According to the Washington Post:

The Bush administration, alarmed by intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda operatives in Iran had a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, has suspended once-promising contacts with Iran and appears ready to embrace an aggressive policy of trying to destabilize the Iranian government, administration officials said.

So we're already on our way to attacking another Arabic country, albeit possibly indirectly this time. (Personally, I felt sure that it'd be Syria first.)

At the same time, the administration has failed to find any evidence of the reasons we supposedly attacked Iraq in the first place. In addition, they haven't made any statements declaring what their supposed intelligence reports claimed supported those reasons. But it's okay, as they continue to push and distract the American populace from these basic questions.

If you'll remember, one of my complaints is that they continually stated that they had good intelligence supporting their claims, but then refused to tell us what any of it was. Many of you apologists claimed that it was because it might damage war efforts. Well, the war, by all accounts, is basically over. Any remaining fighting is certainly not centrally controlled, and there's no reason that intelligence should continue to be hidden, except for the potentiality that it doesn't exist.

Others are beginning to agree. Sen. Biden, senior Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Comittee, who, according to the article, supported Bush's Iraq offensive, said on Meet the Press:

I do think that we hyped nuclear, we hyped al Qaeda, we hyped the ability to disperse and use these weapons.

Even the Republicans are starting to voice concerns. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss said on Face the Nation that though he believed that the administration worked on valid intelligence reports, that:

What I don't know is how good that intelligence was....

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to rattle its sabres and we seem to be avoiding it.

If you'll remember, one of my complaints is that they continually stated that they had good intelligence supporting their claims, but then refused to tell us what any of it was. Many of you apologists claimed that it was because it might damage war efforts. Well, the war, by all accounts, is basically over. Any remaining fighting is certainly not centrally controlled, and there's no reason that intelligence should continue to be hidden, except for the potentiality that it doesn't exist.

Quick clarification - the damage of revealing any intelligence received isn't limited to a 'war effort'. The damage extends further than that. There is a very real possibility of compromising that intelligence source. If that source is compromised, it because useless (in the event the source is technology), or terminated (in the event it is HUMINT).

Personally, I'm surprised they let out as much information as they did during Powell's speech to the UN.

So we're already on our way to attacking another Arabic country, albeit possibly indirectly this time.

Persian. Most Iraqis (not all) are ethnic Arabs, while most Iranians are ethnic Persians.

Another mostly Muslim country, yes.

Another Middle Eastern country, then. I was not aware of the ethnic difference between Arabs and Persians.

There is a very real possibility of compromising that intelligence source. If that source is compromised, it because useless (in the event the source is technology), or terminated (in the event it is HUMINT).

Thats what I get for trying to post something when I'm in a hurry. That sentence should really read:

There is a very real possibility of compromising that intelligence source. If that source is compromised, it becomes useless (in the event the source is technology (SIGINT)), or terminated (in the event it is a person/people (HUMINT)).

If that source is compromised, it becomes useless (in the event the source is technology (SIGINT)), or terminated (in the event it is a person/people (HUMINT)).

Wouldn't the latter be SIGTERM?

There is a very real possibility of compromising that intelligence source. If that source is compromised, it becomes useless (in the event the source is technology (SIGINT)), or terminated (in the event it is a person/people (HUMINT)).

My problem with this logic is that this is the exact reasoning given for why the Bush administration couldn't give the public more evidence before the invastion. Now that Iraq is our sand box to play in, we can go and "discover" any evidence we already know exists. The Bush administration would love to justify the whole thing with a canister of nerve gas or two, but they can't come up with any.

Matthew

The problem with Iran is that their capital is called Tehran. It's been a cornerstone of British foreign policy for a hundred years that we only send in the troops when the other guy's capital begins with a "B": Germany (Berlin), Argentina (Buenos Aires), Ulster (Belfast), Serbia (Belgrade), and Iraq (Baghdad). The next nearest countries to Iraq with anything to worry about are Lebanon and Brunei. Though we've got our eye on those treacherous Belgians...

Peter

It's been a cornerstone of British foreign policy for a hundred years that we only send in the troops when the other guy's capital begins with a "B"

In that case Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota and Massachusetts had better watch out too...

;-)

Personally, I'm surprised they let out as much information as they did during Powell's speech to the UN.

You mean, satelite photos of empty trucks, childishly forged 'documents' on uranium purchase and data on aluminum tubes whose technological characteristics all pointed to their intended use for manufacture of crude artilery rockets?

The only evidence Bush administration has on any WMD Iraqi regime might ever had are receipts .

Some Republicans also have some doubts.

It's interesting that recent CIA 'assesment' of Iraqi WMD 'hype' seems to be suggested by noone else but Rumsfeld (see here).

Though we've got our eye on those treacherous Belgians...

You're welcome to come, I have a feeling things can only get better.... as long as you stay clear of our beer !

In that case Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota and Massachusetts had better watch out too...

Hey, were armed to the teeth down here.

On a side note, the US must have set records for having two of the shortest wars ever recorded in history, back to back. I'll have to consult the '04 Guiness Book on that one.

But hey, why not go for a 3-peat? Not even the ancient Roman Empire could stop us now!

You're welcome to come, I have a feeling things can only get better.... as long as you stay clear of our beer !

Isn't Westmalle Tripel brewed in Belgium? That stuff is WMD by anyone's definition. We might have to, er, confiscate it all...

Peter

Isn't Westmalle Tripel brewed in Belgium?

It sure is! if I can make it to the Amerfoort meet, would you like me to bring some along?

if I can make it to the Amerfoort meet, would you like me to bring some along?

Why don't you get a truck, and bring a sample of every Belgian beer?
That would save Rob Schofield a trip to the local Amersfoort brewery.

Pim

if I can make it to the Amerfoort meet, would you like me to bring some along?

That's a very kind offer, but in fact I've still got some in the fridge from last year's Amersfoort! (Amersfoort, unlike Cambridge, is close enough to Belgium that they have it in the local supermarket.) Although I love it, it never seems the right occasion to drink it...

Peter

Why don't you get a truck, and bring a sample of every Belgian beer?

Sounds like a plan! Only... I really don't have the time to install an Empeg into that truck. And there's NO way I'm doing this trip without my Empeg.

but in fact I've still got some in the fridge from last year's Amersfoort!

Well, maybe there's another been you fancy from our assortment of 1547 different kinds of beer then ?

A bit under 64&1/2 cases of singles. Figuring 1/2 case per person & perhaps 33 people I think the Amersfoort meet should be able to polish it off in a strong afternoon's worth. Who's bringing the pretzels?

-Zeke