Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (110105)	12/5/2007 8:48:04 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

KT, I'm not sure what you are talking about. From what I understand this is new intelligence from the same group that said the complete opposite thing about Iran in their last report. So they are obviously incompetent like I suggested. If there was a delay between the time this information was received by the administration and when they came public with it, there may have been both sound and unsound reasons for that. I've already read two articles that stated the new report is based on single source intelligence - which is obviously a potential problem if true. They may have been looking for verification and the neocons were probably busy trying to discredit it because they want to do something. In the end though, it's not about Bush. It's about the intelligence community because the intelligence has been woefully bad for at least 15 years and probably longer (at least since the Soviet union fell). This just another example covering a lot of years and issues. Of course to see the obvious you have to be both unbiased and intelligent. By the way, Pat Buachanan is generally considered a conservative, but he's not uniformly conservative. He's been heavily anti-free trade for a very long time. Not that being pro war was a conservative position (it was a neocon position) but he was very anti the war in Iraq and anti neocon before the rest of America even understood what that term meant and why they weren't traditional conservatives. In fact, he was the first mainstream journalist I saw use the term. He only trailed my sources by about 6-12 months. The reality is that he thinks our foreign policy is too driven by the Jewish lobby and pro-Israel interests in the U.S. That's why he's bashing Bush now (assuming he is because I haven't read anything yet). He thinks we are fighting Israel's wars. I don't agree with him entirely because I think oil is the major factor, but I don't disagree with him entirely either. In either event, he's not with the neo-cons or Bush on these issues and hasn't been since the beginning. He is more of a traditional conservative on foreign policy. That's why if he is attacking Bush he is doing it on this. He is happy the neocons aren't going to be able to attack Iran and is using this intelligence fumble to push "an agenda" much like you.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (110105)	12/7/2007 7:42:32 AM
From: Madharry	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Sorry, but there are more people out there then Wayne that are at this point questioning how good the information furnished by our intelligence is, myself included. With respect to Iran nuclear facilities specifically- I recently watched a science show on pbs, cant remember the name right now, but this guy had a table top, supposedly used by the govt, and one could with the appropriate software go pretty much to any place on earth, zero in on a specific facility and look at changes over time. He zeroed in on a nuclear facilitiy in Iran, which in 2006 showed a facility enclosed by a fence. He then went back a few years, which showed buldings 2-3 times the size of the enclosed facility outside the fence, which were covered up in subsequent years. Clearly the Iranians are hiding something. There is also no question that they have acquired all sorts of nuclear technology from Pakistan.