The mention of red-teaming suggests he wanted conclusions that stood up to attack. Exactly the right thing, no? To me it portrays him as both dedictaed and judicious, and of course right.

Right. I don't really see what Larry is so outraged about.

Well, it is a weird article. It goes out of its way to set up intelligence about Iraq and Iran as a game or debate, with winning and losing sides, making only the merest references to the fact that one side got its facts right while the other did not. A person who had no knowledge of the history could easily miss the fact that one "side" was evidence-based and correct, while the other was bellicose and wrong.

I had to laugh (while wincing, of course) at the parsing that "Now, the more cautious intelligence camp is taking the reins." You mean the one that was intelligent? Well, WSJ wouldn't go so far as to say it in so many words.

Also a big laugh line--"This all smells of policy validation," says David Wurmser.....these guys were State Department bureaucrats....It is hardly surprising that they now use their new positions to try to prove they were right."

Because they WERE right, dude. Not much more proof required. An evidence-based policy sorta validates itself--except in topsy-turvy Bush world, with tragic results.

I don't see why it was necessary to point out that Fingar was a gymnast--a contortionist, policy-wise? A veiled gay reference? Who knows, but this article is one of the finest examples of damnation via faint praise I've seen in awhile. No one else was singled out for going to meetings in their shirtsleeves, or any other article of clothing for that matter. (If I had to meet with the NeoCons, I'd wear hipwaders, but that's just me.)

Maybe the red-teaming thing is an implication of disloyalty.

I kind of expect weirdness from WSJ. But if the guy were a friend of mine, the WH had dragged him through the mud for years, and thousands of people had died because the people in power ignored him, this WSJ article making it all sound like no more than a horse race might be a last straw.

"Bureaucrats" is, after all, a dirty word to movement conservatives.
'Cause everyone knows that "government isn't the solution, government is the problem.
Alis to note, the WSJ is a major organ/mouthpiece of the movement conservatives.

I thought I remembered something about Solomon, I did;

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002121.php

he's finally gone home, to the Washington Times.

Unfortunately, to this casual observer of NIEs, the whole history of them and the way they are "crafted" leads me to suspect them all. They are worked up by (previously) anonymous experts in secret on a sporadic and selective basis, and then secretly manipulated by politicians for their own imperialistic benefit. According to Newsweek, Bush has openly said (to Israelis) that he disagrees with the most recent one.

It seems to me that, in a perfect world, there would be an annual intelligence appraisal on all of the country's potential threats, this report then being publicized so that the American people and their elected representatives could make intelligent decisions on defensive measures. No more of this leaking of NIEs (as in 2002) or arbitrary decisions to release (2006). Release of unclassified reports would be automatic. There is no valid reason to classify intelligence on foreign threats.

The United States is now under at least three "national emergencies" declared by the president -- WMDs, terror and Iran. Are these "emergencies" warranted by intelligence findings? Or are they just merely the basis for domestic repression. The American public needs to know. We need a better return on the billions of dollars being spent on intelligence in this democracy.

ecotourism
WeGoEco.com