you're going to have to come up with better sources than "according to fox tonight"

and I will have to see their source to believe it

No!!!

There could be anti-administration forces at work within the intelligence community?

Say it isn't so, Joe!

you mean better than the nie that has said for four years that iran would have the weapon in 5 or 10 years and are now saying that they stopped making the bomb 4 years ago.

.....

MY GOD

the NIE is the product of centralization of intelligence gathering of the USA, I think their budget is ranging in the billions of dollars.

their voice has a *little* more reach than you, when they say things, it's probably true. I hardly can say the same about you.

And I can find no evidence of NIE saying in the past that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon.

I am sorry, Daniel, but your whole argument is moot. Do better than that.

The 2005 NIE stated that there was a “high confidence” that Iran had a active nuclear weapons program. Look it up.

The Wall Street Journal and the New York Sun also had articles questioning the veracity of the report. The three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-State Department bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and diplomacy and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have "reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials".

They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The questions regarding their motives in the production of this report are valid and deserve some consideration.

MasonM:

Now that's what I call informations, thank you

and i question everything to do with the united nations.