Well, if you really hate point by points, I’ll just glom this all into one heap o’ words…
Ignoring the caveats inherent in an estimate, and instead of saying “NIE finds is plausible that Iran has done thus and such”, saying “NIE says Iran has done thus and such” is not simply a gloss that recasts an estimate. It makes it sound like the NIE is definitively confirming a position that (lo and behold!) you just happen to hold. That a presentation of false to facts certainty just-so-happens to fall into a particular ideology is too much of a coincidence to be believed. What, it’s wrong for the OSP to stovepipe intel and cherrypick intel and ignore caveats and probabilities inherent in intel and say “Intel community: Iraq has WMD”, but it’s perfectly honest for fellow travelers to stovepipe intel and cherrypick intel and ignore caveats and probabilities inherent in intel and say “NIE: Iran does not have a bomb”?
There is a huge difference between saying that the NIE has declared that it is plausible but a non-solid judgment that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program, and saying that the NIE has said that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program. Just as there was a huge difference when the OSP took maybies and turned them into “this is what they say”.
Goose and gander, after all. To say otherwise is, yes, hypocritical and, yes, intellectually dishonest. Unless you state that the methodology the OSP used was fine, of course.
Now, leaving the caveats out does change the essential nature of the report. Or do you honestly contend that an entire 1/8 of the report, their efforts at terminology and delineation between terms were not essential to the point they were making? Do you think that they just wrote that part… what, for fun? To pad their paper’s length? If they went to such trouble to state exactly what their terms meant, the semantics, why then is it a ‘quibble’ to point out that people are deliberately disregarding what the NIE actually said, what they actually meant, and what distinctions they actually drew?
Yet again, it’s worth pointing out that the NIE’s “second highest grade” of confidence is also their “second lowest grade”. They only gave three, so claiming it is the “second highest” seems rather odd. Doesn’t it?
Why do you think they took an entire 1/8 of their report to define their terms, and state how they were different? If the NIE felt it could come to a solid conclusion (Iran is not working on a bomb), instead of only saying it was plausible (it is plausible that Iran is not working on a bomb but we cannot corroborate this sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence), why didn’t they rate it as a highly confident assertion?
If they hadn’t meant to say that it was only plausible, but had instead wanted to say they had solid confidence in it and one could say “NIE says that Iran has stopped progress on bomb”, why didn’t they rate it as a highly confident assessment?
How can you claim that what the NIE meant is just a quibble? And is it not interesting that a solid judgment might be stated as “NIE says Iran stopped building bomb”… and a non-solid judgment might be stated exactly the same way? What, then, is the point of the NIE’s rather deliberately and exhaustive analysis of their terminology? Why draw a distinction at all if there is no distinction?
To use another rough n’ ready analogy: there is a huge difference between “Scientists say it is plausible that life exists on other planets but that they’re not able to make a solid judgment” and “Scientists: life exists on other planets.”
If the mods said “Poster Y is plausibly a sock but we cannot be certain, let alone come to a solid judgment” would one then be justified in saying “Mods say: Poster Y is a sock” or even “Mods say: Poster Y is a sock and thus we can determine that he should be treated like a sock?” If not, why not? And if not, why is the SDMB moderation held to a higher standard of intellectual honesty than a freaking NIE paper?
Why would that be wrong but “Iran has plausibly continued to suspend their nuclear weapons program, but intel is not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” can become “Iran: no nuclear weapons program” or even “Iran: no nuclear weapons program so we should treat them as if they’re definitely not working on one.”
And yes, if you contend that the caveat isn’t important, that the NIE drew the distinction for no reason, that even though a moderate assessment is only plausible and specifically not a solid assessment, that one can present it without the caveat and the probability rating as if they weren’t essential, then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Ignoring that the NIE took great pains to delineate a “solid judgment” from something that is “plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”? It ignores the very point they were making. And yes, deliberately ignoring the very point they were making is not intellectually honest.
You, Lefty, may still be an honest guy, but if you claim that you are certainly engaging in intellectual dishonesty if you claim a deliberate and thorough distinction can be handwaved away.
As for detracting from a productive debate… are you kidding me? You mean, the folks who lie, thread after thread, about Iran’s relationship to Hezbollah, and Hezbollah’s actions, are interested in a productive debate, and I’m getting in their way? That people who, thread after thread, cast telling the truth about history while explicitly saying that we should not go to war as “warmongering” are interested in a productive debate, but I’m getting in their way? That people who, thread after thread, seize on every intelligence report that says “we’re not sure if this is the case” and say “There, they just said that that it isn’t the case.” are interested in a productive debate, and I’m getting in their way?
Please. How many more times, do you think, the OP needs to be reminded that Iran’s sponsorship and direction of Hezbollah to murder Americans didn’t end with the Marine Barracks Bombing? How many more times will he reply to comments about Iran’s direction of Hezbollah to murder Americans with “Ah-hah, Zionist traitor!” etc, etc, etc.
An echo chamber where everybody repeats the same myths “Iran has never attacked the United States”, “Iran is a civil society”, “Iran has definitely suspended its nuclear weapons program”, etc, etc, etc… and anybody who points out those are bull is ‘ruining the debate’?
No.
We are here to fight ignorance, not parrot willful ignorance between it jives with our partisan politics.
If you feel like taking me to task for using a semantically equivalent phrase, but do not take those to task who cast "This is a plausible interpretation but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of
confidence. " as “This is how it is”, then you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. It’s just how it is.
Awww, is red posting crazytalk again? Insanely weird accusations gainsaid by what I’ve actually posted, in threads that he’s posted in? Conspiracy ramblings? Dual loyalty traitorous evil Zionism? Maybe he failed to address a single cite I put forward and instead deliberately mischaracterized my position? Maybe even aligned himself with people who have been shown to be lying about what I say, and have been proven to be totally unable to substantiate, with even a single quote, what they claim I’ve stated? Oh oh oh, did I get called a “Jewish Zealot” again in a totally ‘non-racist’ manner?
I can’t tell you how happy I am that my current mouse has a handy dandy scroll wheel. 
So their support of Hezbollah makes them no different than Quatar?
And before 9/11, it was the Iranian brand of fundamentalist Islam that produced the terrorist group who had killed the most Americans. The 9/11 report also confirmed that the Iranian government formed a shaky alliance with Al Quaeda, and Hezbollah helped teach them bomb making, among other skills.
But Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. Yes, its people are by far a bunch of decent folks. Its leaders are scum, and tremendously oppressive. The people haven’t gotten to choose Iranian policy for some time now.
So are you sure, at all, that if the US plays nice, Iran will stop funding, arming, training and giving safe haven to Hezbollah? Would they even help us (the US and Europe) find all the Hezbollah operatives that have infiltrated? If not, if they still support a racist, genocidal, anti-western bunch of terrorists, how can they not be an enemy?
Um… you do know that the evidence I’m referring to wasn’t touched by the NIE? That I’ve posted specific trials, among other intelligence assessments, that do deal with it? That Iran is not only a threat to us if they have nuclear weapons? Feel free to deliberately ignore that estimates of Hezbollah’s actions are not the same as the NIE’s paper on Iran’s nuclear program.
Nonsequitors are pretty.
So… Iran has refused offers of being given carefully monitored fuel, Iran has refused offers of being electrical power, Iran has said that it wants to enrich its own uranium from start to finish and do it on its own. And you’re curious if Iran would accept the position that someone can tamper with their uranium?
Yeah, I just didn’t read clearly enough.
