« Conference Call with Dick Morris | Main | Them's the breaks »

"Fancy Theorists"

Some brilliant analysis about that NIE report from The American Thinker:

This was written by committee. It contains something for everyone and avoids any clear statements that might prove wrong. How was the press so absurdly misled?

Anybody who has ever experienced bureaucratic infighting will understand immediately what happened. Someone inserted the silly sentence about the Iraq conflict breeding resentment precisely so it could be wrenched out of context and leaked. That someone wanted to reinforce the Democrats' argument that they are fit to lead despite all their anti war foolishness.

The NIE doesn't say that the war in Iraq is counterproductive but that must be what a significant part of our intelligence apparatus believes. If not, the NIE's Key Judgments would probably never have speculated about resentment in the Muslim world and any such speculation would certainly never have seen the light of day. Some, at least, of our intelligence experts are antiwar moonbats.

Given the track record those experts have compiled, Democrats shouldn't be so eager to rely on any of them. Anyone who is tempted to take seriously what intelligence experts have to say about the strategic consequences of fighting in Iraq should take a lesson from the Ghost of Intelligence Past.

A string of past intelligence failures is then listed, including the intelligence on Saddam's WMD. I thought it was pretty interesting to see the coverage of the NIE leak. I did not see one report that pointed out the information in the report was put together by those who believed finding WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. Information that is deemed beneficial to Democrats is always treated as authoritative and infallible. Funny how that works, huh?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Fancy Theorists":

» Church and State linked with Gotta Love the NIE

Comments (35)

Since it is an undisputable... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Since it is an undisputable fact that the democrats are providing aid and comfort to the terrorists and the result is the death of a lot of American Soldiers, What will happen if a couple of hundred Iraq veterans return to the U.S. after seeing their friends slaughtered because of the democrats support, form a unit, attack the U.S. congress and wipe out the entire slime infected democratic party? Can't they all claim Democrat Derangement Syndrome (DDS) and walk away after a month of mental health care? I wouldn't convict a one of them.

Sorry, Scrap, but no. <br /... (Below threshold)

Sorry, Scrap, but no.
Our revolutions, when they come, must be fought at the ballot box, not the battlefield. Only if the results from the ballot box is provably false should arms be taken up. If we as a nation cannot muster the votes to remain strong and rich, then we deserve to be weak and poor.

Scrapiron sounds young and ... (Below threshold)
Ric:

Scrapiron sounds young and full of vigor, and anxious on the draw. However, you sound like you deluded with self righteous effeminate white male guilt.

We were "weak and poor" when we told the King of England we could govern ourselves?

To what level must tyranny rise before people should get up out of their chairs?

Scrap,I feel for you... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Scrap,
I feel for you buddy, I really do. I think what some people on the democratic side are doing sinks to unpatriotic levels. But your post above adds nothing to the debate about the Iraq war, the war on terror, or the current political strife. Your post is just misguided and filled with rage.

If you substitued Republicans in there instead of Democrats and you would be just as bad as Lee, muirgeo, and others who are derided here, for good reason, on a daily basis.

Lighten up. Come back to reality. Calling for and/or thinking about killing your fellow Americans, no matter how much you disagree with them, is just wrong.

"A string of past intell... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"A string of past intelligence failures is then listed, including the intelligence on Saddam's WMD"

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Since it is an undisputable... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Since it is an undisputable fact that the democrats are providing aid and comfort to the terrorists and the result is the death of a lot of American Soldiers, What will happen if a couple of hundred Iraq veterans return to the U.S. after seeing their friends slaughtered because of the democrats support, form a unit, attack the U.S. congress and wipe out the entire slime infected democratic party? Can't they all claim Democrat Derangement Syndrome (DDS) and walk away after a month of mental health care? I wouldn't convict a one of them.

Posted by: Scrapiron


HEHEHEH HAAHAHAHA HOHOHOHO!!!!! Classic.......I hope you aren't employed by the Postal Service. I love it when neocons crack....

And we love it when ex pres... (Below threshold)
Jo:

And we love it when ex presidents crack in an interview over one lousy question. Geeze, the reponse alone is enough to prove Clinton knows he has no legacy.

Very revealing.

I see muirgeo is still hold... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

I see muirgeo is still holding on to the false comfort of his delusions...

The democrats lose another ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The democrats lose another one. Jane Harmon, the top democratic dog on the intel comittee stated tonight that "the parts of the NEI report released by the preident reflects exactly what is in the entire report".

This bring up several questions.

How did the lying democrats let her excape from the cage to make fools of them? She had the report since April and so have all of those authorized access to classified information. Some democrats are not allowed access due to previous leaks. That's how Leaky Leahy got his moniker, leaking classified data cost him his position and security clearance.

Did Drunken Ted strangle on his scotch when she (Harmon) made this statement that re-enforces his image as an ass?

Has Hanoi John left on another secret mission to Cambodia, ordered by whoever the next president is?

Has the mentally retarded dwarf from Ohio quit shopping in the childrens (girls) department or is he still squeaking like a child that just found a ten dollar bill?

Peloshi is really due another botox treatment, does she get them frequently so she can get some more legal hard drugs?

Has Slick Willie slit his wrist yet? Even his own people have proven him a liar on his desire to 'kill' Usama. He must have got Usama and his squeeze mixed up when the blue dress showed up. I'm sure he wanted to kill her, but not sure about Usama. Hellary wanted to murder them both like she did her boy friend found on the park bench.

How many Americans will have to die due to the leaks of Secret National Security data and support of the terrorists by the democrats before the people of the country turn them out to pasture? It's long overdue.

CIA's list of failures woul... (Below threshold)

CIA's list of failures would fill a book. On nuclear weapons alone, they were surprised by the Soviet bomb, the Chinese bomb, the Israeli bomb, the Indian bomb, the South Africa bomb, the Pakistani bomb, and the Libyan nuclear program.

They also missed the the Berlin Wall, the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Soviet response to it, the "Prague Spring" in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet response to it, the Iranian Revolution, and submitted an NIE calling the Soviet state stable for at least a decade barely six months before the Evil Empire fell.

What is more surprising? That the CIA was wrong, that intelligence summaries were vague potpourris of opinions designed not to enlighten or inform, but instead to avoid being caught being wrong? That a specific and unrepresentative paragraph was lifted and leaked from a nine-page summary? That the fMSM hailed it as a devastating indictment of Bush policy, without stopping to wonder about the missing 95%?

Tough one. None of these events were particularly surprising.


~~~~~~~~~~~


Scrappy ~ Jane Harman is showing she can dance to Pelosi's tune. When Pelosi put out the word she might support the impeached judge, Alcee Hastings, to chair the Intel Committee if Democrats won the House, Harman got the message. She was far too sane to suit the modern Democratic Party, and had to choose between maintaining her power by mouthing their mantra or being rendered irrelevant by the leadership.

She chose to drink the Kool-Aid™. We can only hope she is performing to appease the moonbat left, and will continue to treat national security with the seriousness she has evinced in the past.

wizbang indeed... pfffffft... (Below threshold)
garret:

wizbang indeed... pfffffft!

clinton went totally f'n insane, didn't he? i mean, TOTALLY crazy... so insane. it's like someone asked him a question and he... HE.... ANSWERED IT FULLY! holy jesus! what an outbreak of aggression!

and intelligence failures galore! we can trust them... no wait, we can't trust them... i mean, they sold us that line on WMDs in iraq... but wait... didn't bushes sell us that line against logical evidence to the contrary? no way, not our bush. not the man who shoots straight, who comes clean, who's in charge, the commander in chief that would never push anything through without first really thinking hard about what jesus would do.

what a load of crap from a distant planet called wizbang, populated by aliens with little green feet their mouths and little green brains in their asses.

garret:The last ti... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

garret:

The last time I saw Pres. Clinton ack like he did in that interview, he was wagging his finger at me saying "I didn't have sex with that woman". His total answer just seemed a bit shallow. I can act like that, You can act like that, but the President of the United States can't.

" Information that is deeme... (Below threshold)
Rob:

" Information that is deemed beneficial to Democrats is always treated as authoritative and infallible."

And likewise information that is deemed harmful to the Republicans is always discredited as either misreported my the MSM or inconclusively irrelevant.

Wonder what the left will d... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Wonder what the left will do next to help AlQuaeda?
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/30289.html

POLL: AL QAEDA LOST HEARTS AND MINDS IN IRAQ

Al Qaeda has desicively lost the Iraqi battlefield.

Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very).

I still don't understand ho... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I still don't understand how someone conducts a poll in Iraq with so many differing sects and groups and, well, war.

The number you sited LoveAmerica Immigrant, is alot higher than I would have thought, but then are the people asked going to tell the pollsters they support Al-Qaeda?

On the flip side, since since the terrorists have decided to attack soft targets like markets, and kidnapping torturing and killing civilians, I could see why the populace would dislike them.

@ RobAnd likewise... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ Rob
And likewise information that is deemed harmful to the Republicans is always discredited as either misreported my the MSM or inconclusively irrelevant.

Discredited with facts and the desire for a relevant debate is the contrast you're attempting to mock. Yours is a game played by children wherein the juice you consider relevent sticks to your own blabbering berry-stained pie hole and runs down your shirt. What the hell happened to you in school, Rob? Too much time in the corner with the pointy hat? Was your bus shorter than the others? Thought so.

Anyone that believes anythi... (Below threshold)
Mark Blahut:

Anyone that believes anything that this government or the intelligence community tells us is fool or
just not to smart . When will the wingnuts wakeup ?

Anyone that believes anythi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Anyone that believes anything that this government or the intelligence community tells us is fool or
just not to smart .
--------------------------------------------------
So you trust AlQaeda, their enabling press (NYT, BBC, AP...), the Dem party, the UN, or France, or Adm/Chavez?

Anyone that believes any... (Below threshold)

Anyone that believes anything that this government or the intelligence community tells us is fool or
just not to smart . When will the wingnuts wakeup ?

Posted by: Mark Blahut

If nothing they say is true, and anything they say is a lie, what do you have to be angry about? If you expect the truth, then that makes you as stupid as the wingnuts by your logic.

Now who's stupid?

Anyone that belie... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Anyone that believes anything that this government or the intelligence community tells us is fool or just not to smart . When will the wingnuts wakeup?

Hey Mark, did you just wake up from a days long nap? You must have because its apparent you missed the news that Democrats attempted to cherry pick some points from a classified NIE report. Meaning they were trying to use, as you say, "the intelligence community" to make a point.

When will they lefties quit being such tools for Islamic fascists?


Given the track record t... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Given the track record those experts have compiled, Democrats shouldn't be so eager to rely on any of them. Anyone who is tempted to take seriously what intelligence experts have to say about the strategic consequences of fighting in Iraq should take a lesson from the Ghost of Intelligence Past.
Lorie via American Thinker

A string of past intelligence failures is then listed, including the intelligence on Saddam's WMD.
Lorie

Let's see, where to begin. The pre-war NIEs also had info saying Saddam didn't have WMDs, but the Adminstration cherry-picked the info saying he had them. Who do we trust again?

Also, after the release of more of this NIE, this site was claiming that parts said winning the war was vital to weakening enemy morale. Are those parts not to be trusted as well?

Oh and one more thing:
Scrapiron sounds young and full of vigor, and anxious on the draw. However, you sound like you deluded with self righteous effeminate white male guilt.
Ric

I think "un-hinged", as is being used a lot nowadays, is much more accurate.

Red Fog,Oh, I left... (Below threshold)
Rob:

Red Fog,

Oh, I left out dismissal of the opposition as stupid children as a tactic of defending an idealogically indefensible point.

How can factual discrediting work with relation to the NIE report findings? There are no facts there that indicate the Right Wing mainstream's beliefs about the war are in touch with reality, The accomplishments of depleting Al Quada;s leadership are overshadowed by tthe points relating to the greater decentralization and growth of terrorist cells and their use of Iraq at a motivational and training tool

Once again, your only tactic to downplay the findings is to diecredit the reporting of them or write them off as irrelevant because they don't fit with your inflexible view of the reality at hand. The people at the Ameican Thinker are atempting another tactic, which is to play amateur psyciatrist by explainin that the document is the result of bueracratic in-fighting and the findings must be tainmted because again, they differ from the imagined reality.

Stop talking down to the opposition, changing the subject and entertain the possibility of an alternate reality. I'm not saying I'm right, only that ignoring the facts that we have at hand in exchange for bending the story to fit your view is most certainly not right.

@ sean nyc/ann arbor... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

@ sean nyc/ann arbor
The pre-war NIEs also had info saying Saddam didn't have WMDs, but the Adminstration cherry-picked the info saying he had them. Who do we trust again?

How many times do you have to be told that we already found Saddam's WMDs. Facts are not in your corner, sean. Instead of 'un-hinged', I would characterize you more uniquely as a slack-jawed knuckle dragger that just followed through with a brain fart ... whoops! hee, hee.

Perhaps the Democrats shoul... (Below threshold)
Rob:

Perhaps the Democrats should put as much faith in these findings as the White House did in the intelligence community's finding about Iraq's WMD. Unquestioning, blind faith.

I think that by comparison, the Democrats reaction has been rather staid. The White House staged a months long road show to display the Intellicence agency's findings, however miniscule, on Iraq's WMD, culminating in Colin Powell's mesmerizing presentation to the UN

Someone please wake me up when Republicans are ready to live by and hold their leaders accountable to the same standards they hold Democrats to.

How many times do you ha... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

How many times do you have to be told that we already found Saddam's WMDs.
Red Fog

Where are the nukes? Where are the mobile bio-weapons labs? Where are the UAVs capable of striking the US?

Oh yea, the WMDs we found we buried in the desert. You're right, sorry.

Rob,How can factu... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

Rob,
How can factual discrediting work with relation to the NIE report findings?

Say it in english, please. Every year Bubba was in office, America was attacked by muslin fanatics. After 9/11, all attacks have been thwarted. That's proof enough for me. Now, who's your momma?

sorry for a typo:Oh ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

sorry for a typo:
Oh yea, the WMDs we found we buried in the desert. You're right, sorry.

should be

Oh yea, the WMDs we found were buried in the desert. You're right, sorry.

I'm sorry, but I don't thin... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can just toss out the 'bad' and hold up the 'good' in the report, and it sounds like that's what a lot of administration supporters want to do. Face facts, Iraq has indeed become more of a hotbed of jihadists since we booted Saddam and his terrorist supporting/training regime of mass murder. I think it's absurd to even imply that that hasn't happened or it's just something 'slipped in to be leaked'. It's one of the more obvious facts of the war.

What conservatives (or, as the less-brainpowered liberals that post here way too often call all conservatives either because they don't know better or have trouble spelling conservatives - 'neocons') should be doing is pointing out how there is nothing to suggest that our doing nothing instead of something in response to rising jihadist violence around the world would have produced less jihadists. Maybe we have accelerated the pace of the jihad. If so, is that a bad thing? It's always a good idea to fight a war on your timeframe and not your enemies'. If we can strike them before they're ready then that is a success. That's why 9-11-01 was a success, we were struck before we were ready. So, as we did in WW2 (the analogy is limited to this particular point), we were unprepared and caught with our pants down, but then ramped up the greatest military and production machine the world has yet seen and became the irresistable force. The jihadists, instead of trying to be an unmovable object, have chosen to become a completely movable object and refusing to take the brunt of our force the way the Axis did 60 years ago. So we adapt...otherwise we'd just be carpetbombing the middle east. I think we should paint osama's quotes on our tanks about how weak the US is as we drive them around the middle east through the countries they used to own and now have to scurry around in hoping we'll leave before they have to blow up more muslims shopping or trying to get a job hoping that maybe they'll get a single american.

While I can face the fact that our eliminating two evil openly terrorist-supporting regimes may have aggravated potential jihadists, I can also face the fact that our do-nothing approach (I don't care how badly Richard Clark wanted to do something, it didn't happen) for a decade did nothing but prompt more and more attacks, culminating in thousands of deaths in our own country at the hands of jihadists. Do I care that someone is running to Iraq to fight the great Satan now instead of running to NYC to bomb the great Satan five or ten years from now? In a way, yes, but not in the way liberals want me to care. Their approach is 'if we only gave it more time, just a few more years, just more negotiations, just some more appeasement, if only we weren't so evil, if only they knew how diverse we are, if only the president wasn't a cowboy, if only the weapons inspectors had a few more decades chasing their tails trying to follow Saddam's games, if only we had done more...we wouldn't be in this mess.' That's what they see in that part of the Estimate they like. What they won't acknowledge is that the jihad has been building for a long time...only this time we fought back...so why does it surprise anyone that we've quickened their pace as we ramped ours up and started smacking them down? No one, on the far left or far right, wants to acknowledge that maybe we can embrace each of the points in the Estimate for what they are, but we should be more thorough in explaining why, instead of just 'that part's just bad intelligence or made up' but 'this part is fabulous and clearly true'.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Where are the nuk... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Where are the nukes? Where are the mobile bio-weapons labs? Where are the UAVs capable of striking the US?

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People

only that ignoring the fact... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

only that ignoring the facts that we have at hand in exchange for bending the story to fit your view is most certainly not right.
--------------------------------------------------
Rob has a good point and it seems that Rob is doing exactly that: bending the story of WMD and the history of all the Dems warning about Iraq 's WMDs. Basically, Rob advocated that Bush should have treated the Dems as dishonest and unserious when they warned the country and the world about Saddam 's WMD and the threat he posed to the region. In retrospect, that is probably a good advice. I tend to agree that Bush 's biggest mistake in the GWOT is to treat the Dems as serious about national security and the welfare of the coutry as a whole.

You probably saw this alrea... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You probably saw this already. Using the left 's standard, the terrorists must withdraw from Iraq now.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060928/D8KDUES80.html
al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead
Email this Story

Sep 28, 11:16 AM (ET)

(AP) An Islamic Web site on Thursday posted an audio recording purportedly made by the new leader of...
Full Image

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq said in an audio message posted on a Web site Thursday that more than 4,000 foreign insurgent fighters have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. It was believed to be the first major statement from insurgents in Iraq about their losses.

sean nyc/ann arbor<i... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

sean nyc/ann arbor
Where are the nukes? Where are the mobile bio-weapons labs? Where are the UAVs capable of striking the US?

They went by truck over to Syria or got buried in the sand. So, the mantra that Saddam had no WMD is about as useful as allowing Bubba to stage a hissy fit on Fox so that only his legacy take center stage as the lib platform in the coming election? There's a war on and democracy matters, not Bush bashing and Bubba's ego. What's the dem solution to Islamic terrorism? Que the cricket chirps.

BTW, using the left 's logi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, using the left 's logic, if we didn't go to Iraq, then these 4,000 dead Al Qaeda members could have done more useful work somewhere else including the US.

Red Fog, So the weap... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Red Fog,
So the weapons are in Syria, arguably more dangerous than Saddam (at least in 2003)? They help fund and arm Hezbollah, who was just in a conflict with our only steadfast ally in the region, yet we do nothing to find them? Do you realize how absurd this idea is?

And as far as a strategy (not a solution which is impossible) to Islamic terrorism, here are a few ideas:
1) Provide economic assistance to improve the infrastructure and facilities in impoverished nations (so organizations like Hezbollah don't get the credit);
2) Continue to prod Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians - if we're seen as an honest broker and not a blind ally, that will help our image;
3) Promote democratic and academic institutions - the best way to demonstrate the advantages to a democratic gov't is by technological and scientific achievement;
4) Declare that we will not build permanent bases in Iraq - we've lost most of the goodwill we had there and need to fall back to our other bases in the region or be accused of being colonizers;
5) Maintain (likely restore by the end of the week) the writ of habeus corpus - removing this right that has existed for 800 years does not bode well for our democracy;
6) Comdemn torture in all it's forms - waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation included. How do we get info from those who do not want to give it to us? Provide them with incentives: better food, visits with family, a blanket and a bed, use mental exploitation techniques. Now I'll probably be accused of being a terrorist-coddler, but oh well, that's what you get for being humane nowadays.
7) And this one is probably most important - Reduce our dependence on oil. This will not be easy or cheap by any means, but it is a preferable option to unending war (at least to sane individuals).

Now I realize none of these are as exciting as "Shock and Awe" and these would not have led to immediate resolution. But after all, this is the "Long War".

chirp chirp... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

chirp chirp




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy