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.
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.!!!