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 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.

In fact, some in the intelligence agencies appear to be not fully convinced that the notes of the deliberations indicated that all aspects of the [Iranian] weapons program had been shut down.

That is not consensus. And from WaPo Yesterday:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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????

“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!!!!

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?

Thanks…I’ll check in from time to time.

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.

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