Dec 05 2007
It’s Official, Iran NIE Was Not A Consensus Finding
The Washington Post is out this morning with story quoting intel officials who admit that the conclusion that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is still suspended was not a consensus view (hence the low confidence it was given), but was in fact challenged by key elements of the intelligence community:
McConnell said his objective in preparing the Iran estimate was “to present the clinical evidence and let it stand on its own merits with its own qualification,” meaning that it would contain dissent. “There are always disagreements on every National Intelligence Estimate,” he said.
He and other officials jettisoned a requirement that each conclusion in an NIE reflect a consensus view of the intelligence community — a requirement that in the past yielded “lowest-common-denominator judgments,” said one senior intelligence official familiar with the reforms.
“We demolished democracy” by no longer reflecting just a majority opinion, “because we felt we should not be determining the credibility of analytic arguments by a raising of hands,” the official said. Some analysts, for example, were not “highly confident” that Iran has not restarted its nuclear program, a result reflected in the classified report. Other analysts said Iran was further away from attaining a nuclear weapons capability than the majority said.
In other words they don’t know (and that can be said with high confidence now) if Iran has their weapons program ongoing now or not – even if Iran claims they do! It looks like some decided to push their views over those of others and stage a media event.
And what did they base this reckless conclusion on which can mean life or death for thousands of people? Folks, you just are not going to believe this one:
In the case of Iran, critical information was gleaned from non-clandestine sources, such as news photographs taken in 2005 depicting the inner workings of one of Iran’s uranium enrichment plants, an official said.
Those photos helped persuade analysts that the Natanz plant was suited to making low-enriched uranium for nuclear energy but not the highly enriched uranium needed for bombs. “You go to wherever you think the answer might be,” the official said, “instead of waiting for it to trickle into your top-secret computer system.”
Media pictures from a guided (and therefore controlled) tour of the plant by the Iranians? Did anyone think Iran would be using the event to stage an impression? No wonder there are claims we are being duped! Can anyone say for sure the pictures cover the entire facility?
This stinks of a staged media event for political propaganda, something not easily done in today’s internet world with hundreds of fact checkers ready to analyze reports like this in a matter of minutes. If we find Congressional Democrat fingerprints on this circus there will be hell to pay. The excuse given for this travesty is the authors did not want to screw up like the intel community has many times before. But guess what? It seems they did.
I mean, isn’t cooking the intel what the Dems have been screaming about (without a shred of evidence) for years now? Now we have cooked intel, leaked to the liberal media, cooked by Clinton holdovers, and directed by Senate Democrats (Reid said the NIE was in response to his requests). If the Dems cooked intel for a Presidential campaign edge and tried to trick the country on a matter of a nuclear threat then they will be in serious, serious trouble. Legal and political.
Update: Mac Ranger notes the IAEA is not buying the NIE’s conclusion Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Kurt Hoglund has a good description of the bureaucracy this report came out of, and it did not come out of the ‘intel community’ but a new oversight group. It is a good reference for how this oversight group co-opted the community.
Update: Ed Morrissey has a snippet from the WSJ that identifies the three anti-Bush authors of this NIE which was not a consensus but really a political bombshell:
Our own “confidence” is not heightened by the fact that the NIE’s main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as “hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials,” according to an intelligence source. They are 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 (IAEA).
I am pretty sure Fingar led INR when Valerie Plame led the Joint Task Force on Iraq and sent her husband to Niger in 1999 (see here and here). I find it hard to believe they did not know each other. I am not sure where Fingar was in 2002 when Plame sent Joe back to Niger to debunk forged documents the CIA supposedly did not have yet. But one gets the feeling this NIE has some serious issues.
Update: Ed Laskey at American Thinker has more on the NIE’s three authors who decided their views would supersede the views of the actual intel gathering agencies they purported to speak for.
It is clear we may have three rogue State Department officials using flimsy evidence to push their agendas – but the awkward and klutzy way in which they did it may have real serious dangers. Now some people are taking this NIE to mean there is no need to put any pressure on Iran and its nuclear program, and Iran is declaring victory (which I believe these instigators would not mind in the least):
Russia’s foreign minister, meanwhile, indicated that the U.S. report’s findings undermined Washington’s push for a new set of U.N. sanctions against Iran.
The U.S. intelligence report released Monday concluded that Iran had stopped its weapons program in late 2003 and shown no signs since of resuming it, representing a sharp turnaround from a previous intelligence assessment in 2005.
“This is a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue,” Ahmadinejad told thousands of people during a visit to Ilam province in western Iran.
I seriously think these klutzes thought they could simply issue a report and little would come of it except Bush might have his hands tied if Iran was found making nukes. I mean there will be more intel and if these folks are wrong the intel will reverse the finding again (even though we now know from above there are those who believe they have intel NOW showing Iran restarted the nuke program). Were these officials just bunglers of the highest degree? But the truth is this finding is having very dangerous repercussions. If we lose the sanctions on Iran we may be heading for a very explosive showdown with Iran.
48 Responses to “It’s Official, Iran NIE Was Not A Consensus Finding”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Iran’s Given Up Developing Nukes? Eh, Not So Fast…
The Wall Street Journal asks some pointed questions about the NIE that was released this week. The US intelligence community declared that Iran was developing nuclear weapons before they declared that it wasn’t. Ed Morrissey thinks that the facts fit …
wow…
exagerations…faulty conclusions…conspiracy theories. you’ve worked up the whole bag. does the tinfoil hat ever leave scratches?
Hi AJ, Read everything I could find, here’s what I think it means:
I have been reading everything I can find about this goofy NIE
report. Early days, but no MSM journo appears to have a clue. These are just my conclusions:
First) This NIE is a transparent fake. No one believes it except the left who would believe anything. But the fact that it is a fake will not change it’s trajectory.
Second) President Bush authorized it’s conclusions in advance and
declassified them. He intended to do just that.
Third) President Bush (correctly) realised that we did not have the stomach for launching a second pre-emptive war and without that strength embedded in our people, a war would be counter-productive.
Fourth) President Bush also correctly understands that war fatigue is not forever, and that given a first strike by Iran, which is very likely, the situation would change overnight.
Fifth) President Bush does not really favor the destruction of one or more American cities to win the long term war – though he is, and most of us are, determined that we will win that war.
Sixth) The best course of action from here is to send a signal. The release of this plainly synthetic “NIE” is a signal.
Seventh) To the world: An Atlas Shrugged moment. IE, if you really think that the USA is all that is wrong with the world, we give you this opportunity to test your beliefs.
Eighth) To Israel: You are not on your own, but you are in the lead. Act at your own chosen time – or not. It’s up to you.
Ninth) To the next President, this will fall to you on your watch. Nobody can fix the world entirely in eight years. Good luck.
Finally) To our own fifth column, to CBS, and CNN and everybody else, would you like some more rope?
LOL! norm, the fact the NIE was not consensus and there are IC elements (with intel to back it up) who disagree with it was taken from the WaPo – talk to them about their tin hats.
The IAEA and Israel are on record not buying the NIE. You need to whine to them about their views.
Plame’s job in the Joint Task Force came from her, Fingar’s role heading INR came from his bio, the fact they worked together is obvious to anyone who knows the IC and how it works.
Wilson was in Niger on 1999 – I have links to his own speech claiming this.
The three authors are on record about their anti-Bush views.
Sorry bud, you seem to be confusing the person who is simply noting these things (me) with the ones who are the authors or sources. I did not make this up, I linked to reports and statements.
Care to refute anything or is your only trick the personal insult (and a lame trick at that)?
exageration…”…reckless conclusion…”
faulty conclusion…”…It looks like some decided to push their views over those of others and stage a media event. ..”
conspiracy theories…”…It is clear we may have three rogue State Department officials using flimsy evidence to push their agendas…”
and add to that total falsehoods…”…Plame sent Joe back to Niger…”
i know you are scared, and people can say/write/do stupid things when they are scared. please stop being scared.
Great Post AJ!
Forgive me here, but I’d like to address Terrye, who replied to my postings yesterday after 1:45 pm, which is when I leave for work. She had a lot of Questions, that I think I should answer. If I post it way down the line, she wont see my reply, in all likely hood. So, I beg forgiveness in posting my responses here:
Steve:
Oh please, if you are going to be quoting verses and trying to say it is indicative of the entire religion, I will tell you not to suffer a witch to live.
Terrye:
You still cant grasp what I have tried to say. Those Peaceful moderate Muslims are a MAJORITY! Those peaceful moderate Muslims are following verses that were ABROGATED by ALLAH.Therefore, ( time to install your thinking cap) they are not following Allah’s commands properly. I’m grateful for that, honest!
And besides, Christians are not paccifists. Joan of Arc was barely more than a child when she lead French troops.
Terrye:
Can you name people of Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc. faiths, who today, are blowing them selves up to kill other, in the name of their “Religion” Beheadings? murders? Crucifixions? Enough said.
I have read Robert Spencer etc and while you might think that trying to fight or destroy or ban an entire religion is the thing to do the vast majority of Americans consider it ridiculous.
Terrye:
Your great at saying things that were never said by me! The vast majority of American, like yourself, are not aware of very much, as you continue to demonstrate on a daily basis. I don’t for a minute believe you read Robert Spender or anyone like them. For, if you had, you would know that he, like myself, has not called for any of what you state above.
No doubt there are elements within Islam that consider using children to kill people to be acceptable.
Terrye:
yes, thank you!
But not all Muslims are like that and if they are, then why should we bother to help the Iraqis at all? After all the majority of them are Muslims.
Terrye:
Well, we invaded their Country, what exactly should we do after that?
Left by Terrye on December 4th, 2007
Should be bomb Mecca?
If warranted, we should bomb any area that the Commander in Chief, and the Military, view necessary. Remember when Reagan said to the Soviets “The Bombing Starts in 5 minutes”? Sometime just the fear of such things can straighten people out.
Outlaw the Koran?
No, as I stated above (and several time in the past) Islam need reforming. It needs a New Testament, that removes the Hate, The Jihad, the beheadings, the Islamic Law governing people, the oppression of woman, genital mutilations, dhimmi status, etc. Evidently, your quite comfortable with it, but why wouldn’t you be? You don’t understand it!
What exactly should the penalty for being a Muslim be?
Now your being really silly. There should be no penalty. But there should be far greater scrutiny of who we let immigrate to this country, and who we allow to fund Islamic Studies Courses at our Universities, and who we allow to fund the mosque building, and the Imams’ they install in those mosques. But, of course, this wont happen, due to P.C.
Should we assume that all Muslims are the enemy?
Let me ask you, should we assume they aren’t? How would we know by looking at them weather they were or not?
Where do we draw the line?
Certainly, not where it’s at now.
Take care
Norm,
Scared? wow, that is one impressive ego you are sporting their kid. How do you deal with how great you are?
Still waiting for some factual rebukes – care to crank that ego into forward gear and do some thinking???
LOL! Scared – too funny.
i’ll take that as a nervous lol.
steve:
I am not saying that Christians are out there blowing themselves up. I am saying that if you want to quote verses you can find things in the bible that sound pretty scary taken out of context. I am saying I do not want to assume that almost 2 billion people are my enemy based on their religious affiliation. If you want to do that, go ahead, but I want no part of it, I think it is nuts.
Aj:
No NIE is a consensus view. Lots of agencies and people are involved in making this assessments and there are always dissenters.
The sad thing is the left will use this as an excuse to take pressure of Iran, even though if true it simply makes the case that pressure works.
Meanwhile there will be people on the right who act downright disappointed in the possibility that there might be hope to a diplomatic solution with Iran.
That does not say much for either side.
So what is Bush supposed to do? Tell the intel people that until and unless they can come up with a report to his liking he is just going to ignore this? And then tell them what is liking is? Wouldn’t that just make the Democrats’ case for them?
And btw steve, a lot of those Iraqis fighting alongside our American troops are Muslims, in fact most of them are. If we are to assume that all Muslims are our enemies, why should we be training these people? Like I said, nuts, paranoid, etc.
And Steve, I am aware of more than you realize. I have read people like Robert Spencer and I have worked with Muslims and actually talked to them and dealt with them. So do not assume that just because I don’t hate all Muslims or consider them all my enemy that I am not aware of much as you say.
terrye…
who…right left or center is suggesting we take pressure off iran? but there are different kinds of pressure. thats why so many on the left voted for the kyle-lieberman bill…and in fact its why so many on the left voted for bush to have the authorization to use force in iraq…so that the president could apply pressure. the problem is that he has shown, and continues to show, that he cannot be trusted with the responsibilty. leadership takes vision and wisdom. he possesses neither. he damn well should have known about this nie…and yet he was still out there rattling sabers and fear-mongering. iran was a very serious problem last week, they are a very serious problem this week, and they will be a very serious problem next week. however…what we need is a leader who can handle incredibly complex foreign policy issues in a mature reasoned way…and for those of you who have fallen prey to the fear-mongering, to relax.
Norm,
if your ego needs to take it as a nervous LOL! Be my guest. Always willing to help those out in need.
Norm:
That is not true. If not for Bush Iran would probably have its nuke right now and no one on the left would have done a damn thing to stop them. In fact even if this report is true the Iranians are still enriching uranium and refusing to work with or comply with the UN. If they want people to believe them they should do what Gaddafi did and just give it all up. They are the source of the confusion, not Bush.
As for what Bush knew, my understanding is that in August he was told there would be a new assessment, there could be some changes but nothing was certain yet. Last week he was briefed and now we are talking about it on TV, the internet, everywhere. He did not hide it, otherwise what are we talking about?
Bush has not invaded Iran or bombed Iran. He has not stopped the press from putting this report out there.
He did not stop Reid and and the gang from calling him a liar etc.
For a guy with no vision he has managed to come up with a deal with NK, that might actually work, he has managed to stop the Iranians thus far from developing a nuke program and he has managed to take Saddam out.
What has the left done other than bitch and yammer?
Just once I would like to see some Democrat other than Lieberman realize that when dealing with someone who is screaming Death To America on one side of an issue and an American president who happens to be a Republican on the other side of the issue, that it might be a good idea to side with the American. But the current Dems never do. National security is just a self serving game to them and chances are when it comes to which side to pick, they will pick the guy lighting a match to old Glory.
I say that and I used to be a Democrat.
AJ
I fear like:” Bush lied”, “Saddam had no WMD” and “there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq”, the idea that Iran stopped its military nuclear program will be taken as FACT by way too many of the American Public, perhaps a majority, and will be repeated endlessly by the MSM.
This politicized NIE should never have been allowed to get this far. This NIE is obviously poorly sourced and contradicts everything else we know of Iran. This is another dangerous joke by the CIA. The CIA, State, and the Justice Department should have been cleaned out of its politicized filth a long time ago. The President cannot allow the bureaucracy to be subservient to one radical ideology, which it has. It is Bush’s job to keep the bureaucracy in order. He has let our politicized bureaucracy get way out of hand, and hijack public policy.
This is a major screw up by the Bush Adminstration. This new “fact” of Iranian Nuclear abandonment will make a reasoned debate on what to do with Iran impossible in the future. Political debate on Iran and much of foriegn policy now will be even more poisoned. Because of this NIE we likely will do exactly the wrong thing.
It is difficult to tell whether W wanted to lay off Iran or not, but a lot of W’s moves recently, including the Annapolis conference, leaves one scratching one’s head.
God help us. Americans could die because of this NIE. I just hope that it won’t be too many.
Paul
My take on this is as follows:
This is a sabotage, underminding once again a sitting President, and admin.
Van Diem has been advocating for 5 yrs to accept an iranian enrichment nation, whatever the consequences were.
Brill was basically terminated from the IAEA in Vienna, because of incompetence.
These three characters all were against Bolten, Libby etc..
Insigt Magazine, not sure how realiabe, reports today that Pres. Bush rec’d intel that Iran has purchased the bomb from former Soviet States.
I am beginning to believe that This fake NIE was the intended to hit Pres. Bush, and force a break of his sanction, or consequences.
Again, as Podhoretz correctly stated, there far far darker forces, and reason to put this garbage out during a campaign season, and to continue the sabotage against Pres. Bush.
“…when dealing with someone who is screaming Death To America on one side of an issue and an American president who happens to be a Republican on the other side of the issue, that it might be a good idea to side with the American…”
another false choice. how about when faced with someone who is screaming death to america but does not have the means to back it up and a fear-mongering president that is incapable of an effective foreign policy we have the intelligence to choose neither. and lieberman is not a democrat…he is the senior senator from israel.
are you really telling me that if you were the president, and you have been accusing iran of wanting to start ww3, and you were told there may be changes in the intelligence assessment of iran that you wouldn’t ask what those changes might be? that is so naive. this story tells me he is either lying, or totally incompetent.
Terrye,
It is the norm’s of the world that make me a proud EX-democrat!
Terrye: I am saying that if you want to quote verses you can find things in the bible that sound pretty scary taken out of context
ME: Absolutely. But the radical Islamist are not taking anything out of context. The Moderates are!
I work at a company filled with Muslims. And the overwelming majority are peaceful people, but we still have a few that concern me, even in Management.
TERRYE:I am saying I do not want to assume that almost 2 billion people are my enemy based on their religious affiliation. If you want to do that, go ahead, but I want no part of it, I think it is nuts.
ME:
I’m sure you do! That’s the problem. As Andy McCarty said there are still TENS OF MILLIONS out of the 1.6 BILLION who aren’t peaceful. How do we tell the difference?
Terrye:If we are to assume that all Muslims are our enemies, why should we be training these people? Like I said, nuts, paranoid, etc.
Me: I never said they are all radical, stop twisting my words.
Terrye:And Steve, I am aware of more than you realize. I have read people like Robert Spencer and I have worked with Muslims and actually talked to them and dealt with them. So do not assume that just because I don’t hate all Muslims or consider them all my enemy that I am not aware of much as you say.
Me: I work with them also. I eat with some, I take brakes with some, etc.
I would like to share JOHN BOLTONS THOUGHTS ON THIS:
I thought I’d share what John Bolton has to say about Islam in his new book. Page 439:
” A mojor conceptual problem in this war is our failure to call it what it is, which is surely NOT a “Global War On Terrorism”, however evocative that title may be. When President Bush decried “Islamofacism” a cumbersome but accurate description of the problem, the high minded criticized him, and he backed away.. But Al Qaeda and it’s Jihadist Allies, and even those who simply emulate Al Qaeda’s methods without formal affiliation, clearly warrant this description, which will suffice until a better one emerges. Their Worldview,whether for Sunni or Shia extremists, is unmistakenly totalitarian, based NOT ON IDEOLOGY, as were the last centuries totalitarian regimes, BUT ON THEOLOGY. This brand of totalitarianism has rarely been seen in the West, at least since the Renaissance. As bad as this THEOLOGICAL FACISM is for those WHO SUFFER UNDER IT, the U.S. and its allies face their own immediate threats not just in Iraq, but in the continuing threat to the U.S., and to Israel and other close friends and allies. While those threats have not produced a dramatic attack inside the U.S. since 9/11, recent indictments for conspiracies against the Sears Tower in Chicago, Fort Dix in N.J., and J.F.K Airport in N.Y. all show that the danger is real.”
Enough said. Need to leave for the day, please take care. I like you all.!!!
I’m sorry… but you guys are really grasping at straws here. Let’s say the NIE said that Iran was actively developing nuclear weapons. You bush babies would all be craping your pants running to and fro holding this NIE in your hands screaming about how we needed to bomb Iran right now. The WaPo article you cite simply shows that that instead of asserting findings as absolute facts, that dissenting views were taken in to account so that the report covered all the bases. This is a sensible way to go about producing these reports. As for the IAEA… It’s quite interesting that you only believe them when the view they espouse jives with yours – even though they still state they are “embracing” the finsdings of the NIE overall….
And if the report is sabotage as some here have suggested or, lol, fake, why does Bush not declare it as such?
Really folks this much hypocrisy is a lttle soul crushing don’t ya think?
Sqadan,
The WaPo said their were views (backed up with intel) Iran had stopped, had not stopped, could build quickly, could not build quickly.
The NIE claims confidence that out of all this contradictory intel Iran is being good.
LOL! Talk about grasping at straws – hello Kettle.
Again-
To my original point – if the report said otherwise, you would ignore any and all dissenting viewpoints or information and begin your flag-waving warmongering tirades about boming Iran, just like Bush did with the run up to Iraq. The same kind of this / or that info was presented to Bush prior to going to war in Iraq and he chose to ignore it. Also, I don’t hear anyone on the left saying it’s time to let down our guard… but the hysterics that got us to this point are the problem. Intelligence will never be perfect – no one is advocating that Iran is all of a sudden a peaceful friendly place… but we need to learn how to ratchet down the rhetoric so we don’t look like we are constantly, irrationally, looking for a fight. We also can’t treat every boogie man as the next Hitler either.
norm:
Do you have something against caps?
What do you mean they can not back it up? If we are to believe this report then they were actively working to build a nuke back in 2003. And they are still enriching uranium. They are still funding Hezbellah as well. They are still refusing to comply with the United Nations. These are not the actions of innocent harmless people.
Lieberman was enough of a Democrats 8 years ago to make him the VP. But when he failed to put party above country the partisans in the Democratic party betrayed him. Figures.
BTW, if the Iranians are such nice guys who have been so badly used and abused by the mean Bushies, why didn’t Clinton make any attempt to reestablish diplomatic relations with the mad mullahs?
We have not had diplomatic relations with them since 1979, it is not as if they were our best friends and then Bush came along and ruined it all.
I can remember a time when Democrats cared about things like the fact that the mullahs threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. They were concerned about the fact that Iran supported terrorists groups like Hezbellah. Now they are so busy demonizing their fellow Americans who happen to be Republicans that they can not be bothered to stand up to holocaust denying fascists anymore.
Pathetic.
Sqadan:
Once again, if the Clinton administration had resolved the situation with Saddam instead of aggravating it the whole thing would have been history by the time Bush left Texas.
The Democrats and the intel people they used and supported created the information Bush used. Clinton said Saddam had wmd. Zinni said Saddam was our number one threat and they were both saying these things when Bush was still the Governor of Texas. Where were those dissenting views then?
Good greif… It’s always back to blaming Clinton… When will you guys take responsibility for any of your own mistakes??? Notice that Clinton did not run in and attack Iraq. Bush and Clinton may have had the same intel – but they quite obviously came to different conclusions about what to do with it. I guess Iraq is a grand success – good ol Bush is really cleaning up Bill’s mess.
When in doubt – always blame some other president. I guess by that logic it’s really Reagan’s fault that 9/11 happened – after all – he trained Osama right?
Sqadan:
I am not blaming Clinton. I am just pointing out a simple fact that certain people keep overlooking, this is not just about Bush. Obviously, if the intel had been better to begin with a lot of problems could have been avoided. but Democrats only seem to care about things like that when they can beat some Republican over the head with it.
In truth the mullahs and Saddam could both have settled the issues confronting them just by cooperating. Such as Saddam could have restrained himself and not tried to kill a president, he could have avoided shooting at our planes, he could have lived up to his obligations under the cease fire agreement, he could have used the Food for oil program for food instead of weapons and palaces.
By the same token the mullahs could have avoided killing our Marines in Lebanon, trying to shut down the Gulf in 88, sending arms into Iraq to kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians and actually working with the international community rather than acting like a bunch of messianic loons.
So I tend to blame them the most.
Sqadan:
And by the way Clinton did attack Iraq. Unless you think that bombing the capitol does not qualify as an attack. As far as that is concerned back in 1998 when Clinton made the Iraqi Liberation Act the law, he also guaranteed us that Saddam would use those weapons and he said that the only way to stop him was to remove him from power.
Now most people would consider all that kind of aggressive.
terrye…
i said iran is a very serious problem. i’m well aware they are funding hezzbollah. we absolutely need to deal with them. only we need to deal with them intelligently. like we should have dealt with iraq intelligently. perhaps it’s possible to act intelligently and fear-monger…but clearly bush can’t.
right after we attacked iraq we looked strong, and iran offered the u.s. broad dialogue including cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of israel and the termination of funding for hezzbollah. bush refused to talk to them and let the international community deal with them. now we are where we are. iraq is a mess and we look weak in the middle east. well played.
lieberman puts israel above all. what you consider partisan and what you consider good for the country is skewed by your partisan view. i consider liebermans support of an occupation that is strategically and economically harmful to the united states mis-guided. you consider the loss of 4000 troops and the borrowing of over two trillion dollars in order to create an iranian influenced iraq good for this country. i guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Norm says:
“…and lieberman is not a democrat…he is the senior senator from israel.”
Thanks Norm for letting us know what you’re really all about.
Norm says:
“right after we attacked iraq we looked strong, and iran offered the u.s. broad dialogue including cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of israel and the termination of funding for hezzbollah.”
BS Norm….Please provide a link to back-up your claim.
Sqadan says:
“…by that logic it’s really Reagan’s fault that 9/11 happened – after all – he trained Osama right?”
No, not right.
This is my first time commenting here…Does it usually take so long for the comment to appear?
Ringo,
Welcome to the Strata-Sphere. I had to moderate your first comment but from here on it should be OK unless you put lots of links in your comments or trip the span filter.
Cheers, AJStrata
gringo…
these seem to be two articles that a lot of other outlets source.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6274147.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
liebermans zealous support of israel tells you nothing about what i’m about.
There are so many inaccuracies and exaggerated claims in these post I don’t know where to start.
The NIE is the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies. The fact that some individual members in the intelligence community don’t agree with it does not mean that it is disputed or shouldn’t be relied on. The Washington Post article you cites quotes McConnell as saying that “There are always disagreements on every National Intelligence Estimate.” Under your logic, we should disregard every past and future NIE, or for that matter any intelligence report. That would be utterly stupid. Just because it doesn’t support your pre-conceived notion about Iran doesn’t mean that we should ignore it.
The NIE did not change based solely on the photos referenced in your article. You would know that if you actually read the NIE. It came from multiple sources, including, but not limited to, intercepted communications between Iranian officials. Why are you guys so afraid of the facts – simply because they don’t support your preconceived beliefs?
The IAEA did not disagree with the NIE or state that it is not as opptimistic. Take a look at their website – IAEA.org. The press release addressing the new NIE states as follows:
“IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.”
Where is all the evidence that Iran has a active nuclear program? You guys repeatedly make that statement, but do not back it up with anything. If you intend to disregard the NIE and IAEA findings, you at least need to give some reason for doubting them. Simply saying “I don’t believe them” or “they could be wrong” does not equate to evidence and facts of a contrary conclusion. If you want to take this country to war, convince the rest of us to ignore the entire US and UN intelligence community.
The claim that Bush legitimately didn’t know about the new NIE conclsuions until last week is laughable. Do you guys honestly believe that the Director of the National Intelligence went into the President’s office in August, told him that the intelligence agencies had new information on Iran, but didn’t want to tell him because it wasn’t final? Why would he be concerned about disclosing the nature of the new information and simply caution the President that it was tentative? Why wouldn’t the President ask any questions about it? Especially when Iran is one of the key foreign policy issues we are dealing with. Bush’s story is so blatantly a lie that I can’t believe you guys would actually believe it (especially with all of the other lies that we have discovered). Why do you guys accept obviously false claims by government officials regardless of their political affilitation – I thought true conservatives were suspicious of the government?
You guys keep putting up straw man arguments because you no longer can support your war monger position. There are not only two choices – bomb Iran or give up and let them develop nuclear weapons. None of the Democrats are proposing that we simply give up. The debate is whether we continue pressing for diplomatic solutions or pursue military options. At a minimum, the new NIE indicates that we have time to continue pressing for diplomatic solutions. It also demonstrates that we can accomplish our objectives through diplomacy – Iran stopped its weapons program in 2003 after negotiations with the EU. The US didn’t even agree to participate in discussions with Iran until 2005, then we refused to talk to them directly until they agreed to cease uranium production – the whole purpose for the negotiations in the first place. That is not a true diplomatic effort. If Bush was willing to negotiate with and arm the Sunni insurgents who were killing our soldiers for 4 years in Iraq, why is he afraid to talk directly with the Iranians?
The central question is whether or not the risk Iran poses now and in the near future warrant a military strike. A military strike will have consequences, including further straining our military capability, strikes against our forces in Iraq, huge spikes in oil costs that could seriously damage our fragile economy. Iran is certainly a problem country we need to contain, but it is not the boggeyman that you have all been lead to believe. You judge them on their public rhetoric rather than there actions. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has not attacked Isreal or the US – what makes you think they will launch a nuclear attack ensuring their own destruction when they have thus far been too afraid to launch a conventional attack? The new NIE concluded that Iran made its decision to stop the weapons program based on a rationale cost-benefits analysis, suggesting that they are not the religious zealots you all assert.
I know it is hard for you guys right now. Your champion Bush looks more stupid and weaker every day. The Republican party is in shambles because the majority of the country finally figured out after 4 years of Republican control over the Presidency and Congress that they are corrupt, fraudulent and liars. Your whole ideological world is crumbling on top of you. But that doesn’t mean that you should drag the rest of us down with you.
AJStrata,
Thanks…I’ll check in from time to time.
AJ Strata,
I sent you a response a few hours ago refuting many of your statements and theories. It still has not been posted. What is wrong – are you afraid of the truth?
Hey guys, breaking news! It turns out that Vice President Cheney is a closet liberal and is now working in coordination with the three rogue officials that wrote the NIE. Here is how Cheney responded today in an interview with Politico:
“I don’t have any reason to question what the [intelligence] community has produced,” he said. “Now, there are things they don’t know. There’s always the possibility that circumstances will change. But I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available.”
Check the Politico website to verify. That jihatisit traitor!!!!
Conman,
Grow up dude. I was at dinner with my family. Your first post requires I moderate. You can babble on now all you want.
BTW, this was not a consensus – as the WaPo reported. Did you take the time to read the posts or are you just reciting talking points????
AJ Strata,
My apologies for jumping the gun on assuming you were intentionally not posting my comments. I have had recent experience with other conservative blogs that did not post my comments and yet posted numerous comments that supported their position. I know that some liberal and conservative blogs selectively post the comments, so I thought you might be one of those blogs. Kudos to you for being willing to air both sides of the issue.
As to your comment, I did read your post. What I said is true – the NIE is a consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies. There is nothing in the NIE or the information you provided that suggests that any of the intelligence agencies refuted or disagreed with the NIE conclusions. I did not say that it is a consensus view of every single intelligence indiviual that worked on the NIE. As McConnell indictaed in the quote from your post, “There are always disagreements on every National Intelligence Estimate.” My point is that your claim that this new NIE is somehow less reliable or trustworthy than past NIEs is bogus because there is always some dissenting views. If we cannot rely on a NIE unless every single person in the intelligence community agrees with its conclusions, and McConnell tells us that there is always disagreement, then I guess your point is that we should never rely on any NIE. With all due respect, I think that position is ridiculous.
I noticed that you did not respond to any of the other points I made. Maybe you are too busy with other things, but I’m really interested in your response to the other issues I raised. While I admittedly can be abrassive with my comments because I’m passionate about politics and frustrated with what I view as the ever increasing twisting of facts to fit one’s partisan beliefs (on both sides – Democrats and Republicans), I really do want to engage in an honest dialogue about these important issue to see if I can convince those on the other side of the political aisle of my beliefs or learn something new that will change my beliefs.
Our “war mongering” president relied on the NIE for Iraq too. The criticism there was that he should not have because there were dissenting views on certain issues. Now you say he should ignore dissent and go with the general findings.
He’s relying on this NIE in the same way as he did with Iraq. If the intelligence community believes that the “estimate” should not read as it does, its up to them to change it—not have the dissenters leak intelligence and press releases after the fact to try and undermine a sitting presidents efforts to deal with a national security issue based on their own depts findings!
DC,
I disagree that the criticism of Bush’s reliance on the NIE for Iraq was his failure to consider dissenting views. The criticism that I and most others have is that the White House pressured the intelligence community to reach the conclusions they did in the NIE in order to justify the decision to attack Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neocon minions were constantly over at the CIA and DIA challenging and pushing back on the intelligence community to support their belief that Iraq had WMDs. We “critics” believe the White House pressure was responsible in part for the flawed NIE because the intelligence community was pressured into reaching a conclusion that would support Bush and Cheney’s desire to attack Iraq. You need only consider the White Houses reaction to finding out there were no WMDs in Iraq (Bush’s infamous – I would have made the same decision had I known what i know now) to understand that the WMDs was never the reason for the war, but rather merely a justification for it.
Part of the reason that I give more crediblity to this latest NIE is that I believe the White House has the same opinion about Iran and presumably was pressuring the intelligence community to justify the desire to attack Iran. You need only look at Bush’s rhetoric after he found out about the NIE notwithstanding his lame lie to the contrary (October 2007 speech refering to World War III) and his rhetoric since the NIE has been made public (December 4th press conferecne “I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn’t changed.”) to understand that Bush’s position on Iran has nothing to do with whether or not they have nuclear weapons program. If the intelligence agencies decided to completely reverse their earlier position in the face of considerable pressure from the White House, no small feat, that gives me more confidence in the end result.
I’m totally confused by your statement that the intelligence community should change their original estimate rather than have the dissenters leak intelligence and provide press releases. The intelligence community did exactly what you suggest – they concluded based on new information that their previous estimate was wrong and chnaged it with the new NIE. They weren’t trying to undermine the President – they were trying to make sure he is making policy decisions based on accurate information. Why is that wrong – isn’t that the whole purpose of the NIE? I also think you are confused about who is now the “dissenters”. The dissenters are not the people whom believe the NIE needed to be changed, the dissenters are the people whom believe the new NIE is wrong. Mark my words, there will be those in the White House and the “dissenters” in the intelligence community that will be leaking information to the press in order to undermine the new NIE over the next few months. I wonder if you will feel the same distain for this leaking activity when it is being done by the people whom apparently share your beliefs.
Conman,
No problem. However – reread the WaPo snippet and you will see the authors stating quite clearly they did NOT go with consensus – it is right up there. And my new post today by the NY Times which confirms the fact there was no consensus on Iran’s continued suspension.
Sorry man, but the reporters have the sources on record – your views don’t weigh enough to disregard the on-the-record statements.
It was not a consensus – this NIE (as reported) is not the same flavor as previous ones. Read the articles again – you will see it.
Let me save you some time. Here is the reporting from NY Times today:
That is not consensus. And from WaPo Yesterday:
Clear? They “jettisoned a requirement that each conclusion in an NIE reflect a consensus view of the intelligence community” – and all the reporting on where that consensus broke down, in both papers, is in the conclusion Iran has continued the suspension.
What can I tell you – your just wrong.
AJ,
I admit that I overlooked an issue raised in the WaPo article that you clarified in your latest post, but I still don’t think it means that my statements are incorrect. I overlooked the significance of the statement about jettisoning the requirement that each conclusion reflect a consensus view. however, I think you are reading too much into that statement and I’m still not sure how that squares with McConnell’s earlier statement that “There are always disagreements on every National Intelligence Estimate,” but we’ll leave that issue aside for now.
I still don’t think that means my statements are incorrect. Look carefully at McConnell’s statement – he repeatedly refers to some “analyst” that did not agree with the conclusion. He never said that any of the 16 intelligence agencies disagreed, but rather is merely saying that some analyst disagreed. I don’t doubt that some analyst disagree with the conclusions – McConnell himself stated that is always the case. I do not believe there is any evidence that there was disagreement among the various intelligence agencies. If we learned that some of the intelligence agencies disagreed with the conclusions, rather than individual analysts, that would mean a whole lot more to me.
I guess we will have to wait and see how things shake out on this issue as both sides leak information to the press in an attempt to bolster their position. What is undisputable is that a majority of the intelligence community concurs with the new NIE conclusions. It is also very significant that they did so knowing that it was a complete reversal of the previous NIE. I don’t believe that the intelligence community would reverse itself on such a significant and contraversial issue unless they were confident that the new conclusions were correct.
The notion that the president pressured analysts or anybody else in the intelligence field by “requesting” estimates..is ludicrous. That would be your problem right there..if that’s the basis of your understanding and argument.
The initial disagreement was not that. It was over “how it was used” by the president — which is not even the realm of intelligence gathering to start with. That’s not their job nor their call to make. Its about as stupid as the congress trying to do it because “they” want to be president but arent’.
I think what you are trying to say conman is….that the reason this NIE is good….is because it disagrees with what Boooosh said.