Cheney thinks CIA is soft on Iran

[db]

"-- Some Bush administration officials are unhappy with the consensus intelligence community assessment that Iran could attain a weapons capability sometime between 2010 and 2015, based on assumptions about its ability to overcome technical problems. More-hawkish officials view the CIA, scorched by criticism over its exaggerated reports on Iraqi nuclear efforts, as timid on Iran, and Vice President Dick Cheney is said to have recently criticized the intelligence assessment in private as "too cautious."

"-- With Bush emphasizing diplomacy, tensions have emerged between the White House staff and more-hawkish members of Cheney's office. The two camps "are not talking to each other too much" on Iran, says a knowledgeable official.

"-- Senior Bush administration officials are increasingly skeptical that diplomacy can stop the Iranian nuclear drive. That is fueling a new commitment of money and attention to promote democracy inside Iran--a strategy they hope will foster "regime change."

U.S. News & World Report

 

[Genx87]

I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

I look at N. Korea, a country who probably has less economic capability than Iran and they managed to shat out a few bombs in under a decade. I dont think it is unreasonable to think Iran could do it faster.

Right now I think the best option is for the UN to continue monitoring and collecting data. It is a little scary they have found weapons grade material already. It sounds like their program is ahead of what people were thinking it was.

 

[Passions]

I agree with General Hayden's assessment. The CIA needs to get tough and have more power. The liberal media is out on a witchhunt to criple this nation.

Fight fire with fire, not trees.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

Ha Ha! Pure comedy from the apologist. I was in a pretty sh!tty mood, but a good laugh can always chnage that. :beer:

 

[techs]

The second part of what Cheney said would have been a good idea.

"That is fueling a new commitment of money and attention to promote democracy inside Iran--a strategy they hope will foster "regime change."

Unfortunately our fiasco in Iraq has destroyed the forces of democracy in Iran and have most Iranians terrified we will bring them the same situation we created in Iraq.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

I look at N. Korea, a country who probably has less economic capability than Iran and they managed to shat out a few bombs in under a decade. I dont think it is unreasonable to think Iran could do it faster.

Right now I think the best option is for the UN to continue monitoring and collecting data. It is a little scary they have found weapons grade material already. It sounds like their program is ahead of what people were thinking it was.

I dont think the CIA overstated Iraq as much as the White House did. But I do agree with your conclusion, UN monitoring, diplomacy in general, needs to be given a chance.

 

[outriding]

Does this not strike any as ironic?

1) A CIA agent monitoring Iran's nukes gets outed

2) The CIA agent was outed by Cheney / Bush

3) Bush is appointing a hard military man to run the CIA

4) Cheney comes out and says we need to be hard on Iran

5) ??

6) Profit !

Am I missing anything here?

 

[MadRat]

Nukes no sooner than 2010? Hell, Cheney will need cryogenics by then just to keep his arteries viable. He needs them to have it sooner!

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: outriding
Does this not strike any as ironic?

1) A CIA agent monitoring Iran's nukes gets outed

2) The CIA agent was outed by Cheney / Bush

3) Bush is appointing a hard military man to run the CIA

4) Cheney comes out and says we need to be hard on Iran

5) ??

6) Profit !

Am I missing anything here?

yeah, i'm a little confused about step 5....

is it over-extend our military further and spend more money??

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: outriding
Does this not strike any as ironic?

1) A CIA agent monitoring Iran's nukes gets outed

2) The CIA agent was outed by Cheney / Bush

3) Bush is appointing a hard military man to run the CIA

4) Cheney comes out and says we need to be hard on Iran

5) ??

6) Profit !

Am I missing anything here?

yeah, i'm a little confused about step 5....

is it over-extend our military further and spend more money??

Sorry it is part of a South Park joke..

1) Steal underwear

2) ???

3) Profit

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: outriding

Sorry it is part of a South Park joke..

1) Steal underwear

2) ???

3) Profit

i know the underpants gnomes. i was trying to bait people into stating what they thought step five would be.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

Ha Ha! Pure comedy from the apologist. I was in a pretty sh!tty mood, but a good laugh can always chnage that. :beer:

And you apparently lack the brain power today to add anything of use to the thread.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

I look at N. Korea, a country who probably has less economic capability than Iran and they managed to shat out a few bombs in under a decade. I dont think it is unreasonable to think Iran could do it faster.

Right now I think the best option is for the UN to continue monitoring and collecting data. It is a little scary they have found weapons grade material already. It sounds like their program is ahead of what people were thinking it was.

I dont think the CIA overstated Iraq as much as the White House did. But I do agree with your conclusion, UN monitoring, diplomacy in general, needs to be given a chance.

I think it was quite obvious the CIA did overstate his capability right along with other intelligence agencies.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

I look at N. Korea, a country who probably has less economic capability than Iran and they managed to shat out a few bombs in under a decade. I dont think it is unreasonable to think Iran could do it faster.

Right now I think the best option is for the UN to continue monitoring and collecting data. It is a little scary they have found weapons grade material already. It sounds like their program is ahead of what people were thinking it was.

I dont think the CIA overstated Iraq as much as the White House did. But I do agree with your conclusion, UN monitoring, diplomacy in general, needs to be given a chance.

I think it was quite obvious the CIA did overstate his capability right along with other intelligence agencies.

How does your logic mesh with the numerous doubts and reports that contridicted that conclusion?

 

[eilute]

If they think that Iran could produce nuclear weapons earlier than 2010, then they are going against every assesment made outside Dick Cheney's office.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: amish

Originally posted by: outriding

Sorry it is part of a South Park joke..

1) Steal underwear

2) ???

3) Profit

i know the underpants gnomes. i was trying to bait people into stating what they thought step five would be.

I was going to put in Haliburton...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

I look at N. Korea, a country who probably has less economic capability than Iran and they managed to shat out a few bombs in under a decade. I dont think it is unreasonable to think Iran could do it faster.

Right now I think the best option is for the UN to continue monitoring and collecting data. It is a little scary they have found weapons grade material already. It sounds like their program is ahead of what people were thinking it was.

I dont think the CIA overstated Iraq as much as the White House did. But I do agree with your conclusion, UN monitoring, diplomacy in general, needs to be given a chance.

I think it was quite obvious the CIA did overstate his capability right along with other intelligence agencies.

How does your logic mesh with the numerous doubts and reports that contridicted that conclusion?

You mean like the Senate Intel Committee's findings?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intelligence/index.html

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

I look at N. Korea, a country who probably has less economic capability than Iran and they managed to shat out a few bombs in under a decade. I dont think it is unreasonable to think Iran could do it faster.

Right now I think the best option is for the UN to continue monitoring and collecting data. It is a little scary they have found weapons grade material already. It sounds like their program is ahead of what people were thinking it was.

I dont think the CIA overstated Iraq as much as the White House did. But I do agree with your conclusion, UN monitoring, diplomacy in general, needs to be given a chance.

I think it was quite obvious the CIA did overstate his capability right along with other intelligence agencies.

How does your logic mesh with the numerous doubts and reports that contridicted that conclusion?

You mean like the Senate Intel Committee's findings?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intelligence/index.html

And as we later learned the CIA got it right. It was Cheney and the Bushies picking and choosing the worst case scenarios, along with the least credible sources and pressuring the CIA to come up with the assessment the Bushies wanted.
And the analysts who were absolutely 100 percent WRONG were given MERIT and PERFORMANCE increases.
And the Republican Senate then blames it on the CIA? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Genx87]

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the 18-member panel, said that "bad information" was used to bolster the case for war.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

Ha Ha! Pure comedy from the apologist. I was in a pretty sh!tty mood, but a good laugh can always chnage that. :beer:

I'm laughing at the fact that you would laugh at that. It is a valid concern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eilute
If they think that Iran could produce nuclear weapons earlier than 2010, then they are going against every assesment made outside Dick Cheney's office.

The Israeli intelligence assessment, shared by the US and Britain, is that Iran could have a bomb by 2007.

LINK

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think these are valid concerns. The CIA obviously overstated the capability of Saddam. Now they could be understating Iran.

Ha Ha! Pure comedy from the apologist. I was in a pretty sh!tty mood, but a good laugh can always chnage that. :beer:

And you apparently lack the brain power today to add anything of use to the thread.

Whatever, i just wanted to let you know that your post was PURE comedic genius! Congrats. Back to work...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the 18-member panel, said that "bad information" was used to bolster the case for war.

Rockefeller is a tool. He's gone right along with Roberts and the Bush junta on essentially everything they've wanted over the past 6 years. Further, he's got a vested interest in blaming the messenger . . . Rockefeller voted for "war powers."

State Dept intel CLEARLY favored a more benign representation of Iraqi capabilities.
DOE experts said there was NO REASONABLE other purpose for those aluminum tubes than making rockets.
Cheney didn't set up a parallel "intelligence" shop for the sake of getting the "truth." Cheney and his crew were looking to justify a war.
Not even the most alarmist version of Iraqi capabilities justified the "mushroom cloud" crowd.

Lie Factory

The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted. Rumsfeld particularly enjoyed harassing the CIA staffer who briefed him every morning, using the type of data produced by the intelligence unit. "What I could do is say, 'Gee, what about this?'" Rumsfeld noted. "'Or what about that? Has somebody thought of this?'" Last June, when Feith was questioned on the same topic at a briefing, he acknowledged that the secret unit in fact looked at the connection between Iraq and terrorism, saying, "You can't rely on deterrence to deal with the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism because [of] the possibility that those state sponsors might employ chemical weapons or biological weapons by means of a terrorist organization proxy.

 

[Harabec]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Lie Factory

The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted. Rumsfeld particularly enjoyed harassing the CIA staffer who briefed him every morning, using the type of data produced by the intelligence unit. "What I could do is say, 'Gee, what about this?'" Rumsfeld noted. "'Or what about that? Has somebody thought of this?'" Last June, when Feith was questioned on the same topic at a briefing, he acknowledged that the secret unit in fact looked at the connection between Iraq and terrorism, saying, "You can't rely on deterrence to deal with the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism because [of] the possibility that those state sponsors might employ chemical weapons or biological weapons by means of a terrorist organization proxy.

They could just learn from 1984 and make up their own history and facts.
In this day and age, Truth doesn't have to be right...