U.S. Intelligence Thwarted Attack on Iran - Ray McGovern

[malaise]

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/57-ray-mcgovern/495-us-intelligence-thwarted-attack-on-iran
<snip>
Why should George W. Bush have been "angry" to learn in late 2007 of the "high-confidence" unanimous judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier? Seems to me he might have said "Hot Dog!" rather than curse under his breath.

Nowhere in his memoir, Decision Points, is Bush's bizarre relationship with truth so manifest as when he describes his dismay at learning that the intelligence community had redeemed itself for its lies about Iraq by preparing an honest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. As the Bush-book makes abundantly clear, that NIE rammed an iron rod through the wheels of the juggernaut rolling toward war.

It seems likely that Bush actually dictated this part of the book himself. For, in setting down his reaction to the NIE on Iran, he unwittingly confirmed an insight that Dr. Justin Frank, M.D., who teaches psychiatry at George Washington University Hospital, gave us veteran intelligence officers into how Bush comes at reality - or doesn't.

"His pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information woven into what he asserts is the whole truth... He lies - not just to us, but to himself as well... What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt - for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.... So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand."

---
I love Ray McGovern

[DJ13]

1. That describes a majority of the far right today

"His pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information woven into what he asserts is the whole truth... He lies - not just to us, but to himself as well... What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt - for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.... So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand."

[malaise]

2. I love that quote

and yes it speaks for all of them

[GoldMedals4U]

3. I'm still skeptical they ever could have attacked Iran

The military was completely bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. What would they have left to send? Maybe they would have launched missiles, but without troops in the ground they could never realize their neo-con dreams.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. I don't doubt that we could have done it. We are very good at

invasions - mass movement of conventional forces. What we suck at is occupations.

It's not as if all the tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were all under constant attack - if they were the casualty lists would have been far, far longer. We would have cut the occupation forces to the bone and launched a two prong attack into Iran from both Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by massive aerial bombardment and cruise missiles.

Of course, then we'd have THREE countries to occupy, and did I mention? we SUCK at occupations.

[Hydra]

5. The US was all set to do it

I was the unofficial doom clock of DU at the time. They were ready, willing and raring to go...and then that silly NIE came out. I told everyone I knew about it.

They didn't want to believe me. Such is the power of propaganda.

[malaise]

6. I remember that well

:hi:

[Hydra]

7. Surreal, isn't it?

:hi: