December 5, 2007

The Trib's Take On The NIE

We're such big, huge, enthusiastic fans of the Trib here at 2PJ (it sez so here) that it pains me to offer some critical analysis of the editorial board's latest. It's on the recently declassified NIE.

The argument proffered by the loyalists at the Scaife-owned little-paper-that-could boils down (roughly) to this: the Intelligence Community said one thing two years ago and is now saying something else. So which is right? Which report do we believe? Oh, the confusion of it all!

Take a look:

The American intelligence apparat, in a major reversal, now says Iran halted a secret nuclear-weapons program in 2003.

Two years ago, the assessment suggested Iranian nuclear weapons were imminent; it fueled saber rattling from a Bush administration already at war in Iraq, based on faulty intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

What could have possibly changed things so completely? One explanation can be found here at the Washington Post. First off, there's a new methology:
Drawing lessons from the intelligence debacle over supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell required agencies to consult more sources and to say to a larger intelligence community audience precisely what they know and how they know it -- and to acknowledge, to a degree previously unheard of, what they do not know.
And with this new methology, they took a new look:

A pivotal moment occurred in early summer 2005, when President Bush discussed the new Iran NIE with advisers during a routine intelligence briefing. Why, he asked, was it so hard to get information about Iran's nuclear program?

The exchange, described by a senior U.S. official who witnessed it, helped instigate the intelligence community's most aggressive attempt to penetrate Iran's highly secretive nuclear program. Over the coming months, the CIA established a new Iran Operations Division that brought analysts and clandestine collectors together to search for hard evidence.

Communications intercepts of Iranian nuclear officials and a stolen Iranian laptop containing diagrams related to the development of a nuclear warhead for missiles both yielded valuable evidence about Iran's nuclear past as well as its decision in 2003 to suspend the weapons side of its program.

But there was no "eureka" moment, according to senior officials who helped supervise the collection efforts. The surge in intelligence-gathering helped convince analysts that Iran had made a "course correction" in 2003, halting the weapons work while proceeding with the civilian nuclear energy program.

And that lead to a new conclusion. Simple, really.

But the Trib has a few more cards to play.
Complicating the matter, however, is that the reassessment may rely on information from a senior Iranian official who defected. Is it a ploy? Much of the U.S.'s erroneous Iraq assumptions were based on the claims of a single and poorly vetted snitch.
So here's the other shoe dropping. Since much of Bush's run up to war was based on a "single and poorly vetted snitch," (that would be Curveball), and this turnaround "may rely" on a defector, why should we believe it?

From the Guardian:

The U-turn by US spy agencies over Iran, the biggest since the Iraq debacle five years ago, is the result of "physical" intelligence, likely to be a defector, according to various diplomatic and security sources in Washington today.

One of the main figures in the frame is General Ali-Reza Asgari, a former deputy defence minister and Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander.

Asgari apparently disappeared in Turkey over the last 12 months, having either defected or been kidnapped, and may be in US hands.

However:
Work on the latest NIE report on Iran has been under way for more than a year. Senior intelligence officials, quoted in the New York Times, cautioned against concluding that the turnaround had been the result of a single defector and pointed to an analysis of video footage of a tour by foreign journalists of Iran's nuclear facility at Natanz in 2005.
And notice the chronology. The Iran Operations Division was established in the months after the Summer of 2005 (let's say the fall of 2005). The defector (if he indeed defected and if he is indeed the source) has only been available for the past year or so.

To its credit, the Trib's editorial board does add this:
But, all this said, the new intelligence conclusions suggest that U.S.-led international pressure may have worked in stunting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Such pressure -- and a dedicated policy of containment -- actually was working against Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion.
So, what to believe?

It's simple. Just do a little research and see where the information takes you. I did that. Why couldn't the Trib's editorial board?

28 comments:

  1. John K. says: This NIE agrees with the left wing so it has to be true. (LMAO) It was written by three state dept officials who have bones to pick with the Bush admin. LMAO one Brills is a on tear to discredit the Bush admin. Do your homework lefties. Do your homework.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To me, the most significant aspect of this whole debacle is the chutzpah that Bush exhibits in his lying about the topic. There are two lies that strike me as particularly incredible.

    First, Bush claims that McConnell told him in August that "we have some new information" about Iran, but didn't go further. Right. Your spouse tells you, "Honey, I got the results of the HIV test" and you don't ask for at least a hint? C'mon. Probably even XRanger won't swallow that one. (This is not a prediction; X is pretty credulous where it comes to Dubya.)

    Second, Bush claimed to a reporter that while he was making noise about WWIII and mushroom clouds (again), no one on his intelligence staff warned him that he might want to soft-pedal the Iran business a bit. You know, "Ixnay on the Iranway inghthay, Mr. President." Even though no one in this administration cares about American credibility; even though the entire Executive Branch knows that there is nothing they can do to prevent Bush from looking like the arrogant dunce that he is; still, nobody in the intelligence community warned the President of the United States that he was making a complete ass of himself? Puh-leeze.

    Oh and John, here's a quiz for you. Who said this: "Here's what we know...We know they had a program. We know the program is halted." Even Bush kinda makes you look silly, huh? Fortunately, looking silly is a condition that you are used to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This NIE report is nothing more than a political hatchet peace and should not only be disputed, but rejected. The Israelis definetely do not believe it, and the French and the British seem to be skeptical. The only people who are benefiting from this report are the mad mullahs who are chortling in their beards at the thought of making Bush look bad. The Iranian regime continues to fund terrorists all over the world and is a threat to global stability, no matter what some politically motivated report says.
    C.H. aka militant omnitheist
    www.excerciseyourright.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Everyone chortles in his beard when Bush looks bad. (Well, except the women. I'm not sure what they chortle into. I'll have to ask one. Maria, what do you chortle into when Bush looks bad? Pr do you chortle into your bush when Beard looks bad?)

    Be that as it may, since Bush does something to make himself look so bad so often, we're all pretty much chuckling constantly.

    But, Mr. Monotheist, Bush CONFIRMED THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT. Are you now agreeing that he IS stupid? Or should we take his word that the report is accurate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. SS<

    I do not chortle over Bush -- I guffaw.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. John K. says: Do you guffaw also? I guffaw at how easy it is to fool you lefties. You bought right into this NIE. Written, by the way, by three disgruntled State Dept. officials. And to think you lefties in here don't even believe in Santa Claus. LOL LOL Man I am on today!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now Dubya is a leftie! John, your ability to amuse with preposterousness is abyssal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Bush has been weakened by the fanatical far-left and the democratic congress trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Bush really believes this report, then he has lost touch with reality. The Israelis definitely don't believe it, and the British and the French are skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are only about 6 years late in discovering that Bush in out of touch with reality, but better late than never.

    Welcome to the Left Fringe, Mr. Monotheist. I suppose you will be supporting the impeachment movement now that you realize that Bush's view of the-world-as-it-is is, shall we say, skewed?

    ReplyDelete
  10. John K. says: Oh Oh. The three writers of this NEI are disgruntled State Dept employees. In fact one of the authors, in July, testified in front of Congress, that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. NY SUN and Weekly Standards did their job exposing these frauds. But you lefties buy anything. Which makes me wonder how you conclude anything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. YO, JOHN! HELLO! BUSH CONFIRMS AND ADMIRES THE REPORT!

    And now in addition to Glenn Beck, you use the Weekly Standard as your source. Priceless.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I haven't read the Weekly Standard since I was a little kid sitting in the dentist's office.

    Um...or was it the Weekly Reader?


    Never mind...

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you people actually think that Bush is going to get impeached you have another thing coming. Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid will never be able to get the votes, just like they'll never get the votes to "change course" in Iraq, which is a code phrase for "we need to fail in Iraq so we can win in '08". Bush will leave office in 2009, retire to his ranch, and the biggest decision he'll have to make for the rest of his life is what golf club to use on a certain whole. So you lefties better get used to it. As for this Iran report, I don't know what to think other than god bless Israel and Iran is a murderous regime that is no doubt up to no good.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mr. Monotheist, I think you make a couple of good points. The spineless Dems will never impeach, they will never get the votes to end the disaster Bush and the Neocons started in Iraq, and Bush will even have trouble deciding on which golf course to play and which of his ultra-rich buddies to play with.

    It's nice to see a Wingnut make sense for once. I'll even give you extra points if you learn the difference between "whole" and "hole."

    ReplyDelete
  15. As for this Iran report, I don't know what to think other than god bless America and Bush's is a murderous regime that is no doubt up to no good.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I hsve a question for you guys. If the success continues in Iraq and the Iraqis are able to build a democracy, will you be happy? Will you still be happy even if Bush's approval rating went up a few points? You see, I really don't care about how the world feels about Bush. All I care about is helping the Iraqis rebuild their country and achieve peace and security. Read the section "about me" on my profile and you'll see where I'm coming from. I am not a republican and I'm definitely not right-wing. I'm just a concerned American who cares about humanity. Also, the isolationist Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan conservative movement is what we need to watch out for, not the neocons, a group the left sees as more threatening than satan himself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's a good question, Mr. Monotheist. Here's one for you:

    If 2008 results in even more casualties than 2007; if Bush pisses away another half-trillion dollars so that America's already-crushing debt impoverishes your kids and grandkids; if the Iraq government continues its determination to divide and polarize the factions in that country -- if all this happens, will you still be part of the sub-minority that supports this misguided debacle?

    Buchanan, Paul, and their ilk think they can build a wall around the United States and live happily ever after. They and their supporters are merely delusional fools lacking power and substance. Don't worry about them.

    Instead, worry about the powerful Cheneys, Wolfowitzes, Kristols, and Podhoretzes who have been so successful in pushing our country into an agenda that seeks conquest of the world a la the princess and popes of the Middle Ages. They may have duped you into believing that they care about humanity and the people of Iraq, but their agenda dictates more and more shock and awe, more and more killing of both soldiers and innocents, more and more chaos in the Mid East, more and more oil in the hands of their companies.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That was an interesting question, Schmuck, but maybe you should answer mine first.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Deal.

    I will be happy for the Iraqis when they get themselves back to the kind of freedom and lifestyle they had under Saddam.

    I will be happy for the Iraqis when they get back to having electricity for more than 4 hours a day.

    I will be happy for the Iraqis when they rid themselves of the radical Islamists that we imported for them, primarily from our allies.

    You get the idea.

    I will be happy for the United States when the troops can come home. I will be even happier when 5,000 or 6,000 dead soldiers come back to life and 100,000 or so get their arms, legs, and brains back.

    I will be happy for the United States when a group of Neocons pays back the $2 or $3 trillion that we will have squandered over there, much of which just vanished into thin air.

    I will be happy for the United States when people like you realize how you have been hornswoggled by a very small group of billionaires who have lied to you about Iraq from the very beginning and who have profitted handsomely from the deaths of our brave soldiers.

    Your turn.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So basically your saying you'd like the Iraqis to go back to having truckloads of political prisoners executed and buried in mass graves and for Iraqi money to be flowing to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, is that the freedom they enjoyed under Saddam?

    But enough questions from me, I said I would answer yours.

    For starters, I live by the quote "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," as I have displayed at the top of my blog. If casualties go up in 2008, which I don't think they will, it will be because of the political fighting that has divided this country. When Dingy Harry and John Murtha declare the war lost, it inflicts more harm on this country and the people of Iraq than anyone who's ever strapped a bomb to their chest and screamed allah akbar. I can never advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq because it will result in the genocide of millions, just like what happened in vietnam after we "got the hell out of there" therefore, even if al-qaeda ups the ante and kills more innocent people to break our will, I will still support the effort.

    Also, a crazy would be someone who thinks that Bush and Cheney are evil and that the Jews (Israel) are really in control of foreign policy. It can also be someone who thinks that Saddam Hussein actually provided freedom to his people. Have you seen the satelite phots of North Korea at night? Well, there's no electricity at all. Iraq was the same way, Saddam only cared about his grip on power. If the violence ends in Iraq, we can continue a humanitarian operation to get everything back on track and back to normal.

    ReplyDelete
  21. OK, now that we've heard the Kleptocracy's propaganda for the 6,239,463 time, when are you going to answer my question? I'll re-phrase it for you: Will there ever be a time when you are willing to stop throwing American and Iraqi lives and American money after a corrupt dream of conquest, or are you willing to completely ruin our Armed Forces and our treasury so that Cheney can buy another shiny new country?

    As far as craziness is concerned, a large majority of MILITARY families and a larger majority of American families agree with me. Who's the crazy one, Bubeleh?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I just answered it for you. I can never advocate abandoning Iraq because it goes against everything I believe in. If someone could prove to me that if we left Iraq everyone would live in peace and no more innocent people would die then I would be supportive of it. I want the soldiers to come home as much as anyone, but history shows us that if we leave before the job is finished all hell could break loose, like a mass genocide on the scale of Cambodia. I'm sure you guys don't want that, right?

    Also, the "majority" of Americans aren't happy with the war because they've seen five years of 100% negative news coverage. If they new some of the good things happening, the numbers would probably be very different.

    Have you ever heard the phrase "what is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right?" Well, my view is the former and yours is the latter. We all should be praying for sucess in Iraq because it looks like the plans implemented by General Petraeus and Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha of the Anbar Awakening council are working. You guys just hate Bush so much you don't want to believe it. For the love of God, let's do the right thing.

    ...and before this debate becomes nothing but anger and hate, using words like "bubeleh", let's just agree to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bubeleh is a hate word in your world? Bwahahahaha! I thought you were a Israelophile! Look it up, Mr. Omnitheist. Hint: It's Yiddish.

    Of course, the remainder of your post is far more ridiculous.

    The canard that news media are undermining the war is even more absurd now than it was in the '60s. Ever hear of Hannity, Limbaugh, Murdock, Moon, Ailes, O'Reilly, Coulter, and Scaife? Any idea which cable news network has the most viewers? Do you really think that the families of the soldiers are getting their news from CBS and not from their kids in Iraq and Afghanistan? Please try to compose your comments in your brain instead of your gonads.

    You got one thing almost right, which is waaaaay above average for a Wingnut. We do hate Bush's attempt to establish his monarchy. We hate it with a burning passion. We hate his lies, his flagrant disregard for the kids he sent into a bloody war for no good reason, and his attempts to eviscerate the Constitution. We hate the fact that he deserted his military obligation and surrounds himself with draft dodgers. We hate the way a drug addict has become a hypocritical, sanctimonious jerk. We hate the way he has robbed your children and grandchildren to further enrich his obscenely rich friends. We hate that he has
    innocent people thrown into jail without legal representation, but pardons traitors. And yes, we hate the arrogant smirk, the padded crotch, and the way he embarrasses the country every time he opens his mouth. Damn right we hate his mis-administration; and if you don't, you're a fool, Mr. Omnitheist.

    I'm afraid, however, that I won't be able to agree to disagree with you. So far, you haven't provided anything concrete with which to disagree. All you've given us is the same fabulous misinformation we can get from Novak, Hume, Will, or Kristol.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I must say thats the first time I've ever heard a lefty concede that Fox has the most viewers. Usually, they make up numbers and lie about the ratings.

    Also, I don't speak Yiddish. I'm learning Hebrew and Arabic, but I don't speak Yiddish yet. Maybe I'll learn some phrases when I go to Israel this Summer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You might be a kook fringe lefty if:

    1) You compare Bush to Hitler
    2) You think the Bush Admin is more evil than Bin Laden or even Satan
    3) You don't think saddam was such a bad guy after all
    4) you think Keith Olbermann has contructive viewpoints
    5) you believe Bush takes orders from Israel and/or Dick Cheney
    6) you think Iran is a peace-seeking country
    7) you consider terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters"
    8) you think Fox News is biased
    9) You blame just about every global event on America
    10) You use the word "neocon" all the time
    11) you think Bush will be impeached when there's no case for it
    12) You think Israel is the villain, not Hamas and Islamic Jihad
    13) you thought Hugo Chavez's anti-Bush speech last year made sense
    14) you believe you have the power to cool down the earth with a special light bulb
    15) You have MSNBC on for background noise a lot
    16) You enjoyed the movies "redacted", rendition, in the valley of elah, or lions for lambs, all of which clear thinking people avoided

    If you exhibit any of these symptoms, seek help immediately. You most likely have BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) or FDS (Fox derangement syndrome) both are very serious conditions and could result in rants against America, attacking the President, and exploiting military families. Voting for today's democrats is also a common symptom. You can begin treatment by tuning into Bill O'reilly, he can straighten you out.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And you might be a Whacky Wingnut if you call yourself Militant Omnitheist and simply assume that your debating opponent is using hate speech. Oh, and call yourself a moderate.

    So now you're gonna do the Laughing Chickenhawk thing? Sorry you couldn't come up with an original act. It's only funny when John K. does it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is getting funny, you must be running out of conspiracy theories and politically skewed news off of moveon.org to resort to making fun of my name, which defines my spiritual beliefs by the way. And I have never accused you of using hate speech. I just don't like angry words being said in a debate that should be legitimate, that's al.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mr. Omnitheist, you should be aware that someone is using your handle. A few posts above, he said, "...and before this debate becomes nothing but anger and hate, using words like "bubeleh."

    Now, since you looked it up, you and I know what "bubeleh" means, and that it NOT a hate word. But the stupid impostor -- you know, the kind of guy who shoots off his mouth without knowing what he is talking about -- thought it was.

    I'm afraid you're still not getting the knack of using the Laughing Chickenhawk's schtick (before you get upset, that's Yiddish, too). You can't just SAY something is funny, you have to put in lots and lots of LOLs and LMAOs. Now THAT's witty! Hang in there and someday you may be as entertaining as John K. is, even though you obviously lack the writing skills for journalism.

    FYI, I call John K. the Laughing Chickenhawk because he harps constantly on how we liberals hate the troops, although many of us have been in the army while the closest he has ever been to military training was the 6th grade picnic. (I almost said the 8th grade picnic, but I'm not sure he has gotten that far.)

    Well, it's been just a little slice of paradise conversing with you, but I really don't have time making Wingnuts look silly when they take care of that so well themselves. Besides, I'm too busy lowering the morale of the troops and spreading lies and conspiracy theories about the greatest president who ever shredded the Constitution. Ta-ta.

    Oh, but if you know any other Wingnuts out there in the City by the Bay that can hold up one end of debate, send them around. Our swords get dull doing nothing but slicing up the kinds of milk toast that we normally see on this blog. He or she won't last long, though. The smart ones just post a few times, make interesting but invalid arguments, then run away with their tails between their legs.

    ReplyDelete