HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!You're so MORONICALLY STUPID you couldn't click on the link provided and VERIFY that it WAS NOT, in fact, the publisher's synopsis of the book before you so STUPIDLY claimed it was, you stupid, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
Are you SO STUPID that you read the publisher's synopsis of a book, quote it and then believe the backlink to Amazon legitimizes your claim?
What a fucking boob you are, Corpy! You continue to amaze. Over and over and over and over and over..Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
BTW, you stupid, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, here's an extract from Torrey Froscher's analysis of the book. "Torrey Frosche was Deputy Director for Analysis for the Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control in the Directorate of Intelligence before his retirement in 2006. He now works for CENTRA Technology, Inc."
"Jervis does not discount or excuse the specific errors of analysis and sourcing that received most of the attention in the official postmortems of the Iraq failure. However, he notes that critics invariably leave the impression that had these mistakes been avoided, the Intelligence Community could have reached the correct judgments about Iraq’s weapons. In fact, given the information available, the least damning verdict that might have been offered was that there was no solid evidence of continuing programs. Any claim that Saddam had ended his WMD programs would have been seen as highly implausible, even if there was evidence to support it. As Jervis notes, critics do not wish to acknowledge this because there is a presumption that “bad outcomes are explained by bad processes.” It is more comforting to believe that if the right reforms and organizational changes are made, future failures can be avoided....
"Jervis’s main criticism is the failure to apply what he calls “social science methods,” which might be thought of more generally as critical thinking skills. Analysts tend to look for (and find) what they expect to see. They do not think enough about the potential significance of things that are not seen ('dogs that do not bark' [The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Conan Doyle]). Most important, they do not make an effort to consciously articulate the beliefs that guide their thinking and consider what evidence should be available if they were true, or what it would take to disprove them. Facts do not speak for themselves but inevitably are seen in a framework of understanding and belief—whether that framework is recognized or not. Analysts rarely think about that contextual framework or what it would take to make them change their views."
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...e-iranian.html
Furthermore, you dumb-ass stupid, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, Jervis' book is cited scores of times in numerous CIA articles and reports on why intelligence fails.
