As I Was Saying...

Utilizing my awesome powers of control over most, hell, all of Creation, I arranged for an especially useful demonstration of the accuracy of my acute analytic abilities. A mere couple of days after I wrote about why it is a grave error ever to rely upon the alleged truth of "intelligence" assessments -- a caution I urged most strongly on those who, like me, are vehemently opposed to the drive toward military confrontation with Iran -- The New York Times does its best to prove the essentials of my argument. The Times succeeds admirably, for we learn that certain "intelligence" sources may tend to indicate that, sometime, somewhere, somehow, mayhap, possibly, if several gabillion variables line up in precisely the required way, Iran might be a much more serious threat than many had thought. Perhaps. Thusly, be afraid, be very ... oh, screw it.

I was rather bitterly amused by one sentence in the story, which was of special relevance to all those who have relied upon the U.S. National "Intelligence" Estimate on Iran from 2007. You will recall that earlier report's assessment that Iran had not had an active nuclear weapons program for several years (thus leaving the terrifying implication that Iran did have such an active program at some point, an assertion utterly unsupported by evidence -- but neither our national politicians nor a huge number of Americans seem concerned about facts or evidence in the least, at any time, so it's all good).

But many of those opposed to the ruling class's agenda of domination and control seized on the NIE as evidence that Iran was not a danger that need concern us. I pointed out how dangerous an error this was when the NIE was first made known, and I amplified my argument in the recent essay.

The awful sentence in the NYT story -- a sentence reflecting a development which was entirely predictable if one grasps the inherent and necessary unreliability of all intelligence reports -- is this:

A senior American official said last week that the United States was now re-evaluating its 2007 conclusions.

I think we know how this one turns out. In the manner of a Hollywood significantly more execrable and devoid of imagination than even its present version (difficult to imagine, I grant, but work with me here), our national political establishment and its media co-conspirators insist on making the identical two or three shitty movies over and over and over again -- and the public keeps buying the product. It's, like, the American dream, man. Just try not to notice the actual blood, as it rises ever higher. Keep telling yourself it's not real. Most Americans do that so well. Besides, it'll only hurt for a minute. Well, if you're lucky.

Many would consider it to be in questionable taste were I to say anything more about the correctness of my own arguments on this and related points, and I've undoubtedly said too much already. Instead, I direct you here. I urge you to consider only the substantive arguments on offer from Mr. Floyd (and note his discussion of the sanctions question), and to disregard the embarrassingly flattering comments about the Silber fellow he mentions. (I'm sure this Silber guy is very grateful for the kind words. And while it may indeed be keen to control all of Creation in the manner indicated above -- we certainly enjoy it! -- it's not the kind of thing one bruits about. It just isn't done.)

Isn't it fun to argue about intelligence reports? No? Then don't do it. Argue the policy, always the policy, and nothing but the policy.

As I was saying...