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.