Posted on 10/10/2007 2:28:46 AM PDT by america4vr
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.
A familiar administration divide: Vice President Dick Cheney says Israeli intelligence was credible, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questions whether there was a real threat.
At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.
The debate has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea.
By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.
“Some people think that it means that the sky is falling,” a senior administration official said. “Others say that they’re not convinced that the real intelligence poses a threat.”
Several current and former officials, as well as outside experts, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the intelligence surrounding the Israeli strike remains highly classified.
Officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was cautious about fully endorsing Israeli warnings that Syria was on a path that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Others in the Bush administration remain unconvinced that a nascent Syrian nuclear program could pose an immediate threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Post #35 aplies to you.
Ouija baord.
Snort :)
Sorry, but even with how much I hate Pravda on the Hudson, I believe the report's characterization of Condi's views is correct and the appropriate comment from you should have been - "only Condi Rice would fail to see it" (she follows in the line of her political mentor - Chuck Hagel).
See #16 smart guy.
“I see Anonymous is speaking out again,to the NYT no less. That Condi is on their hit list is no surprise. Condi a bimbo? Anonymous wins again.”
Sorry, but I have no doubt that anonymous had Condi’s blessing on this story and she is using Cheney’s biggest enemy, the media, to help her in her fight for her policy of appeasing the North Korean regime for its nuclear blackmail. They have conducted that blackmail because they are imploding and if they do not get financial support soon they will implode. Condi is rushing to their rescue just as Carter and Ms. Halfbright did.
“Anonymous” doesn’t exist.
The NY Times fabricates their sources. The entire article is made up.
Exactly. The NY Times didn’t get Condi to comment, so her side isn’t being told.
...of course, that’s because the NY Times is making the whole thing up.
Which reminds me: Journalist “shield laws” are bad ideas because REPORTERS LIE. They aren’t “protecting their sources...”
They are protecting their own lies.
“Not if the spec ops guys removed it first.”
Perhaps, but the only specific mention I’ve seen in the press — a Brit newspaper, IIRC — claimed that Israeli Spec’l Ops guys brought out soil samples, which supposedly confirmed the presence of radioactive materials in the vicinity. It’s not impossible for the strike to have completely buried a radiological cache, but that seems unlikely to me...
Mind you, I’m not saying that dropping bombs on Syria is a bad thing...and flummoxing that spendy Russian air defense gear was a real plus...but we’re still in the dark as to what the nature of the target really was.
“Exactly! Either the State Dept. has changed Condi (environmental/cubicle contamination) or exposed her. Either way I don’t like the results....and I thought she had potential.”
You have not been watching her Sec State role that closely, have you? I saw the change begin almost from the day she started and particularly in Middle East policy. I began to wonder why. Appointments say a lot about someone in that position. One of her earliest appointments was Nick Burns, a long time State Dept official who left during the first Bush term to join the Kerry-2004 campaign, as senior foreign policy advisor, and was hired back by Condi after the 2004 elections. Then I learned that one of her early supporters was Brent Scowcroft - the GHWBush national security adviser who opposed GWBush on Iraq and wants Bush to pressure Israel more.
Birds of a feather flock together.
my my my, seems a sensibility has been poked
“Colin Powell in drag”
if this was a first incident I might disagree, but I can’t
so this ‘ bimbo ‘ agrees
Here's her latest:
For more examples of her non-sense, see here:
Rice issues new rules for Blackwater USA (WARNING: Disturbing images)
Secretary of State Rice Calls on Polluting Nations to Cut Fossil Fuels Use, Not Hurt Economy
Condoleeza Rice and the Conference of Doom
Secy. Rice: Israel Must End Occupation of 'West Bank'
Rice calls Hamas 'resistance movement'
Rice for 'Strong Message' to Stop Syrian Intimidation in Lebanon
Rice helped unfreeze N Korean funds (Condi=Maddie)
[N. Korea]Kim: North off U.S. terrorism list (Sunshine Condi hard at work)
Rice Is Said to Have Speeded North Korea Deal
...and the list just goes on and on. And also, there doesn't seem to be as many folks squawking about Condi for President around here anymore. I wonder why...?
I would have to see this stuff from some other source than the NYT to give it any credence. It may or may not be true. The NYT saying something is not any reason for belief.
Ms. Rice was “captured” by the permanent State Department as most Secretaries are. It may have brought out her natural inclinations by reinforcement or it may have changed her outlook altogether. The apparent metamorphosis does show that she was not the person to be the Republican Woman to run for president.
It would apply if Ms. Rice's perfidy was limited to this one incident. It is not. She has demonstrated a consistent and increasing hostilty towards Israel and rhetoric supporting Arab--specifically Saudi--positons. Condi Rice is clearly cutting the figure of her mentors Scowcroft and James Baker, who have been mouthpieces for the Saudis since they left office.
Actual Condi quotes are rare. Most "quotes" are actually from "sources" around her. Which is to say, most are fabricated from whole cloth.
It applies to you because you are accepting the NY Times’ “anonymous” source as if that was a real person.
It’s not.
There’s no such person. The NY Times has fabricated every word in the article for this thread. Nothing is believable.
It could also be that she’s being a real team player and doing her part in a “mutt and jeff” type good cop bad cop routine...
Or, even that what view we are getting is from a highly distorted and only ever accurate on accident type media.
I still consider her and everyone else raised through the ranks in politico/diplo environment of the last generation with deep suspicion and consider them all compromised, in a true knee-jerk kind of way.
I realize that sounds a bit of both ways and no ways... but... never said I was particularly bright.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.