Newt Gingrich says what I've suspected all along about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran: that it's a "shadow government" attack on President Bush.
From the Israeli National News:
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that downplayed the danger from Iran's nuclear program was "fundamentally dishonest," former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich said in an exclusive interview with Israel National Radio's Tovia Singer.
"If you simply change about three words you change the whole report," Gingrich said, adding that the report seems to have been "deliberately written to maximize the pain to the Bush administration." It was written by three former State Department officials who were "deeply opposed to what President Bush is doing," he said, and who wrote the report "to maximize confusion."
Gingrich characterized the NIE as "very misleading, very destructive and very unfortunate… almost a bureaucratic coup d'etat."
For reasons that aren't quite clear to me, there are a number of bureaucrats and functionaries in the State Department and intelligence community who are out to make President Bush look bad.
The State Department, I kind of understand. Since before World War II, the State Department has been filled with communists and other varieties of anti-Americans. They undermine American prestige, strength and resolve at every opportunity under the guise of "diplomacy."
What I find hard to understand is why similar elements exist and operate within the intelligence community. One might think that those who work in intelligence would understand the threat and nature of evil around the world. Then again, how many spies and moles have we uncovered from within our own intelligence arm--and how many remain undiscovered?
We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled by people with a political agenda, and an agenda that is anti-American. Evil doesn't change its stripes overnight, and it doesn't change them without a direct and forceful confrontation. This has not even remotely occurred with Iran; in fact, only appeasement has occurred.
We would do well to remain wary of this powerful supporter of terrorism around the world, and be ready to respond militarily if necessary.
2 comments:
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
I don’t agree with everything the author said, but there is a lot of truth in the piece.
It is true that the disputed area isn’t historically a “Palestinian” nation; the area used to belong to several Middle Eastern countries. Still, Palestinians would have had their own country under the same UN declaration that created the restored nation of Israel. But Arabs chose to try and exterminate Israel instead of peacefully accepting the situation, and so we have the current mess.
While I don't think you have to wipe out indigenous populations to achieve peace as the author stated, a decisive victory (as opposed to a muddled one where the defeated party still operates under the illusion that it can come back to defeat the victor later) is the only way to achieve lasting peace. He was absolutely correct in his statement: “If history is any lesson, peace is only achieved through crushing defeat of one’s enemy.”
This continual process of “land for peace” and other muddled negotiations with people who have shown an utter lack of civilization (civilized people don’t intentionally slaughter civilians) just encourages the suffering to continue.
But the subject here is Iran, and while everything in the Middle East is related, let’s stick to that subject in this thread.
Post a Comment