web analytics

THOSE PEACEFUL IRANIANS AND US INTELLIGENCE

By ATWadmin On December 6th, 2007

You have to laugh at the pathetic response of the Euro-rabble, such as Conservative Kenneth Clark, to the NIE report on Iran’s nuclear intentions. They spin this as being a definitive and highly credible report. So…

A highly controversial, 150 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear programs was coordinated and written by former State Department political and intelligence analysts — not by more seasoned members of the U.S. intelligence community, Newsmax has learned. Its most dramatic conclusion — that Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure — is based on a single, unvetted source who provided information to a foreign intelligence service and has not been interviewed directly by the United States.

Hang on –  A SINGLE UNVETTED SOURCE? And no MSM journalists even raise an eyebrow to the integrity of this report? Listen, our gutless media and our Vichy politicans will still argue that Iran is peaceful even as a mushroom cloud rises over Tel Aviv. They believe what they want and they want to believe the Mullahs are guys that can be reasoned with.

19 Responses to “THOSE PEACEFUL IRANIANS AND US INTELLIGENCE”

  1. Hang on – A SINGLE UNVETTED SOURCE?

    like ahmed chalabi?

    They believe what they want and they want to believe the Mullahs are guys that can be reasoned with.

    that was the neocon consensus for a very long time. they were among the first to rush to the mullahs in the hope of strategic alliance. they very nearly backed them against saddam. but decided illegally selling them a few weapons, AND permitted the israelis to continue arms agreements signed prior to the revolution. the israelis too saw the mullahs as potential allies in the region, and saw no reason to upset the system of arrangements from the time of the shah.

    the double dealings around iran are enough to make your head spin. but if it helps to simplify it with atomic eroticism ill not get in your way.

  2. First class comment, Daytripper.

  3. David, I’m feeling real divided over this report. I believe that there may be a lot of political wrangling going on behind he scenes and that this report is another tool Bush is using to achieve his objectives.

    Bush doesn’t wouldn’t releases this without a purpose – he hasn’t condemned it and he’s no friend of rogue states with nukes.

    We’ll see how it sorts out.

  4. >>I believe that there may be a lot of political wrangling going on behind he scenes and that this report is another tool Bush is using to achieve his objectives.<<

    I agree, Daphne, just as the 2005 report was a tool for generating the required degree of belligerance for an attack on Iran that they thought could be undertaken before things went pear-shaped in Iraq.

  5. Noel, all of this leaves me feeling troubled. I’m ready for some sort of conclusion or consensus on the Middle East. I know I’m unlikely to see it, too many pieces that never seem to fit, so it keeps me in a constant low level state of worry and dread. It doesn’t help that I have little confidence in the Powers That Be to settle things quickly and rationally.

  6. its easy to get confused about the middle east, but theres only three things that really matter daphne. Oil, Israel and keeping the Russians out (or pushing them back).

  7. Screw the Iranians nuke em till they glow….

    Now to highjack the thread. I heard a song today that described my feelings sometimes about my welcome amongst some of the posters here This is it. but while looking for a good version of it on youtube I came across THIS one an nearly peed myself. So tell me what song describes your posting experiance?

  8. ARRGH the first version was supposed to be this one

  9. oh and as for the post the whole NIE was designed so the loony left could run with it to try and block Bush from bombing the mad little persian before he leaves office…

  10. There is some REALLY interesting information coming out about this most recent NIE report. The longer you wait, the more interesting information…

    Anyhoo, an article by (totally rock-ass!) John Bolton in the WAPO had this to say, among many other things:

    Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran’s nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."

    Read it all here.

    Whether the likes of Tripper want to hear what Bolton has to say or not, he produces some compelling points that really can’t be overlooked. There is a lot more chatter going on about the authors of the report. They’re State Department pukes, not intelligence professionals and they exhibit signs of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    More information can be had at my beloved Weekly Standard blog.

    What we have here as a result are more questions than answers.

  11. I read that much of the report relies on a defector who had detailed knowledge of the programme. Three thoughts:

    1. I assume they have ruled out that the defector is a plant?

    2. The defector’s intelligence may be out of date.

    3. Even if the defector is kosher (!) and correct, the mullahs could now order a re-start to the weapons programme under the cover of this report, since it makes a military attack by the USA politically impossible for now, and also makes it very unlikely that any further sanctions will be agreed on at the UN.

  12. The same folks criticising this report would of course be jumping up and down calling for World War Three if the report went the other way. Iran is a serious problem, and a dangerous one. It has to be addressed seriously. Our strategy must be based on our intelligence , not our intelligence based upon our strategy (as rightworld would have it).

  13. Mahons

    Good point. There is always an element of "shoot the messenger" when people are told what they don’t want to hear.

    However, a degree of scepticism is in order, especially after the debacle over the non-existent wmd in Iraq. After that, there will always be a well-founded suspicion that intelligence is being manipulated in support of a political agenda.

  14. bullshit Mahons the "rightworld" has understood that since the early 70’s and the church commision and all the policies of the left since then that has destroyed the inteligence community one brick at a time over the past 40yrs we know the inteligence ain’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

    Instead I intend to believe that madman that orders over 10 hangings a week, demands that woman who are raped get stoned for adultry, denies the holocost while activly funding every terror group that he can give weapons to in Gaza and lebanon, is sitting on one of the largest oil fields in the world IS NOT refining URANIUM for energy

    You don’t need an inteligence agency to to tell you their a threat that should be dealt with sooner rather than later All you need is your OWN inteligence

    I guess your lacking in that area

  15. Troll

    You make my point about intelligence being manipulated to suit the politicians in power. However, I suspect that has always happened, not just recently.

    Apparently, Stalin rejected intelligence in May 1941 that the Germans were massing for an attack on the soviet union, and the officers who had the intelligence were reluctant to tell him because they feared his reaction. In that case it could be literally "shoot the messenger".

  16. Bush knows all of the failings of the CIA & State, as well as their political leanings. He endorsed this report. He’s playing his cards and I’m going to trust that it’s in America’s best interests, so far he has kept the country safe and the Middle East from totally degenerating into complete chaos.

    We will see.

  17. The report did not say anything about Iran’s intent – they didn;t claim Iran was only determined to pursue peaceful policies. The report simply outlined what the intelligence agencies have observed materially in recent years. Why not accept ot as a genuine neutral observation without political slant.

  18. Colm, it doesn’t do that.

  19. Stalin rejected intelligence in May 1941 that the Germans were massing for an attack on the soviet union, and the officers who had the intelligence were reluctant to tell him because they feared his reaction. In that case it could be literally "shoot the messenger".

    the messenger was shot, a deserter from the german lines. and on an intelligence report claiming the same he wrote;

    "Comrade Merklov, you can send your "source" from the headquarters of the German air force to his fucking mother. He is not a source, but a dis-informant."