More flawed intelligence? (Page 2)

mike, mike....i don't believe everything i read.

examples:
pre-war claims about iraq's WMD
pre-war claims about how it would be a "cakewalk"
pre-war claims about how iraq oil would pay for reconstruction
pre-war claims about saddam-al qaida connections
pre-war statements linking iraq and 9/11.
post-invasion claims about major combat operations being over in may,2003
post-invasion claims about the insurgency being in its "last throes"
post-invasion claims about how capturing uday,qusay,and saddam would somehow make things better, and we were always turning some corner or another.

i didn't believe any of that. so i feel like my track record on what i do and do not choose to believe is fairly good compared to the large numbers who believed most of the above.

how about you? which of those things that you read did you believe? i'm 8 for 8. but thanks for the advice.



i don't see where anyone is disputing that n.korea broke the agreement by purchasing centrifuges from pakistan. what's at issue is how confident bushco was in the charges that n.korea could and was producing enriched uranium--not intentions, but that they could and were doing it. that is what they are now backing off of. the fact that they are admitting that they weren't sure then and that they're even less sure now is not in dispute. also what is at issue is how they responded toward n.korea---cutting of their oil supplies was not going to bring n.korea back to the bargaining table.



true. and now it seems that b/c of "flawed intelligence" on uranium, that opened the door for them to build an arsenal of plutonium nukes---the very type of nuke that in 2002 they actually had not just the intentions but the program capacity to do.



i don't see how we're in the "power position." and the US was not the driving force behind the recent negotiations---the exact kind of negotiations that for the past five years they have refused to engage in. as for the missile defense system, you shouldn't believe everything you read. almost every national league pitcher has a better batting average than the missile defense system. missile defense systems also don't do anything to stop suitcase nukes, and one of the fears is that n.korea will sell one to a terrorist organization. which they are much more likely capable of doing now b/c of the discussion above.

apparently we can talk all day about who is to blame for n.korea having up to a dozen nukes. and i think it is important to talk about who is responsible for the failed policy that allowed that to happen given that those same people are still in charge today, still making unsubstantiated claims about other countries' nuclear weapons program capabilities.

but i'm just a dirty hippie, so what do i know?

You know what bothers me (self-proclaimed Republican but disappointed in Bush), is that here are the liberal democrats complaining again about how Bush handled things.  It seems that if the adminstration  attacks someone it's wrong.  If they ignore someone there wrong, and if they negotiate their wrong.  They use the intelligence they get from the same sources the Dems get it from.  This issue is not whether NK used Plut or Uran for the bombs it's that they have them.  And now the multi-governmental negotiations have resulted in a settlement (we'll see if it proceeds) for NK to give up their program.  Guess it would be too much to expect anyone to notice that something seems to be working...

I guess the title of the thread is a little misleading sorry about that. The problem isn't really with the intelligence, its with the interpretation. I beleive people in the Bush admin had preconceived notions about what they wanted to find and overhyped questionable intelligence to suit their views, and that's what I find dangerous. I think they came into office wanting to break the deal that Clinton brokered (because anything Clinton is bad) and twisting this intelligence was the way. I find it dangerous because they have lost all credibility with the public and what happens when there comes a time when something truly worrying is happening and they ask us to trust them again and we can't? It's putting us in more danger and in a weaker position with the rest of the world.

The ironic thing is that the agreement we just signed with NK is strikingly similar to the one that was so bad to begin with we had to break it. In the mean time however NK was allowed to develop a nuke unfettered.

Never mind

Edited by Rogillio 2007-03-02 12:29 PM

Jimbo: Iwan't setting up a "straw man" arguement.  I was asking what your position was, as I was unclear. 

One thing that I find interesting about the article and your position is it appears that the article may not be consistent with historical events and events as published in their own papers (Washington Post).  It was reported as far back as 1997 that North Korea had enough plutonium to build a nuclear weapon.  To believe that the reactor built in 1985 that produced this plutonium was not being explored for it's use in nuclear weapons until 2002 seems a little nieve to me.  Doesn't it make more sense that N.K. was exploring simultaneously the use of uranium and plutonium?  As a strategic matter it does.  Especially, if one falls into the camp that the NK nuclear program is nothing more than "negotiation through extortion" (Not my term)

Not to mention that there seems to be at least sufficient evidence that in 1998 NK bought nuclear technology from Pakistan.  There was also intelligence from other countries regarding the NK uranium program, primarily from Japan.  Two NK defectors to Japan claimed first hand personal knowledge of NK underground uranium enrichment program.  The allegations of the defectors regarding the location of the underground sites coincides with prvevious intelligence from 1998 regarding underground  fascilities.

The of course there's the Libyan concection with NK.  When Libya attempted to "normalize" (2001) relations with the West they turned over unranium that was "slightly" enriched.   The two primary suspects for giving the Libyans the uranium were Pakistan and NK.

And the NK have publicly claimed that the violation of the 1994 agreement by the west was based upon the non-completion of the light-water reactor.   Which of course is odd because the enrichment program had been going on since the 80's.

So were the conclusions of the administratino wrong/faulty?  Who knows?  But ask yourself this:  Does NK have a history of attempting to build a nuclear weapon?  And: Does it make sense that the uranium and plutonium plans would be mutually exclusive?  that is that NK didn't explore the possibilities of a plutonium based weapon until 2002?  History seems to indicate otherwise. 

Edited by ASA22 2007-03-02 12:44 PM

I would guess it's pretty clear that NK had been researching a plutonium bomb for a while, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to develop one so quickly once the 1994 agreement was scrapped in 2002. However, the 1994 framework, which included monitoring by international observers and seals on their plutonium reactors, was effective at preventing them developing the bomb.

yes, there was evidence that NK may have been persuing a uranium bomb. the problem is that the admin claimed that this evidence was of much higher confidence than it was in order to scrap the preexisting agreement. To repeat a previous quote, ambition <> achievement. There is probably little doubt that NK wanted nuclear weapons, but to scrap an agreement, that while flawed, was doing it's job based on overhyped intelligence seems dangerous to me. what happens now when we try to build a consensus around Iran's nuclear program? Other countries we will depend on have to wonder "is this another caes of the Bush admin over hyping questionable intelligence because they are intent on attacking Iran or is the threat as serious as they say?" It puts us in a much weaker position.

Edited by drewb8 2007-03-02 2:15 PM