[i]Several current and former U.S. intelligence officials in the audience ?rolled their eyes? at Kahlili?s claims, said one observer who was present.
Who were the officials who “rolled their eyes?” Who was the observer present who said they did?
The Compost did a nice job but as they said: “A current U.S. government official did vouch for Kahlili’s role as a spy,” Ignatius added. “I can’t confirm every jot and title in the book,” the official told Ignatius, “but he did have a relationship with U.S. intelligence.” [/quote]
Thousands of suitcase nukes!
He made no such claim. If you go to the actual speech and read it in context you will see he was talking hypothetically and about the strategy. There was never any suggestion that he was talking literally about the numbers. It’s clearly a figure of speech - he said:
‘Now to a lot of people here in the West think this is crazy talk. But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it? The other side of the coin is that, let’s say that they have a rational mind, let’s say that they are interested in survival, let’s say they just want to use it as a source to protect their government, to become untouchable. The proliferation is going to become a disaster, and I was at the front row seats of Mohsen Razaei when they brought out the new strategy which was numbers - meaning a thousand small groups of small boats is going to cause a threat. A thousand suitcase bombs spread around Europe and the US is going to pose a threat. You are not going to get a handle on the proliferation. They are going to be untouchable. They are going to pass it on to Hezbollah, to Syria, to Venezuela. It is going to become a nightmare.’[/quote]
[/i] You know the whole “But if you give it 1 percent chance, are you willing to risk it” spiel was complete bullshit from the getgo.
Yes, there is a chance that the Martians might land in Monaco which will subsequently rise to world domination due to its awesome multiphasic laser Mechs, but in the end it just makes you paranoid, and broke, and paranoid, and a police state, and very, very paranoid.
Very possibly true. On the other hand, I believe you have to have at least a small paranoid streak to work in national security intelligence these days, no matter your country. Besides, if there were one subject to be paranoid about, I’d probably pick nuclear bombs proliferated by rogue states. Just sayin, that’s kind of a bang-for-your-buck subject after all.[/quote]
I don’t think you need to HAVE a paranoid streak to work in intelligence, but I think you inevitably end up acquiring one the longer and deeper you get into it. Paranoia is something that the CIA tries not to encourage at all. It’s a detriment to otherwise sound judgment and can be used against not only a single agent or officer, but against an entire intelligence station if paranoia is allowed to proliferate.
I agree, I think you said what I meant. I was being a bit flippant. Sort of like “if a woman’s not at least a little crazy i don’t look at her” kinda thing. Clearly nobody wants a crazy woman.