Big Dog’s pitiful response

Poor Big Dog… he tried, he really did. Alas, he managed only one out of three. And — of course — he had to lie along the way.

Yesterday I challenged Big Dog to answer a few simple questions about his recent screed about Iran and the recent National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that Iran halted its work on nuclear weapons some years ago. Let’s see how the doggie did:

1. Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?

I cannot answer the question as it is posed because it asks for the name of one person.

Um… no, it does not. Nothing in the question requires that the answer be limited to one person. Big Dog dodges the question by the simple expedient of lying about what it asked.

The National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by a number of people and the press release on it was written by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Donald M. Kerr.

I don’t recall asking who wrote the press release. Big Dog throws in an irrelevant fact as a smoke screen for his non-answer.

The NIE is comprised of information provided by many intelligence analysts so naming one specific person is something I cannot do.

Again: I did not ask for the name of only one specific person.

The question also takes the original post out of context. I was writing about nuclear weapons and said «Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat.» The logical conclusion of the statement is …to make nuclear weapons (and I indicated they might later but not now).

This is known as “moving the goalposts”. Big Dog’s statement was “Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat”. If he meant “Iran does not pose a threat to make nuclear weapons”, then he should have said so.

The report states that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 (emphasis should focus on the fact that they were prior to that despite their denials) and that they have not since then and there is no indication they will but if they do it will be well into the next decade (well into the next president’s watch).

Yes, that is what the report states. And Big Dog has presented no evidence whatsoever that these conclusions are incorrect. Yet he still excoriates “the intelligence community” (without, conveniently, naming any relevant names) for making a claim that no one, to my knowledge, has made: that “Iran does not pose a threat”.

In fact, if the report is correct (and Big Dog thus far has failed to show otherwise), then it demonstrates just how foolish the Bush administration’s Iraq misadventure has been:

What it really means is that faced with two neighbors in the spring of 2003 who both harbored nuclear ambitions, we invaded the country without an active WMD program while ignoring the one that did. I’m not suggesting we should have invaded Iran instead, but by the Administration’s own reckoning, we should have.

It puts an exclamation point on the colossal folly of our Iraq adventure.

2. In what previous NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report did “the intelligence community” state unequivocally that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

Big Dog cites the May 2005 NIE, and in this, he is correct. The 2007 NIE, as released to the public, compares and contrasts the key judgments of the current NIE with the earlier version [page 9].

3. How do you reconcile your claim that the intelligence community “missed 9/11 completely” with the fact that the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, specifically noted that Osama bin Laden intended to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda operatives had traveled to or lived in the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously expressed a desire to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York”?

Here is the key part of Big Dig’s response:

Meathead would have you believe that the intelligence community reported the late breaking news that bin Ladin hated us and was planning something and we are supposed to believe that the inaction of the president was the problem.

The problem, of course, is Big Dog’s ignorance. In point of fact, the intelligence community did report the late breaking news that bin Laden was planning something:

1) Bush received intel briefing on Aug. 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US.” The briefing specifically warned to “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks,” particularly targeted at New York.

2) CIA Director George Tenet briefing Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials on July 10, 2001 about a specific urgent and looming threat from al Qaeda.

3) An FBI agent in Phoenix sent a memo to FBI headquarters on July 10, 2001, which advised of the “possibility of a coordinated effort” by bin Laden to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.

Lies and ignorance are the mainstays of the wingnut fringe that Big Dog inhabits. I do appreciate his willingness to confirm this fact for us yet again.

UPDATE 12/21/07 8:25 AM EST: Let’s look at the latest drool from Big Dog, as he attempts to rescue the pathetic shreds of his credibility:

Just as I predicted, Meathead said that what I wrote was not sufficient and did not answer his questions. Because I do not know the names of the people who wrote the NIE he seems to think that my answer is invalid.

What answer? Big Dog deliberately lied about what I’d asked in the first question, and then whined that he couldn’t answer the question I didn’t actually ask.

I updated the post to show who they were (I found it looking for something else).

Ah. Big Dog was too lazy to actually look for the answer, and merely stumbled over it later.

He names three individuals: “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”. I’m still waiting for some evidence that any of these gentlemen have said that “Iran does not pose a threat”.

I think anyone who understands English knows what my post meant so Meathead can parse words all he wants but the fact is he is an idiot who cannot understand basic English.

Translation: Big Dog is still desperate to move those goalposts.

I also want to point out that the idiot continues to cling to the 2001 PDB as if it were breaking news…

Big Dog, once again, resorts to the cheap and transparent lie. I’ve never stated nor implied that the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing was “breaking news”.

...despite the fact that I pointed out, and provided the text, of the 1998 PDB that included the same information. It was old news and Meathead is an idiot because he cannot understand that.

I understand that point perfectly. I also understand that Big Dog is deliberately ignoring the fact that there were multiple warnings raised by the intelligence community regarding an impending attack by al Qaeda against US interests in the US itself. Big Dog’s defense, as always, is pure intellectual dishonesty.

Let me explain Meathead, he is a lonely idiot who has few visitors to his pathetic website so he attacks people’s views in hope that they will visit him and leave comments. I ignore him for the most part and will not comment at his site. He took portions of my response and he parsed the words in Clintoesque fashion to rewrite history.

Big Dog is lying again. I reported what he said verbatim — no “parsing” occurred. I asked Big Dog to back up what he had said with some facts. This is what upsets Big Dog: the very idea that he should be held responsible for the veracity of his claims.

Meathead is the kind of person that makes others wish birth control were retroactive.

And, of course, one cannot be a good little wingnut without a soupçon of eliminationist rhetoric. Don’t like what someone is saying? Just wish them dead. Everything will be all right then, won’t it, little coward?