« Habakkuk on the neocons' use of intelligence | Main | The Future of South Iraq »

15 December 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It's gone unmentioned here so far, but there are reports that Sen. Ensign from Nevada wants to set up a Rumsfeld-style commission to "reassess" the NIE. Hindsight shows us all the predictions made by the Rumsfeld Commission were false, so it's hardly something one would want to emulate.

The details can be found here.



has anybody heard how mullen assessed the israeli snow job upon him they tried while he stopped over for one day in israel? mossad analysts are in conflict with their 'politically correct' mossad head-cheese dagan who is a poodle for his olmert. when olmert says jump, dagan says how hi. when olmert tells dagan to invent some intel that paints iran in a bad light, dagan responds with how much 'kooking' he should do to make the kooked-intel fit to olmert's political landscape painting.

just wondering if you had heard any rumblings from mullen world.


looks like olmert is having a cow, and now is having a nuclear bunker built just for his personal carcass. isn't it wunnderful how purported head-cheeses like olmert can build them a personal survival atmosphere while at the same time endangering their own citizenry with their doom and gloom hatefulness. harumpf

nuclear bunker being built for olmert

Mad Dogs


I know this post is not your latest, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this latest article today by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek - What Will Israel Do?.

Some highlights:

Gen. Ephraim Sneh, a former deputy defense minister who has warned for years that Israel would eventually have to confront Iran alone, told me that "today we are closer to this situation than we were three weeks ago ... we have to be prepared to forestall this threat on our own."

Some prominent American experts think that the NIE all but assures Israeli military action at some point. "I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former career CIA official and senior adviser to three U.S. presidents--including Bush--on Middle East and South Asian issues, told me Thursday, citing conversations he had with Mossad and defense officials. "And that was before the NIE. This makes it even more likely. Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

There is much more in the article.


Andy said: "My apologies for my intent was not to offend but to respond to what you originally wrote:

"So far I've seen no evidence of "a readiness for responsibility" from the greater Jewish American community, their meaningless, private, polled thoughts notwithstanding."

I simply thought it strange you would single out the Jewish American community for no evidence of "a readiness for responsibility" when it appears the rest of America isn't showing much of it either, their "meaningless, private, polled thoughts notwithstanding.""

You're being disingenuous, Andy. I didn't "single out" the Jewish American community - you did:

You said, (in an earlier post): "With regard to Jewish-Americans how about some data instead of speculation:..."

I pointed out that your "data' was meaningless. I backed up my opinion with reasons why I considered the "data" meaningless - reasons you chose to ignore for your own reasons.

Please don't "play" me - it's a tiresome and childish strategy.

I thought we were all adults here.



I pointed out that your "data' was meaningless. I backed up my opinion with reasons why I considered the "data" meaningless - reasons you chose to ignore for your own reasons.

Well, I didn't ignore your reasons - they didn't make sense to me, so I asked you about them which prompted a rather mean-spirited response from you. But whatever!

Ok, then, since the "reasons" you provided (which you termed "readiness for responsibility") by-and-large apply equally to the rest of the American population then I suppose you would agree that national polling showing solid opposition to an attack on Iran is equally meaningless as you claim the Jewish-American polling is, right? Or is the rest of America doing something different and showing a "readiness for responsibility?" Maybe you could educate me....

And, for the record, you referenced MacDonald in an earlier comment on the Jewish American community noting their "benign AND their ominous black-as-nite[SIC] influence over America." If their influence is truly that great and a solid majority oppose war with Iran, then what conclusions are we to draw from that?


Andy said: "If their influence is truly that great and a solid majority oppose war with Iran, then what conclusions are we to draw from that?"


Andy, It has become apparent to me that you debate in bad faith and/or suffer from an extreme form of cognitive dissonance. I have no patience left for your brand of artless sophistry. My attempts to have a conversation with you on this subject are over.

Clifford Kiracofe

<"...the balloon of illusion concerning Iran's programs That balloon had been skilfully painted in gaudy colors that fit the Israeli "misconception" of the world. Now there is unbridled rage among the Jacobins, the Cheneyites and the Israeli government over an unexpected failure.">

Time for an update on the regional situation. As I posted after my visit to the Gulf in June, locals I met were deeply concerned about US policy out there. No "plan" for Iraq and the US confrontational posture against Iran concerned officials I spoke with, including the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the UAE.

Here is an interesting commentary piece on Iran and the Gulf:

".... The Gulf has moved away from American arguments for isolating Iran. American policymakers need to do the same.

"The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are accommodating themselves to Iran's growing weight in the region's politics. ....That's why America's attempt to shore up containment against Iran increasingly seems to be yesterday's battle. On Dec. 3, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the GCC in Doha, Qatar. It was the first time an Iranian leader had addressed the alliance, which was formed in 1981 against the Iranian challenge.

"Weeks later, Saudi King Abdullah invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to Saudi Arabia – the president's third visit in a year – for the hajj, or Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The king used the occasion to hold cordial talks.

"Iran is even reaching out to Egypt. Ali Larijani, head of Iran's National Security Council, visited Cairo recently for the highest level talks in 27 years. Afterward, Arab League chief Amr Moussa bluntly stated that there was no point in Arabs treating Iran as an enemy.

"Gulf Arabs have thus visibly discarded the central pillar of the past year of America's Middle East strategy. Saudis and Egyptians had been the prime movers in anti-Iranian and anti-Shiite agitation. When they are inviting Ahmadinejad and Mr. Larijani to their capitals, America's talk of isolating Iran sounds outdated....

"The emerging signs of a tentative thaw in the Gulf are not due solely to the release of the findings in last month's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran was no longer pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The NIE helped trigger the thaw by convincing Arabs that a US-led war against Iran had become much less likely. But it has long been clear that most Gulf rulers have no appetite for a war that would disrupt their economic boom and put them at the most risk. ..."


In this context, the drivel from the "Zionist entity" and its US "agents of influence" would seem increasingly irrelevant.

Sidney O. Smith III

Prof. K,

For those who do not necessarily view history as linear (with the greatest respect for the famous 1928 Palsgraf case!), the historical effect of the 2007 NIE appears much like a stone thrown into a pond. It’s historical effect is moving outward into the world much like concentric waves.

The same could be said for the Mearsheimer and Walt book on the Israeli lobby. I believe that Philip Weiss described their book as if a depth charge had exploded. This is a most apt metaphor because the work of the Israeli lobby for the most part was unseen.

To me, it is of the highest significance that, to use your words, “on Dec. 3, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the GCC in Doha, Qatar. It was the first time an Iranian leader had addressed the alliance, which was formed in 1981 against the Iranian challenge.”

The significance of this event cannot be overemphasized. It appears to suggest an answer to the questions raised by Dr. Helms in her essay posted here at sst. So what brought Shia and Sunni together? I suggest, at least at a certain level, hubris and the appearance of a nemesis.

It is becoming more and more difficult to find on the internet the 1994 Rand study by Ronfeldt (and, if memory serves me correctly, written for the CIA), titled “Beware the Hubris-Nemesis Complex: A Concept of Leadership Analysis”. But I cannot help but wonder if this study should be applied to the type of Zionism that has been promoted by the likes of Christian Zionists, such as Hagee, and Likud. A update of that article, arguably, could be titled, “Beware of the Hubris Nemesis Complex: A Concept of Hagee, Cheney, and Likud” Here is one link to that study:


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad