Dark Suspicions about the NIE

Commentary ^ | December 3, 2007 | Norman Podhoretz

[Cicero]

I think the truth is somewhere in between your two positions.

Bush has tried as hard as he can, and he has held to his course in the face of a traitorous media and traitorous Democrats who want to lose the war.

I also agree that Rumsfeld was not to blame for these failures. He was fighting the clintonoids in the Pentagon and the CIA who WERE to blame.

Nevertheless, Bush erred when he failed to go into Syria, he failed when he left Tenet in before finally removing him, and he failed in not speaking out more strongly for the truth.

Far from widening the war, regime change in Syria would have made things easier in Iraq as well as taking the pressure off Israel, because Syria has been one of the main sanctuaries from which the terrorists have been operating with impunity.

Iran is another problem, much more difficult, but at least we should have dealt with Syria, years ago.

I support Bush on the war. I just wish he had done more of the same.

[Seadog Bytes]

: )))

[Khepri]

They're the ones who wrongfully made the announcement that there were no "WMDs" in Iraq later on. That announcement was irrelevant, after so much time was allowed for Iraq to hide such materials.

I felt a sense of betrayal then, after putting up the good fight for so long against the DUmmies...and then they came out with that.....

And here I've been arguing again about Iran and it's ambitions only to be underminded again....by the Administration.

Granted there's question about this NIE, but the Administrations wholesale adoption of the report raises suspicions on my end...somethings not adding up here.