How does the NIE released yesterday change the political equation in the Middle East ?

It doesn't make sense . Why would the Mahdi Hatter threaten to rain fire down upon Israel if they were not still working on their nuclear weapon program ?

Does this represent reality or the consensus opinion of the lifers in our intelligence agencies who are determined to prevent any US action against Iran ? Are they just kicking the can down the road until after the Presidential elections ?

I have my thoughts about this and they are centered on the idea that Iran is still whirling centrifuges .If their nuclear weapons program is on hold then they should have no problem letting in IAEA and a group of inspectors from the US ,EU ,and Israel to confirm the claim.Even if they were to allow inspectors in ,it stands to reason that any bomb program would be covert .

If the Iranian nuke threat wasn't real then why has China ended it's opposition to sanctions ? FT.com / In depth - Beijing backs new sanctions against Iran (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9017592e-a101-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)

Or consider this news item :

Iran’s newly-appointed top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili came to Moscow Monday night for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader is going to persuade the Iranian Secretary of Supreme Security Council to at least pretend that his country is ready to meet the international community halfway. The UN Security Council may come forward with a new resolution this week with another series of sanctions against Tehran. Moscow is going to try to block them but it will not succeed in these efforts if Iran's stance is still unbending
More Carrots from Russia to Iran - Kommersant Moscow (http://www.kommersant.com/p832102/Iran_Nuclear_UN_Russia/)

The question then becomes :why would the collective intelligence agencies of the US play along with this charade ?

Another thought... if Iraq and Iran and other foreign policy issues can be marginalized in the upcoming Presidential campaign ;will domestic the dominance of domestic issues favor the Democrat candidate ? Or perhaps did Iran begin to see the light like Libya in 2003 ? If this news is true ;can the Bush Administration properly take credit for presuring Iran to abandon it's nuke weapon program ?

I hate politics.
But as I see things shaping up, Iran and or Russia will soon try to invade Israel. If that happens the end is near. As long as there are extremists in power in the Middle East, and as long as they continue to hold the hatred for all non Muslims that they do there will never be peace in that region.

Hi Tom.

Great questions.

First of all, I don't think that this is a sham report. We're talking about 16 sepparate agencies that concur about the state of Iran's nuclear weapons project. I don't know if they are correct about WHEN Iran stopped its nuclear program (the claim is that they stopped 4 years ago), but I think that it's fairly obvious that they have stopped. The fact that there is a consensus among all these separate agencies leads me to believe that they are on target. That many people don't all agree on anything without something to back it up.

That said, the report still says that Iran is a potential nuclear threat. They still are trying to enrich uranium. The fact that it isn't for nuclear weapons doesn't change that fact. And enriched uranium, if sold to terrorists, can still make dirty bombs from conventional explosives. Iran is still an danger in that sense. And there is a strong opinion within the intelligence community that Iran will make further attempts for nuclear weapons, and can accomplish that goal between 3 and 5 years from now. So the threat of a nuclear Iran is not off the books.

And Iran remains a serious conventional threat to the region. They still have an army, they still have a desire to control Iraq, they still control Syria and Lebanon. They are a threat to Israeli security and the security of other friendly and allied nations in the region.

So there is still a threat.

That said, this report changes the equation significantly. It gives us additional time... we're not on a 6-month to 2-year timeframe until Iran gets nuclear weapons. It means that Iran is NOT holding all the cards that we thought they were. They were bluffing. Which means that if we call their bluff, they lose. If we decide to take some sort of military action, they know they can't defend against us, so they will be FORCED to negotiate and submit to demands that they would not stand for if they were a nuclear power. (That's what I meant in past posts where I talked about the military situation driving diplomatic efforts.) It means that we are in a situation where diplomay actually has a chance to work, whereas if Iran were nuclear they would likely not be willing to deal with us diplomatically.

As for why Ahmadinejad would lie about his nuclear capabilities--- that's simple. He was bluffing for several reasons.

1) To remain a controlling power in the region despite the fact that the US army is right next door,
2) To bully the other Muslim countries and the EU into doing what it wanted,
3) To keep Israel, which they see as a threat, from becoming more of a threat, (not that Israel is really interested in Iran except as a military threat against Israel)
4) To try to use a threat of nuclear weapons to drive a wedge between the USA and Iraq and drive the USA out of the region,
5) To drive a wedge between the USA and other countries that would support the USA if not for the threat of nuclear retaliation from Iran,
6) and last but not least, because Ahmadinejad is a fruitcake.

As for whether Bush can take credit for pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, there is already liberal spin being spun. They are saying "see, diplomatic efforts did work, and Bush's policy of marginalizing Iran was a failure. Bush should have sat down to talk with Iran." So the Dems won't let Bush take any credit, whether he was right or wrong.

Elliot

Iran stopped when international inspections began in fall 2003, it's reported. Perhaps visions of a replay of the Iraqi Inspections and consequences were enough to want to avoid that nightmare. If I was going to give credit, that's where I would place it.

450donn

Thanks , normally I'm not into Armegeddon scenarios . But you make an important point about the role of Tsar Vladdy Putin's Russia's role in this . What I find interesting is the timing of the Chinese news. They were on the same page with Russia regarding sanctions but have suddenly flipped.

China needs ME oil and Iran could make life very difficult to shipping through the Gulf .with a hat tip to the Russian weapons they have obtained . Why would China suddenly change their position ?I wonder if the recent vote in Russia has them wary of a growing Russian menace ?

Elliot .

The Dems can make the claim about diplomacy but it doesn't hold any water . If the NIE is correct ,the Iranians abandoned the nuke weapon program sometime after the Iraq war ,and Bush began the wratchet up the pressue .I see no evidence that Madelline Albright's calls for negotiations had any impact on Iranian thinking .

Crow


Perhaps visions of a replay of the Iraqi Inspections and consequences were enough to want to avoid that nightmare.

That's the way I'm leaning now .But I have much more reading to do .

I wonder if the recent vote in Russia has them wary of a growing Russian menace ?

I don't know if has them wary or not, but the recent vote in Russia sure as heck has me even more wary than I was about a return to the bad ol' days.

DK

I have not addressed Russia but I thought the vote there was much bigger in impact than the Venezualan referendum. Russia does not have the capacity they had in the bad ol' days .But in many ways today it is worse because they have the $$$$ from the oil exports to quicky rearm .

Hello righty's:

I think Ahmadinejad was cowed by the new Bush policy of intimidation by name ruination. Clearly, he was afraid to let Bush pronounce his name, so he caved.

I'll give Bush a victory on that one.

excon

Michael Ledeen has a great take on the NIE .He calls it a CYA .

Michael Ledeen on National Intelligence Estimate on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjljZGNiZTc0NzhmM2UyYmFlMWQ4NjkwYWI5MzUxNTM=)

If Iran already has a nuke, the spooks can't be faulted, because they said it was "plausible." If it doesn't have a nuke, they can't be criticized either, because they said it was "unlikely."

I agree with excon on this one. Attempts to verify this report should be ongoing. We can't afford to base our strategic policies on popular opinion about the capabilities of our enemies. We need facts not opinions.

Elliot

Yup and reading the Estimate (link provided in the Ledeen article) you see that it is loaded with guesses. They also fail to provide any dissenting opinions like Ihave heard there is from the Dept. of Energy. It appears that Consensus intel is just as useless as consensus science .

Does this represent reality or the consensus opinion of the lifers in our intelligence agencies who are determined to prevent any US action against Iran ? Are they just kicking the can down the road until after the Presidential elections ?


I want to revisit this question based on information Ken Timmerman ;author of Amazon.com: Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender: Books: Kenneth R. Timmerman (http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Warriors-Traitors-Saboteurs-Surrender/dp/0307352099),detailed yesterday .

He identifies the main authors of the NIE and says they have suspect motives. Newsmax.com - U.S. Intel Possibly Duped by Iran (http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes/2007/12/04/54359.html)


The National Intelligence Council, which produced the NIE, is chaired by Thomas Fingar, “a State Department intelligence analyst with no known overseas experience who briefly headed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research,”

Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.


As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues


Collaborating with Fingar on the Iran estimate, released on Monday, were Kenneth Brill, the director of the National Counterproliferation Center, and Vann H. Van Diepen, the National Intelligence officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Proliferation.


“Van Diepen was an enormous problem,” a former colleague of his from the State Department told me when I was fact gathering for "Shadow Warriors."


“He was insubordinate, hated WMD sanctions, and strived not to implement them,” even though it was his specific responsibility at State to do so, the former colleague told me.


Kenneth Brill, also a career foreign service officer, had been the U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in 2003-2004 before he was forced into retirement.


"Shadow Warrior" reports, “While in Vienna, Brill consistently failed to confront Iran once its clandestine nuclear weapons program was exposed in February 2003, and had to be woken up with the bureaucratic equivalent of a cattle prod to deliver a single speech condemning Iran’s eighteen year history of nuclear cheating.”


Negroponte rehabilitated Brill and brought the man who single-handedly failed to object to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and put him in charge of counter-proliferation efforts for the entire intelligence community.



I think his opinion of Fingar is correct based on public statements in the past . Check out one of his better testimonies.

"Happily, the severity of specific threats to our nation, our values, our system of government, and our way of life are low and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future."
Documents on Terrorism
Statement by Thomas Fingar Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; February 7, 2001

The Avalon Project : Statement by Thomas Fingar Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; February 7, 2001 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/t_0031.htm)

The Wall Street Journal editorializes that Fingar and the other two main authors of the NIE are anti-Bush.
Free Preview - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119682320187314033.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)


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).

For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration anti-proliferation official John Bolton recalls in his recent memoir that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "described Brill's efforts in Vienna, or lack thereof, as 'bull -- .'"

Mr. Brill was "retired" from the State Department by Colin Powell before being rehired, over considerable internal and public protest, as head of the National Counter-Proliferation Center by then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

The truth could as easily be that the Administration in its waning days has simply lost any control of its bureaucracy -- not that it ever had much.

More on Fingar . :FEATURES: :The New Spy Masters : Thomas Fingar (10/15/05) -- www.GovernmentExecutive.com (http://www.govexec.com/features/1005-15/1005-15s2s4.htm)


Thomas Fingar, like a number of members of John Negroponte’s inner circle, hails from the State Department. He led the department’s intelligence unit, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which raised some of the strongest objections to the determination by the CIA and others that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons rather than enhancing its conventional arsenal. :confused: :eek:

OK quick quiz . Who was was heading up the entire Intelligence Community’s Joint Task Force on Iraq and WMDs at the time?? yup Valerie Plame !! Is there a connection to this latest NIE ? I'd guess it's a good possibility... In fact I'd rate it a "very likely " .

Hello tom:

So, we (AGAIN) can't trust our intelligence at all? Then I spose we need to bomb the entire world, don't we?

You guy's slay me. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I said nothing about bombing but I would still keep the pressure on Iran.

Bottom line... how many more Americans need be killed by the thugs in Iran and their surrogates before we understand that we are ALREADY at war with them ?

I have been in favor of giving real support to groups in the country who aim to topple the regime. The only thing the nuclear program added was an additional sense of urgency to the equation. The fact that our wimps in the State Dept. have decided that Iran whirling 3000 centrifuges is not a threat is puzzling ;but irrelevant to my position about the regime.

We are justified in taking military action if we decide to do so because American killing, armor piercing IEDs are manufactured there and Iranian Qud Revolutionary Guard are in Iraq detonating them .

All right, I'm confused now.

My initial reaction, upon reading the NIE and the various news reports about it, was to reject it as rose-colored wishful thinking.

Then I looked at it again, and there was a strong degree of confidence that seemed to be shown in the report. ALL the intelligence agencies seemed to be in agreement, so I was prepared to get behind them on it, while still pushing the idea of continued diplomatic pressure.

Now this information about a possible agenda by the authors of the report, the personal anti-Bush biases of the authors, and questionable actions taken against intel analysts who disagree with the report, has come to light. And it brings the entire report into question.

So what are we to believe?

The solution, in my opinion, is to continue with the combination of diplomatic and military pressure that we have been doing till now. Easing up on the military or diplomatic pressure without CONFIRMATION that Iran is not a nuclear threat would be imprudent because it would give Iran the chance to get their feet under them to BECOME a nuclear threat if they are not one now.

We REALLY need better HUMINT resources.

Elliot

Elliot

It just doesn't make sense. Javier Solana of the EU returned from Iran and nearly in tears announced that Iran was completely intransigent... just one day before the report was released . FT.com / Home UK / UK - Solana disappointed by Iran's uranium refusal (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d8284aa8-9fb1-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html)
The Israeli's are saying that Iran may have suspended their program but have probably restarted it.

Alright, I'm confused now.Hello again, El:

Let me see if I can alleviate that defect.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. 1) we have an intelligence community WITH an agenda. That's apparently a RECENT phenomenon. It should be considered within the context of another RECENT phenomenon.

That would be 2), the recent POLITICALIZATION of the intelligence THAT the intel community produced, to fit a neocon agenda. Then we had a POLITICALIZATION of the services themselves. What? You think he stopped at the Justice Department??

I think number #1 is a direct result of number #2.

excon

PS> You liked it when he did it to the Justice Department, didn't you?

3) Congress has worked since the early 1970s to neuter any effective intel community in this country . You can use the Senator Frank Church committee as one example and you could use former Senator Robert Torricelli leaks about CIA operations in the 1990s as another . I could cite many examples of CIA leaks to the NY Slimes before President Bush to show that the problem precedes President Bush and the "neocons" .

excon,

I assume by "he" you mean Bush.

I'm wondering, though, how you can blame Bush for an anti-Bush agenda in the State Department and intelligence community. You seem to be saying "Bush started it" which is the kind of infantle argument my 7 and 5 year old kids use when they fight with each other. And as Tom points out, the State Department's and intelligence community's agenda-driven actions predate Bush. There were there during the Clinton years, the Bush 41 years and the Reagan years. They were likely there as far back as the JFK era, but were less obvious as an institutional problem that far back. So I can't really understand how you can blame "him" for all these agenda-driven problems, especially when that agenda specifically targets "him" and is directly contary to "his" agenda.

Doesn't your wrist get tired from so much finger-pointing and finger wagging?

Elliot

Ex this is not really a CIA discussion. THE NIE is a consensus report from a number of agencies. My issue is really with current and former State Dept. officials. State Dept careerists have always been political . The Dept has been ripe for reform as long as I have studied it. They act like an unelected branch of government and under the assumption that they can outlast any President who disagrees with the dept. They often forge their own policies independent of the Presidency .

But like in this case ;what that means is that the world gets a conflicting message from Washington. What is the US policy now?. the policy that Bush restated yesterday in his press conference or that of the State Dept. who's many hacks have the ears of the world governments also ? Who gains by this confusion ? The Mahdi hatter .

The editors at NRO say Be Intelligent (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDA2OWMzNjEyMzg5Y2Q4ZjRhOWU4OWY1MTA2NmRhM2Q=)


By The Editors

The Left isn’t wasting any time to portray recently declassified findings in the latest National Intelligence Estimate as evidence that Iran isn’t such a threat after all. The authors of the NIE assess “with high confidence” that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003 — and that’s about all you’re likely to hear from administration critics and the mainstream media. But it is a very small part of a very big picture — and when you look at that picture, the threat is as great as ever. Here are a few things to remember.

First, the NIE says that Iran was indeed operating a covert nuclear-weapons program up to the fall of 2003. Until now, no NIE had held that such a program existed. The acknowledgement that one did is a big piece of news — even if not many people want to talk about it. Yes, the NIE also claims that Iran suspended weapons-related activities in 2003. But the question for policymakers is whether a regime that has, in the past four years, tried to build atomic bombs should be trusted with civilian technologies that greatly increase its ability to make a bomb, should it choose to do so.

And that’s the second thing to remember about this NIE: It relies on an unrealistic distinction between civilian and military nuclear technologies. When it says Iran suspended its weapons program in 2003, what it means is that Iran isn’t currently designing or building warheads, or other components of nuclear weapons. But it concedes that Iran “made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz.” And while the NIE judges “with moderate confidence” that Iran “still faces significant technical problems” operating the centrifuges, it does not question that the enrichment of uranium continues.

That matters because Iran’s uranium-enrichment program — while ostensibly for the generation of electricity — could easily be diverted to military use. The primary obstacle to building a nuclear weapon isn’t making the warhead, but securing enough enriched uranium to make the warhead explode. Iran presumably has all the know-how it needs, courtesy of A. Q. Khan. Every step Iran takes toward mastering the nuclear-fuel cycle for “civilian purposes” also enhances its ability to quickly build an atomic bomb. The only thing backing up Iran’s word that it won’t divert nuclear fuel for use in weapons is . . . Iran’s word. What the NIE does not explain — what no one has explained — is why the world’s third-largest exporter of oil and gas needs nuclear power.

Third, consider the NIE’s judgment “that Iran halted the [weapons] program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure,” and that this “indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach.” If you believe that, shouldn’t you believe all the more that the U.N. must impose a third round of sanctions on Iran? Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of Security Council resolutions ordering it to stop. If Iran responds to pressure, now is the time to apply more pressure.

Of course, all this assumes that the NIE is accurate and impartial — and there is reason to doubt that. It’s no secret that careerists at the CIA and State have been less interested in implementing the president’s policies on Iran, Iraq, and North Korea than in sabotaging them at every opportunity. Sources close to the intelligence community question the objectivity of the NIE’s Iran conclusions, and tell us that three principal authors of the report are longtime critics of the administration’s policy who have axes to grind.

We can’t know for sure whether the claims in the NIE are correct. What we do know is this: The Islamic Republic is killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has exported terror around the globe. It has powerful strategic reasons to want an atomic bomb: to counterbalance American influence, and to become a hegemon in the Middle East. And it continues to enrich uranium while refusing to allow the kind of intrusive and thorough inspections that would allow us to test its claim that it seeks nothing but electricity. Until that big picture changes, it would be irresponsible for any American policymaker to conclude that the Iranian threat had diminished.

Personally, I believe the wonks in intelligence are screwing Bush yet again. Bush is not the idiot he's portrayed to be so I cannot imagine he would have acted as he has toward Iran for the past 4 years without good reason, knowing he would be crucified yet again for faulty intelligence.

Secondly, IF they halted their nuke program it may have been a combination of international pressure, preoccupation with disrupting things in Iraq and Lebanon... and a large US military presence at their doorstep. But even IF they did halt this program anyone that thinks we should rush in and negotiate, compromise and appease is babbling fool - especially without a continued show of force on our part.

Michael Rubin points out the folly (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/05/2007-12-05_irans_nuke_news_shows_danger_of_trusting.html) of trusting the Iranian regime:


In reality, the NIE shows just how costly diplomacy can be when itisn't reinforced by strong sanctions and the credible threat of military force.

The NIE time line clearly describes the elaborate deception that occurred during the term of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, when Iran tried to build a nuclear bomb. It proves Iran was cheating even as well-meaning American diplomats believed promises that it was cooperating with the international community.

On Aug. 4, 1997, Khatami declared, "We are in favor of a dialogue between civilizations and a detente in our relations with the outside world." European diplomats, American academics and even Secretary of State Madeleine Albright applauded him. European statesmen opened palaces to him, and the Iranian president became the toast of Rome, Paris and London.

In fact, to encourage Khatami's promises of reform, the European Union nearly tripled its trade with Iran - and the Islamic Republic reaped a windfall. But rather than integrate itself into the family of nations, Khatami and the theocratic leadership he served invested the money in a covert quest for the bomb.

The NIE proves once and for all that all of Khatami's talk of dialogue and reform was little more than a smoke screen.

What's troubling to me is once again Democrats are playing the part of useful idiot for those who wish to do us harm.

Hello righty's:

Sorry, Dudes. I'm having a hard time with this... Back when, you believed what they had to say when it included WMD's about Saddam. Then you used it to march off to war...

Uhhhh, they were wrong then. But, you still think they were right.

Then you thought they were right about WMD's in Iran, too. Now they think they were wrong, but you think they're wrong NOW, but they were right before, they WERE wrong...

I'm confusalated...

I'm being funny, but do you realize how dangerous this fiasco really is? We're blind in the world...

I have another question. In 1960, Kennedy saw nukes in Cuba with an old fashioned satellite. We ACTED on it, the NEXT day.

How come, in 2007, it took 4 years to come to THIS recent NIE? Then it's discarded like so much trash.

We're BLIND to the world... The world is going to make us pay for that. Yeah, Bush made us safer... Riiiiight. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Certainly the NIE was not the sole source of information about Iraq WMD . When I determined that the Iraq WMD issue was real I had the backing of the NIE and the consensus evaluation of not just the United States intel depts. But of the world's .

There was indeed a difference of opinion about how to address the Iraqi WMD .But,there was no dispute NONE that Iraq had WMD .

Until this out of left field NIE came out that was also true of Iranian nuclear programs. The NIE in 2005 was absolutely positive that Iran's program was ongoing . That is 2 years AFTER the program supposedly was suspended according to this report. What changed besides the authors of the report ? Congressional Intel Committees should read the classified version of this report and call these 3 stooges in for some tough questioning . But they won't.

Hello righty's:

Sorry, Dudes. I'm having a hard time with this... Back when, you believed what they had to say when it included WMD's about Saddam. Then you used it to march off to war...

Uhhhh, they were wrong then. But, you still think they were right.

Ex my friend, I really don't care whether Saddam was bluffing, it was foolish for the world to let the man get away with what he did for as long as they did. It's been said a thousand times, everyone thought he had WMD's - not just us. He murdered, tortured and otherwise oppressed thousands and thousands of his own people. He drained the southern marshes in what the greens would and still consider an environmental disaster of monumental proportions to punish and displace an ancient culture, invaded a peaceful country for their oil, used WMD's on his people, attempted to assassinate our president and made countless threats.


Then you thought they were right about WMD's in Iran, too. Now they think they were wrong, but you think they're wrong NOW, but they were right before, they WERE wrong...

I don't care that the NIE claims they've halted their nuke program, their president has threatened us and threatened to annihilate Israel. Do YOU trust Iran?


I'm confusalated...

I'm being funny, but do you realize how dangerous this fiasco really is? We're blind in the world...

Now THAT is troubling.


I have another question. In 1960, Kennedy saw nukes in Cuba with an old fashioned satellite. We ACTED on it, the NEXT day.

How come, in 2007, it took 4 years to come to THIS recent NIE? Then it's discarded like so much trash.

If I have it right, French intelligence warned the CIA the Soviets were installing missiles and the Kennedy's denied they would do such a thing. Spy flights, not satellite images confirmed this, and Kennedy told congress there were no 'offensive' weapons, while Kruschev was saying there would be no offensive weapons in Cuba. He lied. I think Iran is lying, too.

Actually, I think the CIA got it wrong AFTER the Iraq invasion, not before.

Saddam had WMDs, whether in peicemeal, or in whole units. He had long range missiles. He had anthrax. He had Sarin. He had bio-agents. He had 500 tons of yellowcake uranium. He had mortar shells loaded with sarin that had never been accounted for. And we have pictures of Saddam shipping stuff off to Syria (probably the stuff that Israel destroyed back in September's event that never happened).

So for the CIA to say that Saddam didn't have WMDs when we have clear evidence that he did... that just shows me they were wrong AFTER the war started, but dead right before it started.

And by the way, I never trusted the CIA. But then again, I'm not supposed to trust the CIA... they're spooks. What I trust is our government's ability to keep those spooks on a leash until they are needed. The current CIA is biting this handler, and the handler has yet to pull out his newspaper and swat it on the nose. He should have done that long ago.

Elliot

Indeed it was a bit of luck that we found out about the Ruskie missiles . CIA Director John McCone happened to be in Paris on honeymoon when the French warned him about the Russians . A Honeymoon telegram September 20, 1962, was sent where he told the CIA to remain imaginative when it came to Soviet weapons.a September 19 NIE had concluded it unlikely that nuclear missiles would be placed on the island.Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/) bwaaa haaa haa haa

Hello righty's:

Sorry, Dudes. I'm having a hard time with this.... Back when, you believed what they had to say when it included WMD's about Saddam. Then you used it to march off to war.....

Uhhhh, they were wrong then. But, you still think they were right.



excon
The communist North Korea's nuclear program and India's 1998 underground nuclear test, followed by a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan, surprised America's spy agencies, why? Our continued lack of human intelligence (real live spies and informers) within hostile regimes and terrorist organizations.

“The change is supposedly the result of intercepted communications between Iran's military commanders in which complaints of the program being shut down were overheard. Some senior administration policymakers suspect Iranian deception.”


Whatever your beliefs…if one of them is that left to his own devices, Saddam would indeed not have nuclear devices today I question your naivety.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The All Unclear (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=281663994788460)

DC's right. I keep saying it over and over again. HUMINT, HUMINT and more HUMINT!! We have the best ELINT and SIGINT in the world. But our HUMINT sucks. And considering the fact that our country is made up of so many different ethnic and racial backgrounds, it ought to be relatively easy to train a strong HUMINT group for various parts of the world. But we haven't done so.

If Israel can train Israelis to become master spies that are good enough to penetrate high up into enemy governments, why can't we? We have Arabs in this country who are loyal Americans. Why haven't we recruited and trained them for clandestine work in Muslim countries? Why are we so far behind on HUMINT?

Elliot

Indeed it was a bit of luck that we found out about the Ruskie missiles . CIA Director John McCone happened to be in Paris on honeymoon when the French warned him about the Russians . A Honeymoon telegram September 20, 1962, was sent where he told the CIA to remain imaginative when it came to Soviet weapons.a September 19 NIE had concluded it unlikely that nuclear missiles would be placed on the island.Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/) bwaaa haaa haa haa

Thanks for that link, tom. I'm sure you caught these particular blunders...


1978

The Iranian revolution. In August 1978, CIA issued an NIE that said Iran "is not in a revolutionary or even a prerevolutionary situation." The Shah fled Iran six months later.


1990

Two blunders on Iraq. On July 31, The CIA dismissed the likelihood of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein invaded two days later. The CIA also significantly underestimated the scale of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.


1998

The Indian bomb. The CIA failed to predict the testing of an Indian nuclear bomb in May 1998. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard Shelby, bemoaned "a colossal failure of our nation's intelligence gathering (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9805/12/india.cia/)." The CIA was better prepared for the first Pakistan nuclear test a few days later.

DC's right. I keep saying it over and over again. HUMINT, HUMINT and more HUMINT!!! We have the best ELINT and SIGINT in the world. But our HUMINT sucks. And considering the fact that our country is made up of so many different ethnic and racial backgrounds, it ought to be relatively easy to train a strong HUMINT group for various parts of the world. But we haven't done so.

If Israel can train Israelis to become master spies that are good enough to penetrate high up into enemy governments, why can't we? We have Arabs in this country who are loyal Americans. Why haven't we recruited and trained them for clandestine work in Muslim countries? Why are we so far behind on HUMINT?

Elliot
Absolutely, Elliot…good intelligence is the best weapon against terrorism and a proactive (before the fact) strategy is best. I would like to add that Covert action should be seen as just another policy option, including counterterrorist activities which involve preemptive strikes.