Gates, neo- s, Repugs on counter-attack

[boutons_]

"Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents"

The wildly hyped "proof" of Saddam/WTC, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WMD was all total bull , the "no occupation" lie, etec, etc so dubya's Exec has NO credibility now. Not my fault!

"they want to be the regional power in the Middle East."

proof? (and don't quote their bull president, who doesn't run the country nor make geo-strategic decisions or start wars)

It's the USA invading and occupying the M/E to be the totally foreign, alien regional power causes severe and totally understandable paranoia and defensiveness in Iran and elsewhere. How would you if you were a MX or VZ if the Chinese invaded TX or AL to grab the oil? Would you think MX or VZ might be only China's shopping list?

The US has the at ude that the USA can do whatever the it wants and wherever, and nobody better ing react, esp if you have non-white skin.

[xrayzebra]

"Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents"

The wildly hyped "proof" of Saddam/WTC, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WMD was all total bull , the "no occupation" lie, etec, etc so dubya's Exec has NO credibility now. Not my fault!

"they want to be the regional power in the Middle East."

proof? (and don't quote their bull president, who doesn't run the country nor make geo-strategic decisions or start wars)

It's the USA invading and occupying the M/E to be the totally foreign, alien regional power causes severe and totally understandable paranoia and defensiveness in Iran and elsewhere. How would you if you were a MX or VZ if the Chinese invaded TX or AL to grab the oil? Would you think MX or VZ might be only China's shopping list?

The US has the at ude that the USA can do whatever the it wants and wherever, and nobody better ing react, esp if you have non-white skin.

The want to be a regional power in the ME. But don't
quote their President. Prove they don't.

[JoeChalupa]

Doesn't the US get the majority of our oil from Canada and other countries other than the middle east?

[01Snake]

Doesn't the US get the majority of our oil from Canada and other countries other than the middle east?

THESE are the top ten countries that the U.S. imports from:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil

(quick google search...don't hold me to it )

[BradLohaus]

^Here are some new oil import numbers.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

Are we talking about fighting a war to stop Iran from becoming the regional power in the ME? Isn't the US the current regional power in the ME?

Fighting a war on the other side of the world to prevent a nation in a resource-rich region from threatening our power over the region - well that's an empire for sure.

[xrayzebra]

^Here are some new oil import numbers.

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

Are we talking about fighting a war to stop Iran from becoming the regional power in the ME? Isn't the US the current regional power in the ME?

Fighting a war on the other side of the world to prevent a nation in a resource-rich region from threatening our power over the region - well that's an empire for sure.

Actually, I am not sure we are the "lone" regional power.
I think you would have to look closely at China and
Russia with some European nations closely following.

And about oil for us alone, I don't think that was our
concern. It was about the free flow of oil to all who
needed or wanted it. Seems like the figure of about
10 or 15 percent of our oil comes from that region.
But I could be wrong.

[Extra Stout]

"Direct military aggression is not the only threat a rogue nation presents"

The wildly hyped "proof" of Saddam/WTC, Saddam/AQ, Saddam/WMD was all total bull , the "no occupation" lie, etec, etc so dubya's Exec has NO credibility now. Not my fault!

"they want to be the regional power in the Middle East."

proof? (and don't quote their bull president, who doesn't run the country nor make geo-strategic decisions or start wars)

It's the USA invading and occupying the M/E to be the totally foreign, alien regional power causes severe and totally understandable paranoia and defensiveness in Iran and elsewhere. How would you if you were a MX or VZ if the Chinese invaded TX or AL to grab the oil? Would you think MX or VZ might be only China's shopping list?

The US has the at ude that the USA can do whatever the it wants and wherever, and nobody better ing react, esp if you have non-white skin.

If you actually opened your mind and read a foreign policy journal, or a periodical like the Atlantic, you might obtain a less puerile and dualistic understanding of these issues. Interpreting every event through the lens of the United States' being the root of all evil is no more intelligent or mature than interpreting every event through the lens of perfect U.S. altruism.

Iran's goal of regional hegemony is pragmatic, ideological, and self-serving at the same time. From a pragmatic standpoint, Iran seeks both to eliminate the meddling influence of Western powers, and to protect itself against aggression from competing Arab powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. From an ideological standpoint, Iran views itself as the vanguard of the Islamic Revolution, and believes that it should hold sway in the affairs of Muslim nations. Persian nationalism comes into play here, as does Iran's Shi'a faith. From a self-serving standpoint, Iran is well aware of the strategic importance of the Middle East due to its material wealth (i.e., oil), and would like to exert greater economic influence over its neighbors in order to exploit that wealth, for the personal enrichment of its leaders.

Iran's means to achieve that end include its proxies such as Hezbollah, its highly-skilled intelligence service, its rhetoric against Israel, its management of its oil resources, and its nuclear program. The purpose of Iranian proxies and its intelligence service is to promote instability in its Middle Eastern rival nations in order to weaken them. The purpose of its anti-Israel campaign is to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim "street" in contrast to the perennial impotence of the Arab leaders. Part of Iran's oil strategy is to hoard as much of the revenue as the population will put up with in cash reserves and/or gold in order to further its plan of a Dar-al-Islam-wide dinar reserve currency to supplant the dollar and even the euro.

That brings us to their nuclear program, which serves these ends on several fronts. The nuclear program has wide support among Iranians. They view successful Iranian implementation of nuclear technology as a reinforcement of their national honor. If the mullahs were overthrown tomorrow, and Iran were to become a Jeffersonian democracy, it still would seek nuclear power. The use of nuclear power frees up additional oil for export, which serves Iran's oil strategy. It also would demonstrate to the Muslim street the advancement of Iran relative to the Arabs.

The weapons program serves further aims. It would place them on equal footing with Israel. It would provide deterrence against both Arab and Western interference in Iranian affairs. It would provide Iran leverage in regional affairs against the Arabs. It would allow their proxies, terrorist groups, and spies greater la ude to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors without fear of retaliation.

Iran's nuclear ambitions pose threats as follows: 1)They are a potential existential threat to Israel. 2) They increase the possibility of terrorists' obtaining a nuclear weapon. 3) They likely will compel Saudi Arabia and Egypt to pursue nuclear weapons as well, further decreasing stability in the Middle East. These concerns are common to all Western nations, not just the United States, which is why there is multilateral and not unilateral pressure on Iran.

I look forward to your pithy reply consisting primarily of obscenities.

[Extra Stout]

Doesn't the US get the majority of our oil from Canada and other countries other than the middle east?

Oil is a fungible commodity.

Besides, Europe gets much of its oil from the Middle East, and resource security in the EU serves America's economic interest.

National interest aside, somebody is going to buy that oil, and American oil companies would like a cut of those proceeds, so they will pay good money to get candidates sympathetic to their interests elected.

[BradLohaus]

Actually, I am not sure we are the "lone" regional power.
I think you would have to look closely at China and
Russia with some European nations closely following.

That’s true, but out of the US, Russia and China we are the biggest and the only one that isn’t actually in or close to the region geographically - which requires big military bases and support for allied regional dictators, which upsets the people living in those countries, which stokes the fires of terrorism, causing terror attacks to which the response is more war, requiring more military bases, and… I think I see why none of us will live to see the end of the war on terror.

And about oil for us alone, I don't think that was our
concern. It was about the free flow of oil to all who
needed or wanted it.

Well that sure is nice of the Pentagon. If that’s the case then we should stop doing that until other countries start pulling their weight – our costs are too high and they are benefiting unfairly off of us. But I don’t understand what the “free flow of oil” stuff means. If we don’t support the Saudi dictators and fight wars to take out other dictators, then the flow of oil out of that region will slow down or stop? I don’t follow that. It’s about control over that free flow, not the existence of it.

Seems like the figure of about
10 or 15 percent of our oil comes from that region.
But I could be wrong.

We imported about 10, 260 barrels of oil in Sept. ’07.
Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined imported about 2,000 barrels.

So those 2 countries alone account for 20% of our oil imports, which is a little more than what Canada represents.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Strengthening of multilateral agreements among the Gulf nations themselves? YES.

What exactly is the problem here?

I think the problem is that given the track record of the administration, multilateral agreements among gulf nations can essentially mean us squeaking out more sanctions with moderate euro support + absence of a DISagreement from our gulf allies.

If they truly are gunning for genuine multilateral agreements regarding a peaceful Iranian nuclear program, then its high time the administration and its lackies open their eyes and begin actively engaging the bigger players who essentially want what we want, mainly China. But I don't see the bullheadedness factor allowing us to do that. We're alienating major players at the worst possible time, when we should be working with them.

[boutons_]

As I said, Iran isn't crazy. It won't attack our of fear of retaliation.

Proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah? A bunch of raghead terrorists with conventional arms are going to de-stablize non-Israel m/e countries?

Just how does Iran provide to terrorists the entire logistics of nukes AND their delivery systems, which NIE rumor says they won't have for several years?


Terrorists are crazy suicidal mother ters, but what terrorists know how to run a missile system capable of delivering a nuke with any accuracy? Put it in a plane and fly over the target? As if Israel and US didn't have radar systems covering all the M/E airspace nor the jets to bring down a su ious nuke-carrying plane.

[xrayzebra]

Terrorists are crazy suicidal mother ters, but what terrorists know how to run a missile system capable of delivering a nuke with any accuracy? Put it in a plane and fly over the target? As if Israel and US didn't have radar systems covering all the M/E airspace nor the jets to bring down a su ious nuke-carrying plane.

You mean like they don't make and fire missles now?
boutons, you live in a dream world. And people like
you really, really do make me really nervous. Why?
Because you cant see any further than your nose.
These suicidal ------------ terrorists as you refer to them
are not uneducated, stupid people. o, OBL, is
an Engineer.

[JoeChalupa]

You mean like they don't make and fire missles now?
boutons, you live in a dream world. And people like
you really, really do make me really nervous. Why?
Because you cant see any further than your nose.
These suicidal ------------ terrorists as you refer to them
are not uneducated, stupid people. o, OBL, is
an Engineer.

I concur. They are intelligent but choose to use if for evil rather than good.

[boutons_]

So you people have bought into the Repug/neo- politics of fear, all fear all the time.

So what action do you take against Iran, specifically?

And what do you do specifically with the Iranian/terrorist reaction?

And after that act/react situation, is the situation really any better?

Iraq and M/E stability are WORSE now than Feb 03.

NK supposedly had nukes, and could have, did?, sold them to terrorists, but dubya didn't invade or bomb NK. Why not? No oil? dubya was afraid on NK's nuke retaliation against SK?

How do you stop Iran from getting nukes, if it's so ing easy to transform domestic nukes into weapons AND their delivery systems?

And if Iran already has nukes, how do you stop them from using them or giving them away?

Kahn/PK gave away nuke secrets to several countries, and wasn't punished by PK. Why hasn't OBL obtained these nukes and bombed American bases somewhere?

Why haven't terrorists nuked Tel Aviv? Forget about nukes, why haven't terrorists sent non-nuke warhead missles into Israel or into even one of 800 US bases around the world?

We already know how badly Iraq turned out because dubya/ head/rummy totally failed/refused to foresee anything going wrong after May 03.

So let's hear the geo-political geniuses here tell us about the above questions.

[Extra Stout]

As I said, Iran isn't crazy. It won't attack our of fear of retaliation.

Proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah? A bunch of raghead terrorists with conventional arms are going to de-stablize non-Israel m/e countries?

Just how does Iran provide to terrorists the entire logistics of nukes AND their delivery systems, which NIE rumor says they won't have for several years?


Terrorists are crazy suicidal mother ters, but what terrorists know how to run a missile system capable of delivering a nuke with any accuracy? Put it in a plane and fly over the target? As if Israel and US didn't have radar systems covering all the M/E airspace nor the jets to bring down a su ious nuke-carrying plane.

Hezbollah has done a marvelous job of destabilizing Lebanon. You may remember they actually started a war with Israel recently which resulted in significant destruction of Lebanese infrastructure.

Hezbollah at that time had the capability to launch missiles into Israel, and did so with impunity.

You vastly underestimate the capabilities of these organized terror groups. Hezbollah and Hamas can operate at the level of a functioning government, and do. Hezbollah for years was the de-facto government in southern Lebanon. Hamas is the majority party in Palestine.

Iran's intelligence service is highly sophisticated, to the point that it infiltrated the White House in order to exaggerate the Niger yellowcake case against Saddam Hussein. At least one of the most outwardly anti-Iran advisors to the Bush Administration was possibly an Iranian mole. Iranian spies are all over the halls of power in the Middle East. They are not just a bunch of backwards camel jockeys. They are poor, but clever.

There are numerous delivery methods for nuclear weapons, especially ones with small yields, besides firing warheads from Tehran. The borders of Middle Eastern nations are often wild and porous. Iran was able to smuggle enough equipment into Syria that they actually could construct a facility Israel saw fit to target.

The latest NIE suggests that the application of pressure to Tehran has been effective to cause them to discontinue nuclear weapons development for the time being. The rational course of action would then be to continue to apply pressure to ensure they don't restart it. The rational course of action would then to operate as if the Ayatollah Khameini is going to be the same person with the same goals he has been and has had since 1989.

One foolish course of action would be pre-emptively to attack Iran because they might have the intention to proceed with their weapons program at some indeterminate point in the future. A even more foolish course of action, so foolish as to make the one proposing it a truly simian kind of idiot, would be to assume that Tehran actually has benign intentions, contrary to all evidence, and therefore to withdraw the multilateral pressure and attention placed upon them.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't buy into the politics of fear and there is no doubt in my mind that Cheney like to use it as often as possible. But the fact remains that Iran CAN and in my opinion, will at some time seek nuclear weapons. I feel that we do need to establish diplomatic relations and the Bush way of not talking to them is NOT the way to go. Communication is better than extermination.

[boutons_]

Lebanon has been a destabilized basket case for 25 years. A very weak, fatally divided govt and population, barely even a functioning country, giving Iranian proxies their opening. Lebanon was already weak, unstable without Iran/Syria making it worse. Bad example.

So, which other M/E country have Iranian proxies are able to, de-stabilize?

btw, Iraq was stable. dubya terrorized Iraq into instability. a heckuva job

The neo- s, specifically Hadley, absolutely refuse to talk to Iran, and have re-buffed initiatives from Iran via Germany to open talks.

[Extra Stout]

So you people have bought into the Repug/neo- politics of fear, all fear all the time.

There always have been threats to the security of the United States, and there will continue to be threats. It is the job of our military, intelligence, and diplomatic services to manage those threats. That is not the "politics of fear." It is the reality of a dangerous world.

The alternative to Bush/Cheney's pre-emptive wars of aggression for economic gain is not a worldwide group hug. It is not as though the United States could elect some kindhearted pacifist who promises not to meddle in other countries' affairs, and have the nations of the world respond by living in peace with one another forever more. There will always be bad actors out there. Hopefully in the future we won't have such a large concentration of them in our own executive branch.

So what action do you take against Iran, specifically?

You maintain multilateral pressure upon them. You empower international agencies like the IAEA to inspect their facilities. You do all the things that would have been done in Iraq had the goal actually been the prevention of WMD production rather than "energy resource security."

And what do you do specifically with the Iranian/terrorist reaction?

And after that act/react situation, is the situation really any better?

Since the correct course of action right now is not war, there should be no reason to expect a terrorist reaction. Iran is not stupid. They are insidious and clever, and also very patient.

Iraq and M/E stability are WORSE now than Feb 03.

That's a big reason why Cheney is not getting his way on Iran.

NK supposedly had nukes, and could have, did?, sold them to terrorists, but dubya didn't invade or bomb NK. Why not? No oil? dubya was afraid on NK's nuke retaliation against SK?

The solution to the NK crisis was getting several nations in East Asia to deal with North Korea, as opposed to the United States by itself. What ultimately got NK to start behaving was pressure from China.

How do you stop Iran from getting nukes, if it's so ing easy to transform domestic nukes into weapons AND their delivery systems?

It's not easy. It would take many years for them to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Therefore, you stop them by not imagining that they are really nice, peaceful, trustworthy people who can be ignored for several years.

And if Iran already has nukes, how do you stop them from using them or giving them away?

It's much easier not to let them get the nukes in the first place.

Kahn/PK gave away nuke secrets to several countries, and wasn't punished by PK. Why hasn't OBL obtained these nukes and bombed American bases somewhere?

It's not very easy to build a functioning nuclear reactor out of rocks in a cave.

Why haven't terrorists nuked Tel Aviv? Forget about nukes, why haven't terrorists sent non-nuke warhead missles into Israel or into even one of 800 US bases around the world?

Well, Hezbollah launched several hundred missiles into Israel in their recent war.

And, obviously, Tel Aviv has not been nuked because the people who would like to nuke Tel Aviv don't have nuclear weapons. However, it would be a particularly stupid fallacy to claim that because Tel Aviv has not disappeared in a mushroom cloud, there therefore must not be anybody who wishes to make that happen. Obviously there are.

We already know how badly Iraq turned out because dubya/ head/rummy totally failed/refused to foresee anything going wrong after May 03.

Rumsfeld lost his job, and Cheney is left trying to find ways to execute an end-run around the President, because he can't get his way. Daddy sent the pragmatists to take power away from the neo-cons.

So let's hear the geo-political geniuses here tell us about the above questions.

All answered.

[Extra Stout]

Lebanon has been a destabilized basket case for 25 years. A very weak, fatally divided govt and population, barely even a functioning country, giving Iranian proxies their opening. Lebanon was already weak, unstable without Iran/Syria making it worse. Bad example.

So, which other M/E country have Iranian proxies are able to, de-stabilize?

btw, Iraq was stable. dubya terrorized Iraq into instability. a heckuva job

The neo- s, specifically Hadley, absolutely refuse to talk to Iran, and have re-buffed initiatives from Iran via Germany to open talks.

Syria was involved in the Lebanese Civil War from the beginning. Under the Ottomans, Lebanon was part of "Greater Syria," and obviously the Muslims do not accept Lebanon's "confessional democracy." The Christians are supposed to be dhimmis who pay the jizya.

And obviously, continuing Iranian/Syrian involvement in Lebanon is preventing that country from stabilizing.

Iraq likewise is easy pickings for Iran because of our own actions.

Obviously, Iran's biggest remaining rival for power in the region is Saudi Arabia. The Iranians know it. The Saudis know it. One is Arab, the other Persian. One is Sunni, the other Shi'a. As one rises in power, it impinges upon the other. The two have done a dance around one another since 1979. Under Khomeini, the two were belligerent. Under Khameini, they established a detente. Since Ahmadinejad became President, they've become belligerent again. Rafsanjani has being making overtures to Riyadh to reestablish detente.

Obviously, long-term Iran would like to see the House of Saud weakened. There are numerous groups in Saudi Arabia seeking to overthrow its rulers. If they succeeded, they would end up fighting one another, and Iran would emerge out of the mess as the hegemon. So Iran has a history of helping out insurgent groups in Saudi Arabia. There was a well-publicized case in 2003.

Direct bilateral talks between the U.S. and Iran are not the best way to go. Rogue nations benefit from getting an "us-vs.-America" forum. Really, the key nation to getting Iran to behave is Russia.

[xrayzebra]

Stabilization. Which period do you want to take. The whole
region has been nothing but un-stablized since time began.
War, war and more war. But who in the world wants to look
at history.

Dan please take note.

[Extra Stout]

Stabilization. Which period do you want to take. The whole
region has been nothing but un-stablized since time began.
War, war and more war.* But who in the world wants to look
at history.

Dan please take note.

*Pax Romana and Pax Ottomana excepted.

[boutons_]

"un-stablized since time began"

so why TF is dubya there, if stability, which is a prerequisite of democracy, in Iraq?

exclusively for the oil

[balli]

Stabilization. Which period do you want to take. The whole
region has been nothing but un-stablized since time began.
War, war and more war. But who in the world wants to look
at history.

So what in the makes you so arrogantly confident that it's America's ing job to stabilize it? Especially by bringing even more war to the region as the means to your ultimate obtrusive end? Especially in Iran, whose populous has been one the most stable and un-dangerous groups of the entire region.

If you wanted to argue for increased stability in the Israeli/Palestine conflict (which everything is really about anyway) through peaceful diplomacy I could see your point, but to say we should bring war to Iran, to stabilize the entire region, is lunacy! How'd that work out in Iraq mother er (but who wants to look at history)? What an uneducated, vanilla argument you propogate.

[boutons_]

Some Republicans Question Iran Finding

December 12, 2007 09:54 PM EST |

WASHINGTON — Some Republicans in Congress are second-guessing a government intelligence report that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons program. They want a second opinion.

( like when head didn't like the Iraq/WMD/AQ intel prior to his Iraq fiasco? so he cherry picked the intel and hyped/lied the out of it? )

The National Intelligence Estimate, released last week, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen through at least the middle of this year. That reversed a key finding from a 2005 intelligence report, which said Iran was intently developing a nuclear bomb. An unclassified summary of the new report was released specifically to correct that impression.

The new report was received skeptically by some Republicans on Capitol Hill who believe Iran's nuclear program remains an immediate threat, and think the 2005 report is closer to the truth.

Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada plans to introduce legislation to create a bipartisan commission to produce an alternative report on the same intelligence.

( sorta like the truthiness of the emasculated 9/11 Commission? )

"We just see politics injected into this," said Tory Mazzola, Ensign's spokesman. "When it comes to national security we really need to remove politics. We're saying, let's take a second look."

( do you mean like the Iraq invasion and Mission Accomplished scheduled in the middle of a pres election year?

do you mean the Repug policy of "all fear, all the time" to obtain tax cuts for the rich? )

The proposed commission is based on similar review panels convened in the mid-1970s to reconsider the intelligence agencies' analysis of the Soviet Union, and an effort in the mid-1990s to reassess the threat of ballistic missiles to the United States.

Last week, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said at a committee hearing he does not trust the new findings.

( but the Repugs trusted all the lies the WH spewed before invading Iraq? )

"I'm not sure we have a good, clear signal of what's really happening inside Iran," he said. "We've got a very big batch of mixed signals."

( you mean sorta like before the Iraq invasion? when mixed signals were cherry picked to grab the oil? )

Twice in the last week, senior U.S. intelligence officials have been forced to defend what they consider the most rigorously reviewed National Intelligence Estimate they have produced.

Principal Deputy Director of Intelligence Donald Kerr issued a statement responding to "those questioning the analytic work and integrity" of the intelligence agencies. "We feel confident in our analytic tradecraft and resulting analysis in this estimate," he said.

And on Wednesday, a senior intelligence official told reporters that intelligence analysts are aware of the political tumult surrounding the report but don't worry about the political repercussions of their judgments. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was expanding on the official rebuttal.

Analysts focus on making certain their reports are sound, logical and based on reliable information, he said.

He contrasted the Iran National Intelligence Estimate with the flawed 2002 assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. That report was produced at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee in just a month.

( whoa! you mean head was able to get a bull NIE in one month so he could start his neo- oil grab war while bein able to call dubya a "war president" during an extremely close pres campaign? )

The Iran report was delayed by the intelligence agencies by more than a year and a half in order to review new intelligence and to take extra care to verify sources and consider alternative explanations for what analysts were seeing, he said.

National Intelligence Estimates are the consensus judgments of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies on key concerns. Between 15 and 20 are produced every year, and they go through multiple steps to check the validity of information and analysis.

In late 2002, then-CIA director George Tenet added another safety measure after the faulty Iraq report, which turned out to rely heavily on a single, questionable source. Tenet required those who collect intelligence to sit at the table with those who analyze it to explain who their sources were, the confidence they have in them, and whether their information can be corroborated.

( and as a result of his "safety measure", Tenet came out with his "slam dunk" on Iraq WMD! Give that boot-licking man .... a Medal of Freedom! )

"There is so much more synergy now between the collection agencies and the analytic side," the senior official said. "Everyone around the table is working with the same amount of information."

The estimates are also reviewed by outside experts who are given a one-day security clearance. Some are chosen specifically because they are known to have divergent views on what the key judgments say.

"We want to understand if we are victims of group-think in this analysis," he said.

( how about being victimes of bullying by head and of second-guessing by Rummy/Feith and their own Pentagon intel team? )

========

Face the facts, CIA/NSA/FBI, you've ed up totally on missing the fall of Soviet Union, both WTC attacks, WMD in Iraq, and you caved into head and the neo- before the Iraq war. That you caved in and then got blamed anyway for "bad intel" is proved by your refusal to cave in now.

Do you expect anybody to believe you incomptent jerk-offs now, one way or the other? Of course, head and the neo- s dont' GAF anyway about intel, good or bad, because their ideological agenda is to grab the oil in any case.

[boutons_]

and dubya counter-attacks the counter-attackers!

White House Rejects Right-Wing NIE Witch-Hunt: The Intelligence ‘Should Be Supported’

Since the Iran NIE was released, conservatives have desperately tried to discredit it. Former Vice President Cheney aide David Wurmser questioned “how much it can really be banked on.” John Bolton called for congressional investigations into the “politicized” intelligence community.

Some conservatives in Congress are following these calls, proposing a “second look” into the NIE in the form of a commission “based on similar review panels convened in the mid-1970s to reconsider the intelligence agencies’ analysis of the Soviet Union.” “We just see politics injected into this,” claimed Sen. John Ensign’s (R-NV) office.

Today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino rejected the partisan witch-hunt into the intelligence community. “They assessed all of the intelligence,” she declared. “I think that they should be supported”:

PERINO: The bottom line for the president on the NIE was that the 16 intelligence communities — community — came together. They assessed all of the intelligence. … And I just don’t know if there’s need to have a second look at it. […]

QUESTION: So is it safe, then, to draw from that that the president is fully confident in the information contained in the NIE?

PERINO: The NIE — the president accepted the results of the NIE.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/13/perino-nie-support/

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

The above isn't surprsing. The intel, terror, etc is/was never primary concerns of WH/neo- s. Oil was/is their real, primary concern.