Kelly the Dog Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I've been pretty clear in my utter contempt for those who defend the outing of Wilson's wife. Having said that, Wilson has nothing to do with this. The NIE is about connecting a million dots to build up a probable picture. It is not a law-enforcement document, hanging on singular facts which must be proved or disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wilson's findings in Niger were just one data point, to be weighed and contrasted with all the other data points about Iraqi intentions. It say's nothing about whether other procurement activities were ongoing. GG and I were simply debating Wilson because another poster brought him up. We weren't connecting the two things. At least I wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 What course of action an administration chooses to pursue based on the findings of its experts and how they sell them is completely different from whether or not they accept the findings. I am unaware of any community findings that were 'sent back' to change the conclusion. Are you saying that there were NIE's that originally said Saddam was *not* looking to reconstitute his WMD programs? The course of action had already been chosen and the experts actual input was as irrelevant as the administrations lame attempt to sell it. Given that we live in a society ruled by a secretive and deceptive government I am not privy to exactly what was in the estimates. But they were related to Iraq and its military capabilities (or lack thereof). And they were repeatedly rejected by the White House with requests to alter them so they would more closely match with the administrations preconceived notions and align with actions they wished to (i.e. had already decided to) undertake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts