I have to say once again that I never cease to be astonished by the venom heaped on the IC, in particular CIA, by conservatives here—making a matching book end to the decades-old paranoid vituperation against CIA from the Left.
Be that as it may, the immediate point is what to make of the supposed shift in the NIEs on Iran from 2005 to 2007. Readers should be open, at least, to the possibility that intelligence assessments are bound to change with ongoing collection of intelligence. When the issue is one of the most closely guarded secrets of a hostile state with an opaque regime and powerful, ruthless security services, getting any intelligence is a daunting task. This is especially true of any attempt to assess the PLANS or INTENTIONS of the regime; it’s somewhat easier to analyze its capabilities. When one reads the 2005 and 2007 NIEs side by side, they are not all that different, although differences in the most salient “high confidence” conclusions—those that make headlines and attract comment from politicians—are bound to stand out.
There are many ways to interpret these differences:
-- The facts have changed and the IC is on top of it;
-- The facts were incorrectly or inadequately appreciated in one or another of the two NIEs (entirely possible and understandable, given the above caveat about obtaining insight into a state like Iran);
-- The IC is engaged in some nefarious scheme to undermine Bush (the Pohdoretz theory); OR
-- NIEs, being inherently consensus documents negotiated among dozens of US officials are always “political” in the broad sense of that term and should be viewed that why by all of us.
I’m partial to the last of these alternatives but with a wrinkle that may not be popular here: Given that the DNI, the DCI, the National Security Advisor, the Secretaries of Defense, State and Treasury, the Joint Chiefs and the Directors of seven Pentagon-run intelligence agencies, as well as the Attorney General and the Directors of the FBI and the DEA—PLUS the members of the National Intelligence Council (a group of folks who used to be big shots in these same agencies—must all agree on what goes into an NIE, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT SUCH A DOCUMENT WILL EVER BE WRITTEN THAT WON’T BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT SINCE MANY OF THOSE WHO MUST APPROVE IT ARE HIS PEOPLE. I’d go so far as to say that no such document will ever be finalized, much elss released, without the President’s approval.
So what does it mean then? In my view, it measn that Iran and the US have reached a deal on Iraq—one toward which they have both been groping for a long time. Iran has rattled the specter of its nukes—and resisted international inspections—because this was one of its best bargaining chips in a multi-dimensional diplomatic dance involving Europe, Russia, China, the UN, the Arabs, etc., not to mention a powerful way to influence domestic opinion in the US and American allies. And the US has rattled the specter of tough action—even war—to counter Iran’s gambit’s, maximize its positions and intimidate Iran (which is a lot more readily intimidated by 160,000 US troops next door and threats of possible US attack than many seem to understand).
Now, the US is releasing a document that essentially puts an end to this two-way battle of rhetoric and positioning. While Bush and the Administration must immediately reiterate that Iran remains a threat, and so on, not to appear to have been disingenuous before, the fact is that the President must have allowed this release and the likely reason is that relations with Iran are no longer perceived as requiring a different view of Iran’s plans or intentions.
Naturally, any US-Iran deal will not be announced with fanfare; it will simply emerge. Powerline readers should be ecstatic, since if I’m right, the recent improvements in Iraq are about to become institutionalized (as the dominant Iran-oriented Shiite political parties get on board with a US-Iran rapprochement) and the all-too-real potential for conflict with Iran disappears as well.
It is supported by the premise that (a) the NIE is essentially a political (consensus) document, not ‘hard’ intel, and (b) reviewed by the President and released with his approval. That makes sense, but—
Two problems with this theory:
(1) Reports (see the articles linked in the PowerLine post) that the President was essentially forced to release the NIE because otherwise it would have been leaked; hence the hastily-called news conference to explain it. If the President or his staff had had a hand in drafting the NIE, then surely the confusion over the term ‘nuclear weapons program’ would have been avoided. The President was forced to try to explain the difference between the ‘program’ that was halted in 2003 and the ‘program’ of uranium enrichment that Ahmadinejad keeps bragging about.
(2) Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic zeal and constant threats to annihilate Israel. That doesn’t sound like mere bluster and diplomatic debating points to me. What if the NIE is wrong and Iran really does have a covert operation to build a nuclear device with the product of their enrichment ‘program’? Can Israel or we take the chance?
I’ll believe the theory that all this bluster and threats from Iran, and all the counter warnings from the US (including moving two or three aircraft-carrier groups into the Gulf) are just diplomatic shadow-boxing when Iran stops enriching uranium and offers to open up all its industrial and scientific and military facilities to regular inspection.
I have to say once again that I never cease to be astonished by the venom heaped on the IC, in particular CIA, by conservatives here—making a matching book end to the decades-old paranoid vituperation against CIA from the Left. . .
There’s a specific reason for “the venom heaped on the IC, in particular CIA, by conservatives here,” namely the traitorous leaks of classified material for the past several years that have had one obvious purpose, namely to undermine the policies of the Bush administration.
The leakers should have been prosecuted, and put in jail. As far as we know, they are still at work in the bowels of the intelligence bureaucracy, and still actively undermining the Global War on Islamic Terror.
The big question is this: Is this latest NIE a new instance of this treason? If so, it could be the most dangerous of all.
1) If anyone with access to this NIE (which would be somewhere around 200 people, at least) had wanted to leak it for negative political effect on Bush, it would have been leaked months ago.
News reports of the motive for announcing it being a supposed impending leak are likely based on the typical ignorance among reporters, as others, about matters of this kind. If you suppose that either of these two publicly disclosed NIEs ever were something other than instruments of US policy, then you’re bound to be confused—or upset—by them. (After all, even real “leaks” of intel reports are often deliberate acts of policy, even though they are disguised as something else.)
As for apparent confusion by Bush at his p/c, it happens, regardless of the issue.
2) We cannot expect that Iran or its leaders will knock off the anti-Israel table pounding; it’s what they do. For that matter, certain kinds of rhetorical excesses may increase if the US-Iran deal is forthcoming. Actions are what counts.
I missed your latest addition about CIA leaks and “treason.”
First, nearly all such damaging leaks have come from briefed individials on Capitol Hill, at State or in the military (I’ll pass on responding to your childish claim that its “treason.")
Professional CIA officers are so steeped in secrecy as a way of life that they just don’t engage in that sort of thing. From time to time, of course, essentially political leaders appointed to senior positions at CIA (think Stansfield Turner or George Tenet) have joined in the leaking sweepstakes for a wide range of personal, bureaucratic or political reasons.
Second, professional intelligence officers are constantly at the point of the spear in this particular war—as they were beginning in October 2001 when the only people who had a clue about Afganistan were CIA officers who led the way in. Please remember that the very first guy killed in action in the post-9/11 war on terror was a CIA officer, Michael Spann.
It’s an unseemly display of ignorance for people who fashion themselves conservatives not to understand that right now, there are hundreds of CIA officers working in highly dangerous circumstances, including covert operations of all kinds and combat. Learn something.
As for apparent confusion by Bush at his p/c, it happens, regardless of the issue.
The confusion was not President Bush’s; it was (as usual) in the press, and that in turn was a direct result of the NIE’s language, lumping everything under ‘program’. The President spent a lot of time clarifying that unfortunate language.
2) We cannot expect that Iran or its leaders will knock off the anti-Israel table pounding; it’s what they do. For that matter, certain kinds of rhetorical excesses may increase if the US-Iran deal is forthcoming. Actions are what counts.
You think that Iranian hate-mongering are just ‘rhetorical excesses’? That’s what so many in this country thought about Hitler’s ‘rhetorical excesses’, too. In foreign policy and defense, we have to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. It may be mere rhetoric, but it may not, and dismissing the insane talk may get a lot of people killed.
First, nearly all such damaging leaks have come from briefed individials on Capitol Hill, at State or in the military (I’ll pass on responding to your childish claim that its “treason."). . .
Do we know this? Do you? Or is it just surmise on your part? If said leaks endangered Americans, either fighting abroad or at home, then they were treasonous. (I’ll refrain from responding to the supercilious adjective ‘childish’).
Professional CIA officers are so steeped in secrecy as a way of life that they just don’t engage in that sort of thing. From time to time, of course, essentially political leaders appointed to senior positions at CIA (think Stansfield Turner or George Tenet) have joined in the leaking sweepstakes for a wide range of personal, bureaucratic or political reasons.
I have no experience of the CIA or NSA, etc. culture, but I expect there is considerable difference between officers in the field, or at Langley directly working with field officers, and the middle and higher level bureaucrats. Reportedly there are a lot of Clinton-era folks hanging on at these agencies (and at the State Dept.), and many of these have an ideological or partisan axe to grind.
Second, professional intelligence officers are constantly at the point of the spear in this particular war—as they were beginning in October 2001 when the only people who had a clue about Afganistan were CIA officers who led the way in. Please remember that the very first guy killed in action in the post-9/11 war on terror was a CIA officer, Michael Spann.
I certainly do not dispute this, and I certainly do honor their service.
It’s an unseemly display of ignorance for people who fashion themselves conservatives not to understand that right now, there are hundreds of CIA officers working in highly dangerous circumstances, including covert operations of all kinds and combat. Learn something.
None of the the PowerLine authors, nor as far as I know anyone on this board (I only read occasional Comments threads on PowerLine posts) has ever denigrated or disparaged the service of CIA or other folks serving our country in the various theaters around the world. PowerLine’s criticism has always been restricted to the intel bureaucracy.
There may be more (or less) to this latest NIE report than meets the eye:
. . . Newsmax sources in Tehran believe that Washington has fallen for “a deliberate disinformation campaign†cooked up by the Revolutionary Guards, who laundered fake information and fed it to the United States through Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers posing as senior diplomats in Europe.
Today the President said at his news conference that he was told in August by Mike McConnell that there was new intelligence on Iran. But, he said, he was not told what it was nor did he ask. He also said that nobody counseled him to soften his rhetoric when he started blathering about WW III. (In October.) Does this not inevitably force one to conclude that either he and his advisor McConnel are extraordinarily inept or that GWB is a liar? Which do you prefer?
It seems to be “generally accepted” that the NIE was floating around WAY before August. There are unattribted reports (leaks) that Cheney has been trying to suppress it for almost a year. I’m sorry that I have no hard source for this, but that is what is out on the internet tubes.
This is a story that won’t die, however, and sooner or later we’ll know more. Does anyone out here really think GWB never heard about the NIE conclusions before last week? I know this is the Powerline Forum, but is there ANYONE AT ALL who bought that?
To me, it is inescapable that my President stood up this morning and told an obvious lie to me. And he is apparently so thick and arrogant that he thinks I won’t see it for what it is. And don’t give me some crap about the time Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with Ms Lewinsky.” If you can’t differentiate between the two cases, you are foolish. I knew Clinton was lying, and I know Bush was lying.
It really bothers me that GWB has such contempt for us all that he is willing to go into a press conference and say something so incredible on its face. What world did he grow up in that he thinks a smirky denial is good enough?
Today the President said at his news conference that he was told in August by Mike McConnell that there was new intelligence on Iran. But, he said, he was not told what it was nor did he ask. He also said that nobody counseled him to soften his rhetoric when he started blathering about WW III. (In October.) Does this not inevitably force one to conclude that either he and his advisor McConnel are extraordinarily inept or that GWB is a liar? Which do you prefer?
False dilemma. There is a wide range of possibilities. But people who hate, such as minnesotamark see only two: bush is liar or bush is a jerk. Spare us the sophistry.
It seems to be “generally accepted†that the NIE was floating around WAY before August. There are unattribted reports (leaks) that Cheney has been trying to suppress it for almost a year. I’m sorry that I have no hard source for this, but that is what is out on the internet tubes.
Basically this is minnesotamark agreeing with his hatred. This is a whole lotta words that amount to “If someone says something bad about Dick cheney, it must be true.” What nonsense.
This is a story that won’t die, however, and sooner or later we’ll know more. Does anyone out here really think GWB never heard about the NIE conclusions before last week? I know this is the Powerline Forum, but is there ANYONE AT ALL who bought that?
A liberal wet dream. We’ve been hearing “This one has legs” for seven years now and the idiot liberals keep hoping. This is just the return of the son of the downing street memo. That was a story that would not die too.
To me, it is inescapable that my President stood up this morning and told an obvious lie to me. And he is apparently so thick and arrogant that he thinks I won’t see it for what it is. And don’t give me some crap about the time Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with Ms Lewinsky.†If you can’t differentiate between the two cases, you are foolish. I knew Clinton was lying, and I know Bush was lying.
And here is proof that liberals lie. Minnesotamark uses a technique that the liberals find anathema: the pre emptive strike. Not only is this blatant sophistry, it is really, really childish.
I
t really bothers me that GWB has such contempt for us all that he is willing to go into a press conference and say something so incredible on its face. What world did he grow up in that he thinks a smirky denial is good enough?
Time to face it pal, you hate the man. You have nothing but contempt for everything he does. This is just your BDS on display. Toward whom will you vent your thoughtless venom when bush is no longer president?
You’ve given us a thoughtless, pointless, factless display of hatred. Shame on ya.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a National Intelligence Estimate ("Key Judgments” only) on Iran’s nuclear program today. You can download the report at the DNI web site. For some, the report was an occasion for reflexive Bush-bashing; this Reuters article, widely read since it was featured on Yahoo News, is headlined “Report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program.” Reuters begins:
A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration’s earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.
Ah, the first of no doubt many Powerline posts attacking the latest NIE, the CIA, anybody who doesn’t tow the bomb Iran line, yadda yadda.
Predictable. Boring.
I didn’t write this, but I wish I had:
These are truly sad and confused times for the right-wing. “How can we call the Democrats Chamberlains if there’s no Nazi Germany?!” they’re wondering.
Their reaction to the Iran story was classic Kubler-Ross.
DENIAL: “Given the poor performance of the U.S. Intelligence Community ("IC") in drafting previous NIE’s, we should review the IC’s work with a skeptical eye--no matter what conclusions are drawn,” insisted The Weekly Standard
Clearly, the Powerliners are still in Stage 1 of the Kubler-Ross grief stages—denial. I expect anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance to follow in the weeks and months to come. Watch for it.
It’s wonderful how you cotton onto the latest NIE, which suddenly and inexplicably reduces the immediate threat of Iran. Were you quite so enamored of the previous NIEs, which revealed it?
I suppose you and the anti-Bush authors of the new NIE really believe that Iran is enriching uranium for entirely ‘peaceful’ purposes, and that we should pay no attention to the mad Ahmadinejad when he promises to eradicate ‘the Zionist entity’ from the map of the Middle East.
Skip, Mr Lynn et al, let me just put the question to you directly: Do you honestly believe that GWB only learned of the conclusions in the NIE last week?
After you answer that question, and explain your answer, feel free to rant again about whatever you want. (Note to everybody: see my post #25 which is substantive, and see Skip’s response #26 in which he pouts about my sophistry, my liberal wet dreams, my hatred, my lying, and my BDS. Nowhere in his post does he once go to the points I made in #25. Skipsailing is one of those guys who learned the word “sophistry” somewhere in junior college and has loved it ever since.)
