This whole episode is baffling to me. Bush appointed the heads of all the intell agencies, yet they turn around and pull the rug out from under him like this. It's been obvious for a long time that elements in the CIA had partisan agendas to promote democrats and undermine various security policies. We need go no further than Valery Plame to see this at work. But this Iran debacle is very troubling, to say the least. First, they don't contend that Iran has stopped enriching uranium, which is the most important step in building a bomb. Second, they highlighted the claim that Iran has "ended" its nuke work, without disclosing the existence of significant dissent on that point or the fact that it could be restarted at any time without their knowledge. Third, there is no foundation given for their conclusion. We are just supposed to accept it, despite the intell community's many past screwups. I don't know if this is a case of their policy preferences influencing their conclusions, or partisan politics being involved or merely a case of excessive caution after the embarrassment of being apparently wrong about Saddam's WMD program. While they may be correct, the media and public are clearly reading way too much into this, as they had to know would happen. Finally, there has to be something wrong with a process that would put the president out on a limb regarding Iran's ambitions, then saw it off without warning.
Because people from the time they are children are taught to believe that their government is loving and will take care of them. The public schools have that as one purpose. The state has taken place of family. It takes a hard look at what is really going around in the world to open the average person's eyes.
well, it's probably a good thing we didnt do a nuclear first strike on them bet wolf blitzer is depressed today
I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Bush said he found out about this NIE report just last week. That, in itself, opens another discussion. Who is paying attention to our Intelligence agencies. I'm not one to throw in the towel and discount our covert and not so covert intelligence sources as partisan or just plain not good at what they do. I think it's possible that they were not giving out the Iraq WMD's as pure fact, and that it's possible that their information was simply disregarded. I don't think we should let our Left vs. Right discussions force us to either agree or disagree with the NIE assessment, rather we should work together to assure that we, as U.S. citizens, are getting good information. Again, pretty tough to do these days. c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation media and internet is about stuffing so much shit into people's head until it finally farts in religion and science you say 9 things that are correct or seem correct and then 1 thing that is just fucked up, the thought process of the majority of people is ok if 9 statements are true, then the tenth is true even if it is the most fucked up shit on the internet 9 statements are just bullshit and stupid, the 10th is valid, but this is the thought process on it; internet is just full of shit and conspiracy theories so why would this one statement be true
I never said that. I was just stating how people assume a statement invalid just because the other statements from the same source are or seem invalid and vise versa. But now that you ask, doesn't sound like a bad question, why not email them and ask themselves? I mean it's up to you, who and what you trust.
erin burnett was prescient when she called bush a monkey. unfortunately too many facists esp here are too stupid to realize that.