I've rarely read as much crap and nonsense as I have on this latest bit of sensationalism!
The President receives his intelligence data from several agencies. Intelligence data is derived from opinions of facts obtained from many sources and is opinion not fact! Bush spoke publicly based on intelligence information he received...logical, one would think?
But then a report comes out that contravenes what was in earlier reports..
The Weekly Standard
This testimony by Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of Analysis(of intelligence) given before the House in July 2007 is indicative of how the President and the Congress is advised?
Quote:
|
Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
|
And then this tidbit about Fingar?
Quote:
|
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
|
Any idiot can figure out that even an intelligence Guru can change his comments based on later intelligence. Or could it be some partisan intent? Why are we blaming Bush when maybe it's Fingar we should blame? Whats the problem with Bush using the report for his opinions?Where is he supposed to get his intelligence from? Cheneys office? Why is he criticised when an intellgence group changes its estimate a few months later? Does that make Bush a warmonger? Come on you Bush critics..get real!
Just one more thing..you babbled about no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when British intellgence reports were used as an example. Now you suddenly believe in an intelligence report(estimate) that has been changed within a few months? Could it just be that intelligence information is dynamic and changes often? Could it be you are so antiwar and anti Bush that you cant think clearly?