Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Is Iran Irrational?
by Terry Jeffrey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The most interesting point in the new National Intelligence Estimate, which reports that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, is not about what Iran did or did not do in developing nuclear weapons. It is about how Iran makes decisions about such things.

The U.S. intelligence community does not believe Iran is a madman.

"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political economic and military costs," says the NIE. "This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways, might -- if perceived by Iran's leaders as credible -- prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program."

Whether American politicians accept or reject the assumption that Iran acts rationally will have tremendous consequences for the fate of the Middle East and for our security.

The case for believing that Iran is an irrational actor largely rests on the shoulders of its current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is because Ahmadinejad routinely says irrational things, especially when it comes to Israel.

In 2005, Ahmadinejad convened a conference called "The World Without Zionism." Here, he laid out an Apocalyptic vision in which Israel -- or the "Zionist regime," as he invariably calls it -- becomes the final battleground in a long struggle between Islam and the West.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcomes of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

"Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad said.

A Congressional Research Service report published in August referenced reports that contend "Ahmadinejad believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th 'Hidden' Imam, whose return from occultation would, according to Twelver Shiite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion."

"I have a connection to God," Ahmadinejad said at a Tehran mosque last October. He added that President Bush "also receives inspiration -- but from Satan."

All this inevitably suggests a chain of thought: A leader who believes it is his job to usher in an Apocalyptic age, where Israel is destroyed and Islam becomes the global religion, cannot be deterred from constructing, or using, a nuclear weapon. Therefore, an Ahmadinejad-led Iran must be pre-empted from obtaining one.

This chain of thought draws us toward another pre-emptive Middle Eastern war and counsels that we risk all the horrendous unintended consequences that could flow from such a war.

But is Ahmadinejad really Iran's decider? If he had personally driven Iran's nuclear-weapons policy, the NIE released this week would make no sense. Admadinejad was elected president of Iran on June 24, 2005. The NIE says Iran halted its nuclear-weapons program in the fall of 2003 and had not restarted it by the middle of this year. During the whole time Ahmadinejad has been president, in other words, Iran's nuclear-weapons program has been halted.

Apparently, the madman did not call the shots.

His predecessor, Mohammad Khatemi, could have warned him of that. Khatemi, a moderate "reformer" (by Iranian standards) was elected and re-elected Iran's president by super-majorities of the popular vote. For four of his eight years in office, his supporters controlled a super-majority in parliament. They never enacted their reform agenda, however, because it was vetoed by the Council of Guardians, which is comprised of six clergymen appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and six secular lawyers appointed by the Iranian judiciary.

"In January 2007," the Congressional Research Service reported, "an Iranian newspaper owned by Khamenei admonished Ahmadinejad to remove himself from the nuclear issue."

The intelligence community assumes a certain long-term stability among Iran's real deciders. "This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran's senior leadership and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989," says the NIE.

President Bush seems to agree. "The NIE talks about how a carrot-and-stick approach can work," said Bush at his Tuesday press conference. "And it was working until Ahmadinejad came in. And our hope is that the Iranians will get diplomacy back on track."

Bush's bet is simply this: The ayatollahs may be immoderate, but they are not irrational.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Irrationality
Domestic forces have always tried to convince us that foreign leaders are "irrational" "madmen". The truth is rarely do such people climb to such national power and leadership in such a condition. Such domestic forces try to manipulate us and scare us- saying someone who is "irrational" might actually use nuclear weapons. But we thought Stalin was "maniacal" and he never once used nukes. We thought Mao was a megalomaniac, hell-bent on power- and he too was actually a rational figure. Once again, those same forces take a quote or two out of context and depict Ahminijad in a similar light. Nevermind that he has been a competent political actor for decades. And we will fall for it....because apparently we never learn.

jagr
A really good post...before I read it, I was going to say that I think it's a great example of American presumptuosness that we have even a remote idea of how Iranian policy makers and leaders make their decisions.

God told me
"I have a connection to God," Ahmadinejad said at a Tehran mosque last October.

" God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did," President Bush to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen.

Philip Badowski, a college student who confessed to shooting his parents and then breaking a chain saw trying to cut up their bodies said, "God told me to" in a interview with police.

Dr. Park Dietz said Deanna Laney believed God told her to kill her children last Mother’s Day weekend. “She struggled over whether to obey God or to selfishly keep her children,” Dietz testified.


Did Bush Fix Intelligence?
WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/iran-has-no-nukes

FROM THE 2002 NIE REPORT!
Is this not Iraq all over again?

FROM THE 2002 NIE REPORT!

The assessment that Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program” was not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. The intelligence reporting did show that Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that had potential nuclear applications, but all of the equipment had conventional military or industrial applications. In addition, none of the intelligence reporting indicated that the equipment was being procured for suspect nuclear facilities. Intelligence reporting also showed that former Iraqi nuclear scientists continued to work at former nuclear facilities and organizations, but the reporting did not show that this cadre of nuclear personnel had recently been regrouped or enhanced as stated in the NIE, nor did it suggest that they were engaged in work related to a nuclear weapons program.

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/iran-has-no-nukes

moobat measurements

Apparently in some circles, two men, Mao and Stalin, responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people, don't qualify as "irrational" or "madmen."

One shudders to think what the necessary qualifications for such terms might be.

A couple of facts
1. "The case for believing that Iran is an irrational actor largely rests on the shoulders of it current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Right. I'm sure the fact that going back to 1979 under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran conducted mass executions of people for "offending Islamic values", has religious police who constantly arrest people they even suspect of same, and to this day routinely beheads their own citizens for violating edicts issued by their ruling Islamic Council has absolutely nothing to do with this assessment.

The least irrational thing Iran has done in 28 years was its war with Iraq. And that only counts because they waited for Saddam Hussein to start the war.

(Our behavior in Iraq was irrational, as well- we should have finished the job in 1991.)

Cults behave irrationally. The Islamic Republic of Iran is run by cultists. Anyone who is a product of their leadership-evolution process will be, ipso facto, an irrational cultist. To say that Ahmadinejad is Iran's chief "rationality" problem is like saying that Stalin was a maniac while Lenin was a saint. The problem there was that the Communist system encouraged leadership by irrational actors. Just like Fascism, and just like the present Iranian system. If Ahmadinejad were replaced tomorrow, it would be with someone as bad or worse, because that is what passes for leadership in the culture spawned by the "Islamic Revolution".

2. As for the "analysts" who produced this NIE, are these the same people who concluded a decade ago that Bill Clinton's "deal" with Kim Jong-Il had ended North Korea's nuclear weapons program? I.E., the one that still continues today?

If so, why should we, or the President, believe anything they say? It seems that their primary objective is to say what they think the DNC wants to hear. And if it damages our (America's) foreign policy, so much the better.

cheers

eon

Is Iran Irrational?
No. Not if you've just recently stepped out of a time machine from the 11th Century.

Unfortunately, it is the 21st Century and Iran is currently helmed by some very un-modern people.

A state that can and has ordered 12-year-old girls stoned to death because they were forced into prostitution by their mothers may be "rational" in the purely mechanical sense of the word (If "A", then "B", etc.) but I wouldn't call it a country overly concerned with the application of reason.

for eon
eon writes: " If so, why should we, or the President, believe anything they say?"

The National Intelligence Director reports to the President. He would not have released this report if he thought it was a direct slap in the President's face.

Don't you get it? This NIE report was released with Bush's blessing. Bush has changed his mind about attacking Iran and this report is the rationalization for that decision. Up till now, Bush has been building a case for tough economic sanctions and maybe even for military action against Iran. Now he's changed his mind.

For tonight's homework assignment, try to figure out what may have happened in the last few months to get Bush to change his mind about confronting Iran.

Bush caught lying again!
Anyone who believes that Bush found out about this a week ago is a fool. The NIE hasn't changed in six months. Bush was once again caught hyping the intel.

This guy should be impeached.

Phylo out.

Neo-conservatives for PEACE
In today's Washington Post, neo-conservative academician Robert Kagan is urging Bush to begin negotiations with Iran without preconditions--exactly the policy that Obama had proposed earlier this year!

This is remarkable because Kagan is a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard and those guys have been the strongest proponents of tough action against Iran. Until now.

Something has happened to change their minds. And that something may well be Iraq. Bush is clearly pleased with the progress of the war there. But he knows that Iran has the power to make a lot of trouble in Iraq with its majority Shiite population. Thus Bush intends to keep the Iran front quiet so as to keep things moving forward in Iraq.

NO2WAR
Your Bush quote is a complete fabrication. But then, you knew that.

decent column
Given the topic, this was a surprisingly reasonable column. It is true that Ahmadinejad does not drive nuclear policy. The leaders of Iran are religious zealots, but their policies suggest that they are traditional rational political players who are interested in expanding their interests rather than committing suicide in the name of some idea of purity.

Given our military advantage, this is what the question of rationality amounts to in this context. Because it is safe to say that the Iranians know that some actions would amount to suicide.

But Jeffreys does quote Bush's claim that Ahmadinejad ended diplomacy as if Bush deserves to be taken seriously. In fact the Bush administration had refused to talk to Iran long before Ahmadinejad was elected.

Late last night, 11:30 or so
I read on TH a 2 columns with many quotes from President Bush, that are quite different than the example given in this article.

In those articles and even in the face of this evidence provided by the State Department, of Iran not having a nuclear program and for years, Bush continued with his rants of preemptive war with Iran and all kinds of war speech. In at least one of the articles, Senator Rockefeller is quoted as saying, that President Bush had prior knowledge, that Iran has no nuclear program and has been promoting war with Iran to the people and again lying to the public using false information.

It was disturbing, to read quotes from a President of the US, speaking in such a way, in light of not poor intelligence, but twisting the intelligence, to suit a predetermined agenda.

When I went to bed, at least 10 people had commented on the articles. This morning both articles are gone from view, even though they were posted by TH, only yesterday?

I don't remember who wrote the articles, nor their titles. So if anyone out there has that information, please let me know, for I would like to read them again.

Now, THIS is the unvarnished truth.
I don't believe Ahmadinejad calls the shots in Iran. The mullahs in the Council of Guardians call the shots.

ApolloSpeaks raises some compelling issues, altho I STRONGLY disagree that we should launch a full-scale ground assault of U.S. troops on Iran. I think that would bring utter disaster. BUT, his point about how the Iranian mullahs are playing G.W. Bush like a fiddle is all too true. And, his contention, be it implied or explicit, that Iraq will likely become(ALREADY IS...IN POINT OF FACT)a Shia theocracy strongly influenced by Iran, is true.

In terms of regimes, the bottom line is we interpret "rationality" as a regime acting in such a way as not to knowingly bring about its own destruction, even if the regime is despicable by our standards, and executes its people.

To that extent, and under that definition, Iran is VERY rational.

I sometimes wonder if the same could be said about the United States, given some of recent political decisions by this administration.

For eon
The measure of Iran's irrationality can be seen in the 15,000 or so Iranians who applied for (and got) refugee status in INDIA during 1980-1995--fact that they would risk travel across 600 miles of hostile (Pakistan's majority Sunni population does not really like Shias such as the Iranians) territory to seek refuge in a country MUCH LESS PROSPEROUS than their homeland speaks volumes.

(FYI, some of the hostility was specifically stoked by Gen. Zia--one theory about his death, now discredited, was that due to Shias in Kohat breaking fast "early", Zia had abetted the killing of a popular Shia cleric there and his death was in revenge)

Why are these issues in debate?#1
The candidates that are "ALLOWED" to run for president in Iran are chosen by the religious leaders, in Tehran. No one else can run. No one else need apply. That means that they, not the elected "leadership," are in charge.

The program to confront the west began with Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and has been killing AMERICANS and others, ever since, as well as attacking we and our allies in any manner possible, including counterfeiting our currency. That program is religiously based because it is directly managed by the succeeding religious leaders. No one else has power except by their leave.
There are no exceptions.

Now as to the matter of military intervention with an enemy which has been at war with us for 30 years, and the "war on terror." We invited the terrorists to fight us in Iraq, and they did so. We kill as many as we could find and will continue to do so because they are a manifest danger to us, throughout the world.

Since Iran funds and leads 90% of the terrorism we are confronting, at some point we will be dealing with them, directly. This doesn't mean however that we must not cover our bases and maneuver for position in that fight.

Why are these issues in debate?#2

This why we took down Afghanistan and now Iraq, both of which you will kindly notice are positioned on either side of Iran. We did not do this because we were unable to read a map or were unable to identify the enemy and where they live. Iran now knows that we know who they are and what they have been doing these past 30 years. They have also noticed that we moved in next door and are looking them directly in the eye.

Our fault in this matter has been that we refused to do anything about this for 30 years. We deliberately ignored the problem and as problems do, it mushroomed exponentially. The next step in escalation, is a nuclear Iran. The same Iran that has been warring against us for 30 years. It doesn't make any sense to allow that to happen unless can't grasp that the world didn't begin when you were born and all that footage of the Nazi's is really, real.

This would be the Crayola crayon example of what has been going on in the world recently. This war is real and it is world wide and yes virginia, there really are terrorist personnel living in the United States. They've had 30 years to create infrastructure.

Iran is rationally irrational
Just like it was to SH advantage to convince the world that he had WMD when he had scaled back or abandoned them, it was/is in Iran's interest to show an irrational face on the nuclear issue. I believe they will now abandon this tactic...but you can never tell with these people...They are soooo irrational!

"Routinely says irrationally things...."
"The case for believing that Iran is an irrational actor largely rests on the shoulders of its current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is because Ahmadinejad routinely says irrational things...."

Interesting theory. Let's also turn it around and apply it to our own president.

Apparently the author speaks farsi
Another person misquoting Achmadinejad.

He did not say that Israel should be wiped off the map. What he said was:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

Interesting how it sounds similar to Bush speak in 2002 about removing an oppressive regime. Difference is, Bush actually dropped the bombs where as Iran has not. How did the Berlin wall come down, How did Communist Russia end. These were done without wars. To assume that Mahmoud is saying it takes a war to remove an oppressive regime is totally an American interpretation because that is all we know with our own Zionistic "God tells me to blow things up" president.

RUDY’S NEW AD ON IRAN
WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/iran-has-no-nukes


Military lovin
You insist Bush is chomping at the bit to attack Iran. When can we expect him to do so? Oh Im sorry, I almost expected you to use logic for a second...my bad.

Revolt of the Grown Ups, Pt. 1
SteveL asked a crucial question in his earlier post: What has happened in recent months to turn the tide against the Cheney-backed neoconservatives still remaining in the administration (and cheerleading from outside) on Iran?

I actually think former recess-appointed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton actually has it right for once. He has been telling reporters that the battle in the administration between Cheney's hardline group and the more moderate faction led by Condi Rice and Robert Gates is over and that the moderates won. Of course he thinks this is a bad thing, which probably means it's good for our country.

It has been obvious since the 2006 election that the neocon ideologues who led us into Iraq and who have been pushing for war with Iran have lost their mojo. The pre-election report of the Iraq Study Group started their downhill slide, the election accelerated it and the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates sealed the deal.

There were pre-election rumblings even within the Pentagon that they were done with the neocon ideologues. Several members of the Joint Chiefs let it be known they did not think launching a preemptive attack on Iran was a good idea in the current strategic environment. Rice, Gates, Centcom Commander Adm. William Fallon and even Gen. David Petraeus have all echoed those sentiments at one time or another. Despite the overheated rhetoric about World War III and the dire threat posed by Iran from some quarters of the White House, the new NIE drives a stake into the heart of those whose sole goal seemed to rush again to war without adequately considering the consequences.

Revolt of the Grown Ups, Pt. 2
On the plus side for the moderate group, the policies they recommended are actually working, unlike those pushed for so long by the ideologues. Although political reconciliation in Iraq shows little progress, violence is down. The flow of Iranian arms and material into Iraq has abated. The now-discredited neoconservative ideological fantasies have given way to the exigencies of reality as the moderate “grown ups” have taken control and begun to show some progress in righting our teetering ship of state.

This may not be the equivalent of a palace coup, but it is a stunning and welcome new direction from an administration that had long placed ideology ahead of facts in making decisions. For those of us who have long argued for a more rational, sane and productive foreign policy, this new direction is long overdue.


Ken in Space
I guess that is one theory.
As for the reality....
http://www.stratfor.com/ and check out the timeline of events.

Was the as you say neocon vs moderate debate real...or just irrationality right back at them...in our own western democratic kind of way?

ApolloSpeaks
That stunned me too...I thought we were done shooting ourselves in the foot! I hope Condi got it out of her system.

Actually, Dogg
It would be more accurate to say that McConnell is part of the Washington-based intelligence establishment that has made virtually every call dead. flat wrong for the last thirty years, going back to the gutting of our intelligence capabilities under the Carter Administration.

When you add in the fact that the President's father, as President himself, totally failed to adequately deal with Iraq, that Reagan and Co. totally failed to adequately deal with Iran prior to that (remember "arms for hostages?"), that the Carter Administration helped put the Ayatollahs in power in Iran, and that the four Administrations prior to him made a complete botch of the Mideast in general, I'd say there was more than enough blame to go around. In both parties, the Legislative and Executive branches, and especially the State Department. Which, I would remind you, is where these "National Intelligence Estimates" originate.

I suspect McConnell is just trying to hold onto his job with the new Administration, which he probably expects to be run by Democrats. As for the present President, I suspect he's past caring what McConnell, the press, or his opponents think, on the grounds that no matter what he does, he's damned in their eyes for not being Al Gore.

So he might as well continue the mission. Even if he can't convince anyone else that it's worth doing.


cheers

eon

Rocky-headJones: fake and a fraud!


YOU have proven yourself a fraud and a fake, every single post you've ever done....

You are no more a Navy Capt. than is my dog...

If you were, you would never post the ignorant trash you post... and you would know that,

"A serving military officer is required by his office to refrain from making public "value judgments" on the trend of policy, as established by the civilian leadership. "

You're a fake and a fraud!
You're a fake and a fraud!
You're a fake and a fraud!
You're a fake and a fraud!
You're a fake and a fraud!
You're a fake and a fraud!
You're a fake and a fraud!

Prove it ApolloSpeak
Prove where Israel has been threatened with Nuclear Destruction you liar. I am real curious as to how this could even be a remote possibility since they don't have nuclear weapons.

More Neocon Nonsense
Actually, though the NIE says Iran "suspended" its "nuclear weapons program" in 2003, no one has provided any evidence that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program AT ALL! Repeat: ZERO evidence.

Just because you accuse someone of something, does not make it so.

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel, by the way, is not: and probably has at least several dozen nuclear devices. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran is prevented from developing nuclear weapons, and is subject to intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Those inspections have never produced so much as a shred of evidence of any nuclear weapons program whatsoever.

Under the NPT, Iran has an absolute right to enrich uranium for nuclear power purposes. Iran's development of enrichment capabilities is absolutely, one hundred percent legal. Uranium enriched for reactor purposes is useless for nuclear weapons.

The author undoubtedly knows that Ahmadi-Nejad was misquoted; he never said he would "wipe Israel off the map." He said the "regime in Jerusalem will disappear from the pages of time." This is actually a lot less inflammatory than, say, Reagan declaring Soviet ideology would end up in the "ash heap of history." The author, in other words, feels absolutely free to continue parroting the same lie. Why?

Because he's a Neocon. They believe in lying as a matter of policy.

Dave Nate CIA undercover in Iran writes
...Prove it ApolloSpeak
Prove where Israel has been threatened with Nuclear Destruction you liar. I am real curious as to how this could even be a remote possibility since ***they don't have nuclear weapons.***

If your not working for the CIA, you should be since you know ALL.

RockyJones not SI ever?
You are way wrong of this...or just opportunistic of those unknowing?. looks bad to spectators...but you know not so...was inevitable given geopolitical interests...show downs...false accusations, threats...proxy pressure...even RUSSIAN complication for Xhris sake...NEW alliances...Then OLD alliances..all just FA chess...I thought you where a PLAYER?

ApolloSpeaks and offers friendly fire?
I thought I was supporting you with my post to Dave Nate. Yet I will answer...

Slowly and insidiously with convenient proxies and bellicose rhetoric...direct action as a LAST resort...The Persians are NOT stupid... they are masters of manipulation and deceit. Their greatest fear is Iraq back under Sunni control...They have been Bloodied greatly by them...ALL else follows! :)

ApolloSpeaks of Wars benefits,,,,
but speak also of the consequences!
Iran can yet be turned without.
I thought not so
not long ago
yet now a light in a tunnel does grow?

give it time...there is some yet for IRAQI vengence deserved ...
and they are sh*ting their pants over Sunni military preserved! :)

You couldn't prove it,
All you could do is conjecture based on your own theories that they want to "physically" annihilate USA and Israel. Are they in a proxy war with us? You bet. But lets look at some history. We overthrew their government. We supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. We currently support terrorist groups that operate inside Iran, PRMI formerly known as Jundullah. We threaten them with WWIII for actions they take that are legal according to a UN agreement. We have economic sanctions against them which only hurt the already poor civilian population. All of this on top of the fact that we are the only Nation to ever have used the bomb against a civilian population. Given our historical meddling in their affairs I don't blame them.

Do I know that they don't have Nuclear Weapons, of course not. They could have bought some after the Break Up of the Soviet Union(plutonium) and should have tried to if they knew whats smart for them since the U.S. leaves nations alone that already have the bomb. It would surprise me that they wouldn't announce this if they did have them though since they seem very concerned with our threats and the global pressure enough to stop their weapons program.

I am also surprised that you think another nation would even think about preemptively launching a nuclear weapon at us when there is a good chance we could shoot it down and launch a dozen at them while their missile is still in the air.

Don't forget, the supreme leader issued a fatwah against Nuclear Weapons as being anti-islamic. I don't think even he could go against his own fatwah without facing a huge internal disaster.

Are you saying that the NIE is incorrect and 17 intelligence agencies got it wrong? Or are you just supporting the president when he says this doesn't change anything?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.