of nukes and knowledge

[caspian_x]

By now, everyone knows about the 2003 NIE that said Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program.

And if you watch the news or walk the blogosphere a bit, it's clear everyone is convinced that this is the correct intelligence and that the Bush Administration simply is looking for excuses to go to war with Iran.

Everyone, that is, except the British

Comments

[k_sui]

Hoping tomorrow's thought will be something along the lines of "Ignoring news reports and commentary about foreign nuke intelligence (pro, con, neocon, Sean Hannity strikingly stupid and batty liberal) is a savvy move because honestly, who in the world think that we get even a 1/100 of the actually information?"

[k_sui]

Or actual information even

[caspian_x]

Well, that's true too, but honestly, the way people in the media and in blogs have been reacting, you'd think we just got a page out of Bush's diary that said "Dear Diary, the Plan to convince the world Iran has nukes when I know it really doesn't is going well. Yours, W."

[k_sui]

With the caveat that I honestly don't much of what his Administration has done and I think he's a tragically mediocre intellect . . .

Don't see him really jonesing for this fight with Iran. It was Cheney's influence that started us down this path. Ahmadinejad is a crackpot and could be regionally dangerous, but you could say that about a dozen other situations. It's our history with Iran that spooks the right wing. They were still in a World War II mindset when they installed the Shah. That kind of thinking still influences the neocons into this rigid good-evil crap. Bush is just along for the ride. And the left is just as loony as the right on Iran. They're probably just salivating for the opportunity to speak well of Ahmadinejad just to stick it in the neocons' collective eye.

[caspian_x]

Oh, I'm not denying that there are some agendas on both sides. What I am saying is that this NIE from 2003 is not the Holy Grail of the pacifists that it is being made out to be.

Also, if I were to err on the side of trust or distrust for Iran, I'd rather err on the side of distrust.

[k_sui]

As I am sure they would also err on a similar side when dealing with our country and our country's support of a brutal, entirely non-democratic leader that we installed for them back in 1953 when they tried to nationalize their oil fields.

[caspian_x]

Fair enough, though I'm much more concerned as to how much we trust them (which should be very little) than how much they trust us.

[k_sui]

Makes perfect sense, but if the right is trying to find a context for Ahmadinejad's comments, they invariably stop at the hostage-taking. (Which was absolutely an act of war as far as I'm concerned, but if one listens to the current diatribes and vitriol on the cable news networks, you would think that a group of students just went crazy for no reason and stormed our embassy in '79.)