Eye on the Watcher’s Council

As you may know the members of the Watcher’s Council each nominate one of his or her own posts and one non-Council post for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week’s Council nominations is here. I see that the NIE is a favorite topic this week.

Wolf Howling, “A Deeply Flawed NIE Changes Nothing & Everything”

In a lengthy commentary on the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, GW examines the report and finds it wanting.

The Glittering Eye, “What the NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Development Doesn’t Say”

Quite a few people have made exaggerated claims of what the NIE says. In my submission for this week I try to clear that up a little bit.

The Colossus of Rhodey, “U.S. “Stingy” on Foreign Aid”

Hube takes up a topic I’ve posted on myself: the oft-repeated canard that the U. S. is stingy on foreign aid. I’ll take note of something that Hube doesn’t mention: how you define your terms says something about how you think about the country itself.

Done With Mirrors, “How Kennedy Said It”

In the wake of Mitt Romney’s speech on religion and politics, Callimachus reflects on John Kennedy’s famous speech during his successful campaign for the presidency.

The Education Wonks, “Babies Having Babies: Now a Generational Problem”

EdWonk laments the sad fact of too many young unmarried girls having children. I can only add that teenage pregnancy is at historical lows but so is teenage marriage. Good thing or bad thing? I genuinely thing that we need to rationalize our society’s attitudes towards sex, children, marriage, families, and maturity. We’ve got to find a way to reconcile physical maturity and social maturity.

Soccer Dad, “Making NIE”

Soccer Dad considers the NIE, too, and isn’t too happy with it.

Bookworm Room, “Explaining American Jews’ Love for Israel and America”

Bookworm asks a question: “For those people who claim that America’s and Israel’s interests are antithetical to each other, how do we justify or explain our loyalty to both?” I honestly don”t think that’s the right question. The question I’d like to know the answer to is if Israel’s interests and U. S. interests aren’t identical (which they manifestly aren’t), how do you thread the needle?

Joshuapundit, “Pearl Harbor… And 9/11”

Freedom Fighter muses on Pearl Harbor.

Rhymes With Right, “Another Sign: Islam Is a Human Rights Violation”

Greg considers the case of a young woman in Britain who’s under threat of her life for converting from Islam to Christianity. Perhaps someone can sets me straight on this. I know that the Qur’an doesn’t think highly of apostates but does it actually say that Muslims should kill people who convert from it? The both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, for example, say that blasphemers should be thrown into Gehenna but I don’t think it says that Jews and Christians should do it. Isn’t there a difference between something being divine retribution and human?

Big Lizards, “Hoodwinkers and Their Codependents: In Search of Intelligent Intelligence on Iran”

I think that Dafydd ab Hugh is giving too much weight to be report from The Telegraph that British intelligence says that the NIE is a victim of Iranian disinformation. I’d like to see a second independent source.

Right Wing Nut House, “Release of Iran NIE a Remarkable Testament to American Exceptionalism”

Rick Moran, when confronted with the NIE lemon, chooses to make lemonade. Good on him.

Cheat Seeking Missiles, “Burying a Hate Crime”

Laer takes note of the hate crime aspect of the attack on the church in Colorado and wonders why we haven’t heard more about that side of the incidentl.

Well, I’ve decided which posts I’ll vote for this week. Which posts would get your votes?

2 comments… add one
  • I wouldn’t say that I am unhappy with the NIE (or the unclassified summary of it.) I’m much more bothered with the way it was reported. The reporters and pundits made a big deal over the reversal but didn’t really explain why the 2007 NIE was superior to the 2005 NIE, except that it downplayed the the Iranian nuclear threat. Most of the original reporting was about political jockeying rather than about what was really in the NIE.

    It wasn’t until the second or third day that the NYT specifically filled in the blanks about what the new intelligence was. But even then, that raised some questions that didn’t get addressed.

    From a lot of what I’ve read since then – such as Wolf Howling or Big Lizards – I’m less certain that the NIE wasn’t politicized. However I’m also not convinced that Bush was unhappy with the NIE or that it somehow undermined him. (I think that your reading of the NIE was on target, though I’m not sure that Iran is as far off from being ready to field a nuclear weapon as you seem to feel.) Bush’s rhetoric may be harsh at times regarding Iran but there’s been little to indicate that he had any interest in military action. Stronger sanctions seem to be his approach and he seems to be gaining international support for them. And, as you note, the latest NIE seems to vindicate his approach to Iran so far.

  • Both James Joyner (of Outside the Beltway) and I agree that the harsh talk on Iran is bluster. Check who’s keeping the ball up in the air—it’s not the president. It’s mostly his political adversaries and the administration’s ax man, Dick Cheney.

Leave a Comment