Letters to the Editor
-
@ paulpsd7
You said: "Virtue, your point seems to be that because the NIE on Iraq was wrong, therefore all NIEs must be presumed wrong."
No, actually, I said that they MAY or May NOT be wrong. Intelligence is speculative and subject to error, as was the NIE report on WMDs. Which is why we shouldn't accept findings from the intelligence community at face value as we did before. We certainly don't need another grand mistake.
You said: "I'm betting that in your case, this only applies to NIEs that that you find disappointing, such as the very unwelcome news that you MAY NOT get to put a yellow ribbon on your car for the troops fighting in Iran."
How you've leap to the incredible conclusion that I'm somehow itching to invade Iran, I really find baffling.
You said: "First, you refer to "the NIE" as if it were some single source of information that lacks credibility."
Actually, I refer to the NIE as "the folks in the intelligence community who put this report together" in my seventh paragraph. I understand it's a consensus.
You said: "And the confidence level is high"
So was the NIE report on WMDs.
You said: "Bush Admin partisans (Cheney, Wolfawitz, Rumsfeld and other PNAC conspirators) actively worked on this intel and cooked the books." (BTW, it’s spelt Wolfowitz.)
That's speculative, unless you can source some documentation. And you can't because it doesn't exist. The NIE report on WMDs was part of a worldwide intelligence failure. If the Bush Administration "cooked the books” then so did France, Germany and a host of other countries. And that's rather unlikely.
You said: "However, because you value War Against Country X more than you value national security and sane foreign policy..."
Again, a stupendous leap to yet another fantastic conclusion -- that I am pro-war.
You said: "Right. I mean, it's not like this has ever happened before, has it?"
I agree. It HAS happened before. Which is why I said, "Democrats SHOULD be doing is scrutinizing the living hell out of this new report."
Bye.