So which do you trust most Vince — the intelligence professionals

You mean the CIA that your sweet lord BJ gutted to the point of “bankruptcy”? The agency which has nobody in Iran and had nobody in Iraq, nobody in Berlin (where the 9/11 hijackers plotted), and had only 3 people in Indonesia (the largest Muslim country) etc. etc. etc. Are those the intelligence professionals of which you speak?

First, while the NIE has “high confidence” that the weaponization program was halted in 2004, it admits to having much less confidence that the program has not since been restarted.

Also, while Iran may not be pursuing the weaponization of uranium, it continues development of long-range ballistic missiles, and it continues to pursue uranium enrichment. While one leg of the nuclear programme may or may not be delayed, the other two are proceeding at speed.

Also, Iran remains the primary supplier of weapons, IEDs, and logistical support to terrorists operating in Iraq against U.S. soldiers.

So, even accepting the NIE report at face value, this is no time to get soft and cuddly with Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/931052.html

ANALYSIS: Iran laughing at U.S. lack of nuclear intelligence

By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Adm. Mike McConnell

The noise that was heard last night in Tehran, according to credible reports, was a hearty Persian laugh after looking at the U.S. intelligence’s website. The unclassified document that director of National Intelligence, Adm. Mike McConnell published, titled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” as a laundered version that faithfully represents the greatest secrets collected by the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence services, can appropriately be called “much evaluation on no intelligence.”

The document’s eight pages, which include embarrassing instructions on how to differentiate between different yet related terms (“it is possible,” “it may be so,” “one must not remove from the equation,” and “it’s reasonable to assume”), enable the Ayatollas’ nuclear and operations officials and the heads of the Revolutionary Guards to reach this soothing conclusion – from their point of view: The Americans have no understanding of what is really happening in Iran’s nuclear program. They have no solid information, they have no high-level agents and they have nothing more than a mix of guesswork and chatter. The dissemblance and concealment have succeeded, and the real dispute is not between Washington and Tehran, but within the U.S. administration itself.

…

The CIA is so angry with Bush, it seems, that it is ready to go to great lengths in order to help another president. Not Ahmadinejad, God forbid, but the next president in Washington. The result is likely to be the opposite: Higher Iranian militancy along with Bush and Cheney’s determination to act – regardless of what the intelligence agencies say.

I dont know why our govt seems so inept but reallly… we’re clueless it seems.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/805.htm

Here is part of the transcript

Those (in Iran) who criticize us and claim that we should have only worked with the IAEA do not know that at that stage – that is, in August 2003 – we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project, so it could be operational

The regime adopted a twofold policy here: It worked intensively with the IAEA, and it also conducted negotiations on international and political levels. The IAEA gave us a 50-day extension to suspend the enrichment and all related activities. But thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan.

We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.

[...]

Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.

Host: Mr. Musavian, there is a point that our viewers might find interesting – the comparison between Iran’s nuclear activity dossier and North Korea’s.

[...]

There is a belief that if we adopted the North Korean model, we could have stood much stronger against the excessive demands of America and Europe.

[...]

Musavian: During these two years of negotiations, we managed to make far greater progress than North Korea. North Korea’s most important achievement had to do with security guarantees. We achieved the same thing a year ago in the negotiations with the Europeans. They agreed to give us international guarantees for Iran’s security, its national rule, its independence, non-intervention in its internal affairs, its national security, and not invading it.

=============

The Iranians are playing the State Dept. the UN and the EU for fools.

That includes fools like KY.

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/12/03/the_great_intelligence_scam.php

The Great Intelligence Scam
[snip]

The most interesting part of the “Estimate” is of course its political and policy implications, which National Security Adviser Steven Hadley was quick to spell out. In his view, and in that of many political leaders and pundits, if Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, there is no great urgency to move against the mullahs.

And indeed, those “intelligence professionals” were very happy to take off their analytical caps and gowns and put on their policy wigs: “Although the officials as a rule, respecting the norms of their craft, declined to offer policy prescriptions based on their findings, the most senior official present did cite the finding that the Iranians are susceptible to international pressure and say that such pressure should “continue” as a way to “allow IAEA to have significant visibility into the program.”

This sort of blatant unprofessionalism is as common in today’s Washington as it is unworthy of a serious intel type, and I think it tells us a lot about the document itself. The “Key Findings” published yesterday address the obvious question: why would the Iranians abandon a program that had been in the works ever since the late 1980s? The IC replies: because the Iranians are rational, and they respond to international pressure. They shut down the program because the pressure was too great. They couldn’t take the risk of even more pain from the international community.

At this point, one really has to wonder why anyone takes these documents seriously. How can anyone in his (there was no female name on the document, nor was any woman from the IC present at the press briefing yesterday) right mind believe that the mullahs are rational? Has no one told the IC about the cult of the 12th Imam, on which this regime bases its domestic and foreign policies? Does not the constant chant of “Death to America” mean anything? I suppose not, at least not to the deep thinkers who wrote this policy document.

And as for Iran’s delicate sensitivity to international pressure, just a few days ago, the European ‘foreign minister’ Javier Solana was on the verge of tears when he admitted he had been totally unable to get the Iranians to come clean on their uranium enrichment program, even though he had told them that more sanctions were in the works. Yet, according to the IC, this program–neatly described in a footnote to the “Estimate” as “Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment—really doesn’t have anything to do with nuclear weapons. But if that is so, why are the Iranians so doggedly hiding it from UN inspectors?

This document will not stand up to serious criticism, but it will undoubtedly have a significant political impact, since it will be taken as confirmation of the view that we should not do anything mean to the mullahs. We should talk to them instead. And that’s just what the Estimate says:

…some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might–if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible–prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.

Incredibly, the authors of the document claim they can prove all this: “The impact of international pressure is beyond dispute, the officials said, a “cause-and-effect” relationship backed up by an ‘evidentiary trail.’ “

But any good student who has taken Psych 101 will tell you that it’s nigh unto impossible to determine someone else’s intentions, especially when presented by “analysts” who think that Ayatollah Khamenei and President Rafsanjani are as rational as the rest of us. This is demeaning to the Iranian tyrants–for whom their faith is a matter of ultimate significance–and insulting to our leaders, who should expect serious work from the IC instead of this bit of policy advocacy masquerading as serious intelligence.

1) The US Government just declared Iran’s nuclear program on hold — as of 2003. Question: how the heck can neo-cons start a war with Iran now, when they can’t even trump up a reason? Let’s discuss…

[Do you trust intelligence reports when they say what you want (Iran doesn't have a nuclear program), but blame Bush when they say what you don't (that Iraq did have WMDs)? Just wondering. --Dan]

2) The Chavez administration of Venezuela, assumed (by all of us, self included) to be close to iron-fisted dictatorial status, just lost an election — and admitted it??? Let’s discuss…

On a day when at least two strong assumptions crumble, where’s the post? Where’s the chatter? Discuss…

Me too. I guess the “gratuitous insult” was when he dared ask when they were going to raise taxes.

And I’m laughing about the factoid comments. I see plenty of right-wingers hanging onto the tiniest shred of “proof” for their position in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrarary. Laughing.

True that.

My thought is that conservatives are naturally skeptical of any source that makes a sweeping conclusion with scant supporting evidence or which is backed with (mostly) anecdotal examples. (i.e. man-made global warming.)

Modern liberals are “feelings” based and find their comfort in numbers. They rely on “useful” polls and quoting one another.

Ergo: Modern liberals search for aid and comfort while conservatives are looking for the facts.

http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2007/12/are-liberals-less-liberal-as-media.html

Are Liberals Less Liberal As Media Consumers?

Here’s something we need to investigate further. While researching a major post on Political Correctness, I have run across a study on the web site of the Pew Research for the People and the Press. This study, “sorts voters into homogeneous groups based on values, political beliefs, and party affiliation.” It then looks at various aspects of their behavior and, using survey results. presents statistical evidence and analysis. It’s a big study with a lot of interesting ideas threaded through it. I was enjoying reading through it and was thoroughly sidetracked for a day or so as I read it. One thing jumped out at me and I wanted to pass it on. Second Draft needs to take a hard look at this.

[snip]

I totaled up the percentages for each of the media cited as main sources of information by each political type. This should give a rough measure of how broad a range of information sources the average subject in each group is accustomed to using.

Here are the numbers I came up with:

Social Conservatives 269
Pro-Government Conservatives 264
Conservative Democrats 262
Upbeats 256
Disadvantaged Democrats 256
Enterprisers 253
Bystanders 242
Disaffecteds 239
Liberals 230

It may have meaning or not (certainly there are methodological questions that would have to be addressed) but the numbers are tantalizing. According to these numbers, Liberals are at the very bottom of the scale for media variety. This implies that, as a group, they tend to draw on a thinner variety of information sources.

On the other hand, the largest conservative typology (Social Conservatives) has a media variety index that is almost 20% (16.955) higher than that of the liberals.

It is also interesting that Liberals rank highest for Internet usage. Anyone reading this post knows very well that, between search engines and link sharing with friends and colleagues, when you read and explore on the internet you are mainly pursuing sources that you agree with.

So, it makes me wonder if what many of us think might be provable; that conservatives tend to look at more possibilities before making up their minds and liberals tend to stick their index fingers into their ears and shout “La, La, La, La” when they come up against information that does not confirm their preconceived ideas.

This is the LA Times, the “L” stands for Liberal. Several years ago they had 2800 subscriptions canceled because of their anti-Isreal position!