The Command Post
Iraq
« Rumsfeld confesses : "It's beyond me" | Main | Surprise - liberty and the war on terror do have a friend in France: Sabine Herold. »
October 12, 2003
NYTimes Scoop: Intelligence Evaluations Are Fallible!

Today's New York Times editorial withholds its breaking news until the last sentence:

..."the fallibility of intelligence evaluations has become all too apparent."

This astonishing discovery prompted the editors to call for independent experts to inspect the inspectors. In a surprise move, however, the editors did not insist on unanimous UN (aka UUN) approval and control of the inspector inspectors.

Posted By Clyde at October 12, 2003 01:48 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Such a non-story that it rightly doesn't even warrant a link ! ;-)

Posted by: CERDIP at October 12, 2003 07:47 PM

CERDIP! Your 'intelligence' just went from fallible to INfallible! LOL.

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at October 12, 2003 07:55 PM

do we really think the NYtimes knows more than the CIA?
I am betting money the CIA knows things you couldnt even imagine.

Posted by: gijoe at October 13, 2003 01:59 PM

Being fallible is not the problem .

Being falsifiable is.

If you are aware they are fallible, you make conclusions carefully and circumspsectively.

But falsifying them leads to inappropriate conclusions.

There still aren't Any WMDs out there.

And here y'all were just So Very Sure that we'd scoop up a bunch, in their hundreds of tons, loaded and ready to fire, deployed in forward areas, with the command given to use them.

Remember?

No?

Not surprising.

(We return you now to the parlor game of inventing after the fact rationales. Have fun!)

Posted by: Don at October 22, 2003 10:19 AM

But hey,

fallible, yeah
falsifiable? depends

No one has found Saddam yet either, I guess he never existed.

Are arguments like that fun?

before the actual operation, everyone including France, Germany, yada yada said they existed. Chriac was quoted as saying he believed they had them.

The argument was never about having them, no one except Tony blair made that argument.

The argument was how to get him to give them up.

Iraq is the size of texas, they could still be there. That is what McKay said.

Posted by: larry at October 22, 2003 04:04 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?