Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
with the herald reporting Maori leaders: Why we still back Rickards it's not hard to think that there's something just a bit wrong with many of the louder voices claiming to represent Maori.
I can't help but compare what Sharples is saying about Rickards with what he had to say about the Ruatoki raids, on Rikards -
Dr Sharples said that when a case was before the court nothing was proven or disproven, and supporting Maori was what Maori did.
"We're not here to defend them for things they've done wrong. But it's not our job to prosecute them in the papers or make verbal attacks.
"In terms of Maori, he's reached the top and he's made mistakes.
"Justice takes its course and that's fine, but it doesn't mean we have to turn our back on our own."
it's quite sickening.
-
Or to be quite cynical...
from such a distance it's pretty hard not to be but I still think that one can sift thru the various more reliable info sources and get an impression of what's going on.
The LA Times has Anatomy of an about-face on Iran which appears to be a straight analysis. Of course the spooks could still be wrong and there is definitely an attempt to make up for past mistakes - which even such fierce critics of Bush as Simon Tisdall think might turn out to swingin to far the other way.
But it does look like the Buch admin accepts the NIE assesment at face value - it may turn out ot be wrong - but it looks like setting up a situation for more negotiation. If it is wrong then that will most likely playout in the next presidency and then the possiblity of millitary action will be much higher.
Interestingly the Guardian in British spy station played role in US U-turn on Iran reports
...contrary to the speculation among bloggers about mutiny by the intelligence community, the president retains control over whether and when the estimates are published.
-
I had a quick look at the Long Now site (only quick so the following observations could be wrong).
It seems to be a sort of psychological/political equivalent of the Slow Food movement. Which is something I'd support. But a few of questions.
Is this anything new? The idea that there are trade-offs between the short-term and long-term is hardly new. A lot of the conflicts in politics revolve around this issue and it's not because politicians are unfamiliar with this that problems arise, it's more that it's always a difficult dilemma to solve. Health funding is a classic example - the split between longer term prevention programmes and the need to deal with sickness now.
And, how does this help with dealing with the remaining authoritarian regimes? If all nations were democracies than a Long Now form of diplomacy would make sense - and is in fact the sort of thing that goes on between democracies. But is it really something that can translate to dealing with people like Mugabe in every circumstance?
It's not like the conflict that sparked this discusion is between the US and France or Australia and NZ.
-
...say this amazing intel is from some agent working in Iran? What's to say they aren't a double-agent?
it does seem that that's what was initially thought - that the intercepted communications were a scam. Seems that's why the NIE publication was delayed - so they could verify the intelligence. It could still be that iran is gaming but it does appear that this was considered.
But if the NIE is wrong then my guess is that this will all come out during the term of the next president who will most likely be a Dem with a More of the Carrot and Less of the Stick policy compared to Bush. Now if Iran is gaming this then just think what reponse such a president would make - most likely go back to more of the stick and for real this time.
-
We can choose to eat it up or start to become skeptical about everything they say.
you might be right but i think if the NIE assessment turns out to be wrong then it's more likely to be an honest mistake than some sort of skulduggery (a view based purely on not much). Certainly Ehud Barak thinks its wrong and Simon Tisdall concludes his piece with
The irony here, amusing if it were not so deadly serious, is that having been badly wrong about Iraq, a chastened intelligence community, erring on the side of caution, may also be wrong about Iran.
But for the time being I'll take the unjustifiably optimistic view that Iran did respond to international pressure and that for all the bluster on both sides this is all heading for a negotiated settlement.
-
Iran, I don't see how it's possible to be the least bit sure about any of the claims by intelligence agencies about anything.
to be sure, but given that this latest NIE on Iran is substantially different to that in 2005 it does suggest they have based this on what they believe to be good new intelligence. They could possibly be be wrong or lying - which would mean that Iran still has an active nuclear programme. But I really do think that the combined US intelliegnce agencies wouldn't be sitting on that just to make Bush look bad, whatever Podhoretz's conspiracy theories.
-
Not unexpectedly, the US administration is already lying about what it knew, when of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran
That's just the opinion of Josh Marshall, if you look at the WaPo
article he refers to things aren't quite as clear cut. All this looks to have been confirmed by quite recently gathered intelligence.As for Podhoretz, he might have a point about this being leaked as some sort of attempt to influence the Bush admin's policy towards Iran. If that were the case then I'd take the opposite view to Podhoretz about its worth.
The NIE report also recognises that Iran most likely suspended its nuclear weapons programme as the result of international pressure. So in that sense the policies of Europe and the US, who have been the major players here, have worked.
-
I vote Tuhoe coz it covers lotsa bases and has lotsa ramifications.
-
I/S, OK, so you're down on National, but don't you find it just a bit troubling that Labour is prepared to rush thru poorly conceived legislation in order to increase its chances of electoral sucess?
Now I understand that the bill is just leveling the playing field and understand the reasons (the EBs etc) and support the goals, but still, Labour's objective is to make their chances of re-election greater.
And in such a situation I would expect the Opposition to put up a bit of a fight. Labour have not handled this very well. If there had been less of a rush I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
-
rather than just screaming, pouting, and demanding the continuation of the (rich-benefitting) status quo.
While I do think Mr Farrar has a very small bit between some very large teeth I don't think you can write off National's position quite so easily.
Labour is in a rush to get this thru, which is understandable, but there's a degree of panic that isn't making for good law. I haven't had a strong opinion one way or the other but after hearing the Law Society this morning I'm tending to the view that there should be more time given this.