I have already linked to Fore Left's reaction:
...we saw one of the weirdest attacks in modern history over the eastern Syrian desert in the end of summer with Israeli jets and special forces crushing something out there. That we still don't know precisely what is itself high evidence it was something major, perhaps deal-altering. Perhaps one of the sticks in the carrot bag?
Then, we have the Islamic Republic News Agency's response:
Government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said on Wednesday that the report released by US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) put an end to the dispute over Iranian nuclear program.
He told reporters on the sidelines of Conference of Judiciary Chiefs of the Islamic Countries that it is a confession on the part of the US administration that they wasted the time of the international community for political objectives by bringing up unfounded allegations against Iranian nuclear program.
No story like this can be complete without HateBush.Com's countless different ways to say it's all Bush's fault, and how he lied. Here's one title of one post, there are many others like it (but this one is especially funny):
White House Reveals Bush Lied: Was Told In August Iran’s Nuclear Program ‘May Be Suspended’
And now, there's John Bolton's response:
All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.
Two of these reactions are opinions put forth by people that have no agenda, rather they are thinkers that seek to put forth a possible explanation. The other two are political propaganda pieces that have a specific agenda.
Who you choose to believe indicates whether you have the ability to put forth your own theories or merely rely on scripted material that others think for you. It may very well be that the two thinkers here are wrong, but they may not be. The point is, one can fully expect the responses from the two propaganda pieces, they are similar to most responses they put out in response to events that have deeper meaning, than what normally appears on the surface. The other two are from careful thought processes, completely devoid of a predetermined desired outcome.
There are things we may never know about why this report now contradicts what has been the conventional wisdom, concerning Iran's nuclear program. I have some thoughts, but I don't always articulate them here. I have many possible scenarios that have run through my head of late, but I will save them for another day.
For now, you can buy into these reactions or you can come up with your own. But, I caution everyone not to buy into sources that have specific objectives of steering your thoughts into a ditch that has been dug and re-dug, many times over. Analytical thinking is a healthy thing, but robotic acceptance of thoughts that are intended for mind control, is anything but.
Update:
Here is a poll indicating the percentage of Americans that think Iran has stopped nuclear program. Evidently, not a lot of people aren't buying the report.
3 comments:
Here's how the analysis of NIE's in general goes when you are a far-left moron (in high-pitched screech):
If the intelligence indicates our enemies are dangerous and getting more so, it's a lie lie lie perpretrated by the neocons and the military-industrial complex! If the intelligence indicates our enemies aren't as dangerous as we once thought, then of course it's all true true true and this proves that Bush was lying about the threat to bring us to war!!!! Ahhhh!!!! Pass the bong!!!
Okay.
Now, if you're clear-headed, here's your reasoning:
1. Who knows what to believe? Intelligence gathering is an inexact science. The Mossad says we have it all wrong, and their intelligence seems to be better than our's. And as Mr. Bolton points out, perhaps this is just anti-Bush people in the intelligence community giving him a swift kick in the balls.
2. Assuming this last report is true, we are 4 years late on the info. So, will we have to wait another 4 years to find out what they are doing now? Have the iranians de-mothballed their nukes since 2003?
3. Assuming this report is true, the Iranians did indeed have a nuclear weapons program and have been proven to be complete liars in total violation of their treaty obligations. Where is the mothballed program so that IAEA can inspect and demolish?
4. Assuming this last report is correct and that nothing has changed since 2003, doesn't this prove that the pressure we have been exerting has worked? And doesn't it also mean that Ahmadinejad has been reigned in by the more moderate forces in Tehran? And therefore shouldn't we give credit to the administration for accomplishing something? And shoudn't we also continue along with a policy that appears to be working?
Anyway, I'm preaching to the choir here, but I know that there are at least a few permanently angry left-wing loonies who lurk, so at least this comment might help someone.
//but I know that there are at least a few permanently angry left-wing loonies who lurk, so at least this comment might help someone.//
Or not.
Add Cheney's comments to the mix, which were far from warmongering, and the fact the Europeans are still advocating carrot/stick if you'd like to get really confused.
Surely the Iranians are also confused by this.
Post a Comment