Wretchard at the Belmont Club discusses one Thomas "give Bush the"
Fingar, the very model of the modern and methodical (and very much a prodigal) "impartial intelligence
analyst." He's the fellow responsible for the
NIE that determined Iran was no longer pursuing Nukes (as discussed in an LA Times
piece). He claimed to be creating a "Just the facts, no matter where they lead" environment. They don't promote policy positions over at his place, you see. From the LA Times:
The draft concluded that Tehran was still pursuing a nuclear bomb, a finding that echoed previous assessments and would have bolstered Bush administration hawks. Then, just weeks before the report was to be delivered to the White House, new intelligence surfaced indicating that Tehran's nuclear weapons work had stopped.
New intelligence, eh? So you toss out the first report and quickly whip up a second one. No reason to suspect an ulterior motive there.
But did Mr.
Fingar call the Iranians evil, thus compromising his "objectivity"? Let's see. It does sound like he is complaining.
"The unhappiness with the finding -- namely that the evil Iranians might be susceptible to diplomacy -- adroitly turned into an ad hominem assault," Fingar said.Hmm. Or is that the clever use of irony by Mr.
Fingar? Maybe the Iranians -- who've done him no harm -- are not the evil ones; maybe it is the unhappy ones, those who issue ad
hominem assaults, who are evil. Perhaps he uses Sarcasm. Which means the Iranians, far from being evil, are susceptible to diplomacy. But this sounds like he is promoting a policy position through the adroit use of sarcasm. Is that allowed? Perhaps we should think of Mr.
Fingar as the Shadow National Security Advisor.
Mr.
Fingar sounds like a typical left intellectual. They don't have policy preferences, just superior insight and knowledge. They are "the reality based community" because they can make two plus two equal their preferred sum simply by using a clever retort and changing the subject.
Is Mr.
Fingar advising the
Obama campaign? We'll find out when he's fired for some politically off the mark remark. There will be no whining as he departs. And he certainly will not call
Barak Obama a politician.
And now, allow me to flash forward: a year, more or less. I expect less.
In search of peace, President
Obama goes to Tehran and says "You had me at 'screw you!'" The Mullahs coax him to wear his new gift: a diamond studded, "Death to America," lapel pin. Does he refuse to wear it because of the empty symbolism involved? Or does he put it on in the furtherance of world peace, the way he would wear any other bit of native costume?
He'll offer them the Zero option: "We'll gladly give up our 12,000 nukes today if you give up yours -- how many you guys got anyways? -- on Tuesday."
They say they will consider this if we give up our missile defense first, as a sign of good faith. He'll say, "Too late, already done that. What else can we do to show our good faith?" They will suggest we withdraw from Iraq. He'll say "Operation skedaddle is already in skedaddle mode. Sorry. Come up with something else." They'll say, give us time to think and we'll make a list. He'll say, can I make suggestions? They'll say, why not?
And he'll think, I cut my teeth facing down US auto executives, US Oil Companies, and US Presidents. These guys are nothing.
