I guess I am not explaining myself well.
The way I see it is: either the source and its information is credible or not right?
No.
You expect a criminal to lie about a crime he's committed. You don't expect him to be lying when he walks into a hospital claiming he's been shot.
Here we have a NIE that is taken as gospel whereas NIEs from the same source in the past were dismissed as lies. My issue is that people seem to judge the value of the report and its credibility based on whether or not it agrees where their political point of view.
Certainly, it's wrong of people to either believe or disbelieve something solely because of whether or not it agrees or disagrees with their viewpoint.
However, I don't think that's the case here.
I see what you are saying but I don't agree. You seem to imply that the intelligence agencies are criminals who lie all the time, except in this case - now they are confessing to previous lies.
Interesting way to put it.
If you believe a criminal is lying... and the next day he says, "yeah, sorry, yesterday I was lying", do you believe him or not? If you
don't believe him, doesn't that force you to then believe that he was telling the truth?
We know for a fact that the Intelligence on Iraq was doctored in order to make for a more convincing case for war. We know that Bush put pressure on the intelligence agencies to give reports that were favourable to his political desires. In light of that, all other supporting evidence
has to be viewed with suspicion.
To my knowledge, people don't generally think that the US intelligence services are incompetent. Since the US regime was the one interfering with the reports, and this report goes against their stated objectives (war with Iran), one can at
least assume that the regime were not successful in leaning on the contents of the report.
That, by itself, makes the report far more credible, irrespective of any personal viewpoints.