[ETWolverine]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

The editors at NRO say Be Intelligent

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 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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[tomder55]

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 bwaaa haaa haa haa

[Dark_crow]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[speechlesstx]

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 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." The CIA was better prepared for the first Pakistan nuclear test a few days later.

[Dark_crow]

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.