W promises not to be confused by the facts
 

From http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/13/bush-israelis-nie/

Multiple Choice Quiz

1. Which NEI should he pay attention to?
a. The latest one only
b. The one he prefers
c. Look at the trend
d. Consider all sources and use best judgement of advisors
e. my dog ate my homework

2. we should believe everything CIA says because ...
a. Look how accurately they predicted the Hungarian Spring and the Soviet response
b. Look how well they predicted the popular uprising following Bay of Pigs
c. Look how well they did concerning Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia
d. Look how well they did predicting the collapse of the USSR.
e. It's a slam-dunk.

^^^ Your point being?

I hope you are not saying that we can assume that W gave the NIE a hard look and is now expressing a good faith disagreement with it. If that is your point, then I and an overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans will have to disagree with you.

I cannot read the president's mind. As with any other man, he makes his mind up one trouser leg at a time.

B

So we should have Bush or whomever is in the White House go along with NIE without question?

Definitely not.

So what did he do wrong this time?

I think he may have misundersetimated the intelligence community.;)

Tom W

It's hard to tell, isn't it?

I am not sure that he did, although the title of this thread certainly implies otherwise.

I guess the most I can say is that I put his credibility at no better than zero on issues like this. He has a track record of deception and of ignoring facts that don't support him. The first time I noticed that second trait was very early in his first term. The EPA came out with a report that was inconsistent with W's policy pronouncements. When asked about it, he said that he had seen the report put out by "the bureaucracy", as if that was supposed to mean something. What it meant to me was that he has no regard for the truth.

So, which is more likely, that his supposed doubt about the NIE is sincere? Or that he is just giving us more of the same old baloney? What are the odds that he is all of sudden going to be straight with us?

I don't care, let Iran do whatever they want. I have faith that Isreal will do whatever needs to be done.

You believe the intelligence community? Lets look at their sterling record for a minute. Bush is going to do what he thinks is best irrespective of what the NIE tells him. That much we know. That has been his way since he got elected in 2000. But with the great success the intelligence community has shown lately, I would doubt it too. So, IMO, which one is more credible, it's a push.

So do I. IIRC, they are already having their SOF train for such a mission. Good thing they have the best equipment we have.

Fortunately for our national security, their record, sterling or otherwise, is not available for us to see. If you are referring to the WMD debacle, how do you know that they got that one wrong? Because the knucklehead politicians who supported the war say so? I have no way of knowing one way or the other, but if I had to bet, I would bet that we had a much better picture of the WMD situation than we have been lead to believe.Hence the title of this thread.I guess the main thing that separates them in my mind is that we have affirmative evidence of W's deception. In judging the intelligence community, we have to go on what we are told.

Based on what? We didn't know till we went in. Intelligence is not absolute. If intelligence is so good, why haven't they pointed us in the direction? All they can say is "it wasn't there."

In your mind, we have a conviction already. Too bad it isn't in the real world.

But is what we are told what they know or what they want us to know? That is why I put them about as accurate as anything. We don't even know that they know the truth. Even if they do, they might or might not tell us the whole truth. Hence, I'm not too concerned about what your intelligence, his intelligence or whatever says. To me, it is an opinion.