — and maybe, just maybe the figuring out that Pakistan already "about 50" warheads, ready to lock & load as as soon as Brother Osama takes over the rest of the country — the whole invasion of Iran and the only hope of saving 2008 for the GOP is in jeopardy.
Well, Aaron, let's think about this using logic, shall we?
Scenario 1: Bush administration desperately wants to invade Iraq, and wants rationale. Lo and behold, "intelligence" suggests that Iraq has dangerous WMDs. Whoo hoo! Invasion! Somewhat later, sheepish faces all around when it turns out that proof of WMDs was complete crap, and was invented out of whole cloth by entire gang of pathological GOP liars.
Fast forward: Bush admin desperately wants to invade Iran, and wants rationale. Claims that Iran has dangerous nuclear weapons.
Now, Aaron (and, please, stay with me on this) if the NIE had conveniently "proved" that Iran "had" nuclear weapons, don't you think we would have had the right to be a wee bit skeptical? We wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand immediately, but you can be damned sure we would have remembered that we'd seen this bad movie before.
However, amazingly, regardless of how bad Bush and Cheney want to invade Iran, the very NIE they've been trying to suppress for months finally comes out, and reports that, whoops, doesn't look like nuclear weapons after all.
Now, Aaron, why don't you tell me that you can't connect those dots? Go ahead ... keep claiming that you don't see a difference between those two situations.
And that laughter? That's all of us.
Hmmm. Reminds me of how the WMDs that “everyone” supposedly knew were in Iraq before the war, upon later inspection were found to be “militarily insignificant” were quickly re-branded to still give them a menacing tone as if they had existed. The exact terminology used escapes me. Something about weapons “programs” with a potential for future development capabilities or some such artfully bureaucratic bit of clap-trap.
The key thing there was that they could have had WMDs even though they didn't actually and that the very possibility was somehow just as dangerous a threat as the actual WMDs themselves and therefore needed to be violently pre-empted from ever possibly materializing.
And if the NIE had reached the opposite conclusion on Iran, would you be signing the same tune then then, CC? Or you ti-guy?
Well, I think...
Yeah, exactly.
Hey! Don't interrupt!
What tune am I signing, Aaron?
Maybe you haven't been following too closely, but I'm always making the observation that truth is only as meaningful as whatever evidence you have at your disposal.
You know, an (unnamed) spokesman for the government under Chrétien remarked that when the Canadian government asked the Americans what proof they had to support the casus belli against Iraq, the American government only offered to give them PowerPoint Presentations. It's likely that understanding of evidence (and suspicion of documentation lacking such things) that kept Canada out of that war.
If you have doubts about the latest NIE, then I suggest you get off your smug arse and produce some evidence that argues against it.
I don't think the World needs one more righty propagandist to create doubt and suspicion.
This liberal CIA bitch Valerie
Must be an example of that vaunted conservative 'civility' all the kids are talking about nowadays.
I, for one, agree with Aaron. We can't be sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. Therefore, the USA should invade Iran immediately, just in case. Due to, you know, the danger. Of Iran.
That's where you're going with this, isn't it, Aaron? Or did you neglect to actually have a point in mind when you wrote your little post there?
(I can't wait to see the new Downing Street memo, which reveals that the Brits knew Iran had nukes but the Americans still wouldn't invade...)
I would submit that avoiding hostilities based on dubious intelligence makes a lot more sense than initiating hostilities based on dubious intelligence. In the former case, you can always continue to search for and review evidence. In the latter case, hundreds of thousands are dead and millions are displaced base on crap. So I really don't feel any compulsion to "square this circle."
Or did you neglect to actually have a point in mind when you wrote your little post there?
We're all supposed to assume that the drive-by is the only point L'il Aaron ever has.
Ti-Guy — His "Yeah, exactly" capped everything he as to say on the matter. Anyone's prattling after that is meaningless. That's the way he works. He doesn't care in the LEAST little bit what you think. It's irrelevant.
M@/pogge
My point isn’t complicated, but it seems to have gone over your head. Its this: in this instance, the “proof” that skeptics wanted to see would have meant it was already too late to invade. Case in point: North Korea.
The problem with invading is you’ll never know what would’ve actually happened if you didn’t. And the problem with not invading is, well...just ask the people who didn’t intervene in 1930s Germany. Or the Balkans. Or Rwanda. Or the Sudan, etc etc.
red tory: yup!
red tory: yup!
Then why bother, L'il Aaron?
The problem with invading is you’ll never know what would’ve actually happened if you didn’t. And the problem with not invading is, well...just ask the people who didn’t intervene in 1930s Germany. Or the Balkans. Or Rwanda. Or the Sudan, etc etc.
...so when are you enlisting? I'll send you a going-away gift basket.
You fucking little shit.
alw, what about the belgians? they have a moslem population because of the terrible islamification of old europe and all. and they are a sophisticated nation with an industrial base capable of producing all manner of weapons. holy shit. best to invade before we find out that we're wrong. they don't even speak English there, some fucked hybrid of dutch and french and they might even be falling apart as a culture because of the rift in their multicultural population.
so when the war mongers try and suppress information that doesn't support their pet war, we should believe that their clanging on the killing drum is true because they have such a great track record of honesty? fuck. if you look at what the bush/cheney gang promotes, turn 180 degrees and see what's there, you are far more likely to looking into the direction of truth. it wasn't the intelligence community that should be getting the shaft here it is the villains that took the data and twisted it into lies.
and who is doing the sock puppet on seer?
Aaron — Not that you care — as you so succinctly confirmed — but I can’t tell you how utterly perverse your logic is in this instance. Well, I could tell you, but you don’t care, so why should I bother wasting my time? Hope you don’t come out on the short end of that “shoot now, ask questions later” stratagem one of these days.
Alas, no one is doing the sock puppet on Seer.
When they first shoved Valerie Plame out into the cold, the conventional wisdom was that they did so to retaliate against Ms. Plame's husband ,Joe Wilson, who had published an op-ed in The New York Times reporting that he, Joe Wilson, personally had gone to Niger to check out the story that Iraq was attempting to get yellow cake from Niger, and that he, Joe Wilson, had found to story to be false. I opined at the time that Valerie had done more than enough by herself to bring the Bush/Cheney anger down upon her.
At the time of her 2003 outing, Valerie Plame was in charge of at least one intelligence entity that was responsible for tracking weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. At this time, Valerie Plame had had actual knowledge that “the program” was to invade Iraq and to garner support for the program by telling the American people that they risked nuculer attack from Sadam Hussein if we did not get Sadam first. Valerie knew and understood what was expected of her. She refused to provide conforming intelligence. In other words, Valerie Plame was not your "team player." You do not need Joe Wilson, however pesky he may have been, to explain Valerie's outing. Therefore, Occamites, such as your humble Seer, reject the theory that Valerie's outing was a "curve shot."
Now comes word that in 2003 — the year they shoved Valerie out in the cold — Iran had stopped work on nuculer weapons. Who do you suppose first told them that their next target had stopped work on nuculer weapons and when do you think she told them? (This is information I didn't have when I first articulated the "direct shot" theory.)
If you buy the theory that they just figured out the day before yesterday that Iran had stopped its work on nuculer weapons in 2003, you cannot buy my "direct shot" theory. Nor can you buy my “direct shot” theory if you believe they first learned in August, 2007, that Iran had stopped work on nuculer weapons in 2003. Nor can you buy the “direct shot” theory if you believe they first learned about Iran’s nuculer weapons program in January, 2007, when the current National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) attained its final form.
Now let’s stop and take a breath here. Do you really believe that they had no clue that Iran had stopped work on nuculer weapons until January, 2007, when American intelligence agencies finally had established to a mathematical certainty that Iran had stopped nuculer work in 2003? Or do you think, maybe, there might have been some back-and-forth on this business between the White House and the intelligence agencies before the White House stopped pushing back? If so, when do you think the back-and-forth may have started? Seeing that this was Valerie’s game?
In summary, Valerie compounded her disloyalty on the issue of Iraq by means of immediately bucking the program on Iran.
For Dick & George, this is a high stakes game. The issue isn’t when they knew Iran had stopped work on nuculer weapons, the issue is why they suddenly let the cat out of the bag.
My point isn’t complicated, but it seems to have gone over your head.
Your point hasn't gone over my head. It's just idiotic. The debate you want to have is bogus. The onus of proof is on those who want to initiate hostilities, not those who don't. And by the way, if American intelligence can't locate the Iranian weapons program, how would you know where to drop the bombs?
just ask the people who didn’t intervene in 1930s Germany...
But, but, but ... the Nazis!
seer thanks for the clarification, i misread the tone of your initial comment. occurs to me though that valerie on her own was just part of a larger equation. and absence of verity sure didn't stop dick'n'george from fibbing their way to iraq. if joe wilson was a red herring, he was one hell of an effective one. as a former ambassador and one who had faced down saddam, he had the profile to raise the temperature and he could go public. something his wife could not do.
given the style of the bushites, ignoring ms plame's contribution or shuffling her into some heinous detail would have been a simple deal. the fact of her loyalty meant that she would never go public while in the agency. they didn't have to pay her factual contribution any mind, they just had to massage the analysis. they didn't have real cause to go after her, let alone out her and expose all of the assets she was associated with in the field. that move smacked of anger, of spite...of cheney. i doubt it was just one thing or just another but the sum being greater than the parts.
The problem with invading is you’ll never know what would’ve actually happened if you didn’t.
The Bush administration claimed they knew exactly what would happen if they invaded Iraq -- greeted as liberators, WMDs would be found, no insurgency -- and they found out they were wrong. Why are you so willing to believe what they say about Iran, especially when it is so contrary to the reality in the NIE, as well as -- just as before the Iraq invasion -- contrary to the reality as perceived by pretty much everyone else on earth? (For examples, try googling Mohammed el Baradei, or the Downing Street Memo, or... well, reading any non-American news source would help.)
But the central problem is that your argument is post hoc reasoning based on some conveniently cherry-picked examples. If you can't see that, well, I guess we're done here.
Did the Americans get it right this time? Or should we be equally suspicious of this report? I can’t wait to hear how we square this circle.
I make it a point to always be suspicious of my government. It makes things a lot simpler to just assume that anything they say is bullshit.
What this sounds to me though is that it's ok to listen to NIE's when they tell us what we want to hear but we should be suspicious of them when they don't. All the rhetoric being used to justify the coming war with Iran ( which I believe will happen unless Bush and Cheney is impeached ), came from other intelligence documents. So it's ok to believe all the stuff to justify another $2 trillion dollar invasion and occupation but when the document says you're wrong, then you can't listen to it. Apparently my government is made up of 5 year olds. I feel SO much safer!
just ask the people who didn’t intervene in 1930s Germany...
Where does this begin and end? What are the criteria for "intervening" — a.k.a. "invading"? Something "we" sufficiently dislike? Well, there are other "wes" out there with their own list of things they don't like.
What if China decides to "intervene" in Venezuela because they don't like the results of the recent referendum, and declare it a sure sign of the "replutocratization" of South America? (If they can't do it today, they'll be able to soon...)
What if Russia decides to beat the US to the punch in Iran and "intervenes" first? I would imagine Iran's doing something that doesn't jibe with the Russians...
Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. No one knew in the 1930s the full scope of what was about to unfold in Germany. The flipside of that is all the countries that seem to be doing alarming things, but then move on, without being invaded. The question comes down to, how far down do you go? The US has been entirely willing to "intervene" in countries where elections don't give the "right" results, never mind having nuclear weapons programs, abandoned or otherwise.
I think that ultimately, the fact that Iran is no longer trying to build nuclear weapons is not important. Supposing they were? Something to keep in mind is every nation on Earth has the same right to self-defence as the United States, or Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel... These countries, above all others, have lost the right to demand other nations not arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Some of them nearly brought about the end of the world in 1962, but yet they would presume to lecture others on the matter? If they had the courage of their convictions, they'd dismantle their own first. But they don't. Why? Their national security, of course.
Now, why is the United States, which actually has used nuclear weapons to attack another country, entitled to this manner of self defence, but Iran is not?
lone primate:
Because you can't un-invent nuclear weapon's thats why.
It's a well-worn argument that "well, if we can have them, why can't they?" To accept that logic you have to accept that every regime on the planet is equally responsible.
Case and point: as you point out, the Americans are the only ones to have ever used them. Yet they never have since, in spite of countless opportunities, and since the collapse of the USSR, very little in the way of deterrence.
If you are going to treat every regime's geopolitical grievances as being all of equal merit, well, we can stop the discussion right here then.
I don't believe "my guys" are always right/good, and "the other guys" are always wrong/evil, but at least I believe such things exist and the latter should be guarded against.
The bottom line is that, whatever the sins of the USA, whether or not Iran is a potential problem in the medium term is a completely separate issue. And that's really what this is about.
Dear Loan Prime Rate:
There was a good and sufficient reason nobody invaded Germany in the 1930's. They had a Democrat president in the 1930's.
Wars started by Democrats are bad wars; only wars started by Republicans are good wars.
See what I'm saying?
Post a Comment