Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Here's Hillary's Soundbite | Main | I Predicted This Train Wreck »

December 03, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200e54f95519e8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Trust The Times To Read An NIE (Not):

» Reuters spins the new NIE on Iran from The Unalienable Right
From Reuters (via Yahoo News), another example of the sort of bias and spin employed by the DeMSM as they report on the Bush administration: "A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, ... [Read More]

» Gambling on the Good Word of a Tyrant from The Sundries Shack
I am really intrigued by this story which reveals that President Bush had a National Intelligence Estimate which said, in part, that Iran had frozen its nuclear weapons program in 2003 but that our intelligence agencies werent sure if Iran inte... [Read More]

» The National Intelligence Estimate from The Redhunter
...the NYT somewhat mischaracterized the NIE, as Tom Maguire points out on his blog... [Read More]

Comments

Patrick R. Sullivan

Whose CIA spouse was the source?

clarice

When it comes to the NYT, my assessment is that except for the stuff in the style section on what's "in" among Park Avenue denizens, the information is stuff in which I have a low confidence level.

Someone blogging this today said the critical portions were reportedly heavily influenced by two former (very anti-Bush) DoS officials.
Reid's calling for "a surge of diplomacy" in Iran. He has all the sincere demeanor and talk of a brothel pianist.

Rick Ballard

"He has all the sincere demeanor and talk of a brothel pianist."

If only he had the credibility to go along with it...

centralcal

Clarice: It was at Macsmind, citing a post by Cliff May:

"A friend, formerly at the CIA, tells me that while this NIE does confirm Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons in 2002 and 2003, its conclusions that as to why it may have stopped the program and why this halt may have continued are debateable and speculation. These KJs [Key Judgments] have too much political spin. This assessment was strongly influenced by two hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials who oversaw it, both former State officials who fought tooth and nail against Bush WMD policies, especially Iran.”

kim

Woof, read Matt Bondy at GuelphMercury.com about the Bush Legacy.

Bumpersticker in Oklahoma: Please don't tell my folks I work in the oil patch; they think I'm a piano player in a whorehouse.
==========================================

centralcal

Kim: That was a good piece by Mr. Bondy.

Jane

I guess the intelligence agencies must have really improved during the Bush tenure.

allen

Another hit job from Ken Timmerman's "Shadow Warriors?"

PeterUK

""He has all the sincere demeanor and talk of a brothel pianist."

If only he had the credibility to go along with it..."

If only he could play the piano.

Other Tom

Let's see...what did the 2002 NIE tell us about Saddam's WMD's?

narciso

So they suspended major enrichment at Isfahan (a major site in Vince Flynn's latest; Bushehr,(the oldest site)Natanz, Arak, et al. What about the letter from Rouhani, the nuclear negotiator to Ayatollah Khameni; showing how he had kept
the IAEA and the West in the dark for two years. Is Sulick's information really that good, Or more properly Kappes, since he's the Iranian expert. Back when he presided
over the collapse of the entire exile network out of Frankfurt. One hears so much about "Curveball" but in truth his data only focused on one small site, Djerf al Nadal, outside of Baghdad. Or is this
another case of Drumheller wrangling
another Naji Sabri type for Iran. Seeing how all the previous 'smoking' NIEs and their actual context; I'm a little skeptical.

PeterUK

Good to see international pressure made the Iranians halt their nuclear bomb programme.Now all it needs is a bit of pressure to get Iran to stop arming ,traing and funding terrorist and insugent groups throughout the Middle East.
One cheer for soft power.

MikeS

Hmmm. Iran halted its nuclear weapons program, but they resumed enrichment in 2006?

Maybe I'm too cynical. I'm not feeling any "high confidence" on this one.

If my local McDonald's stopped making burgers, but continued to order buns and beef patties, I'd be suspicious of them also.

narciso

Didn't know Mazzetti was the byline, former
lefty LA Times reporter, was reportedly upset because the U.S, military kept the media (and one presumes the insurgents) in the dark over when we were going to start
Second Fallujah. As they say on the Simpsons,"Move along, nothing to see here"
One would wish that the pressure to his port and starboard, would have discouraged
Ahmadinejad and before him Khatami; but the former is a Persian Greg Stilson in
member's only jacket.

Noel

2003? ...2003? What could have possibly happened in 2003 that would have persuaded Iran to abandon its WMD program? Oh, wait; maybe it was a giant invading army next door looking for WMDs!

The Times manufactured the statement "high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure," in order to claim it was international diplomatic pressure that caused Iran to stop.

If indeed they did stop, why wouldn't it make sense that they stopped because they were scared of getting invaded like Iraq? In other words, Pres. Bush stopped Iran's nukes by invading Iraq.

Thanks, Pres. Bush!

Pofarmer

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.

Hold on there Noel.

Cowboy diplomacy never works. Haven't you been listening to Ms. Clinton?

Sara

We blogged this and Terrye commented that it isn't a smart idea to play poker with GWB. True whether it is Iran or that pasty-faced sleaze, Harry Reid.

And a bit off topic, but I think most will be interested:

Ray Robison has a book ready for your Christmas stockings:

Both in One Trench - Saddam's Secret Terror Documents

Soylent Red

Noel is the big winner.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Iraq was about many things, but mostly it was about Iran.

Bummer for them we're planning on hanging around for a while. Perhaps they'll donate heavily to Obama.

BTW, Chavez loses. Score another one for the good guys.

Ann

I love what you are and represent, Soylent Red. You are the very best in this country!

Please tell the world that most Americans are with you, we pray for you, and we will only vote for the leader that is with you!!!

God Bless You.

Cecil Turner

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Iraq was about many things, but mostly it was about Iran.

What he said.

And it's worth noting that once one has the ability to produce highly enriched uranium, one has a nuke. The rest is just engineering (and not particularly difficult, at that).

willem

From January 4, 2007; Slate: "Negroponte's switch will probably be announced this week, and everyone predicts he'll have no trouble getting confirmed. It is unclear whether Negroponte took the new job because the Bush administration is unhappy with his work, or if he is not satisfied with the job of intelligence czar. Negroponte, who was ambassador to Iraq, is the first to hold the position that was created after the 2001 attacks to oversee the 16 U.S. spy agencies... Everybody says Negroponte's likely successor is retired Navy Adm. John M. McConnell, who led the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1996."

Hmmm... 1992 to 1996? I wonder what Vince Foster and Ron Brown might say about this little coincidence. Too bad they'll never be heard from again.

OT: Now that I think of it, isn't it strange; the comparative absence of mysterious deaths of cabinet members and high ranking officials in the Bush 43 administration?

Suetonius@religious.com

Having read the NIE on Iran's Nuclear Capabilities, here's my take:

1. Apart from its civilian nuclear program, Iran had a nuclear weapons program that at least to a substantial degree, it shut down in response to international pressure in 2003.

2. Iran could obtain and/or generate enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon by 2009, but is unlikely to develop the technological capabilities to make a weapon before 2015.

3. Iran is responsive to deterrence and diplomacy, and any decision by Iran to develop a nuclear weapon would be a contingent political one.

This suggests that engagement, scrutiny, and sanctions work, but it also implies Iran at present could have an active nuclear weapons program of substantially reduced scope that could produce a nuclear weapon if Iran increased its capacity to enrich uranium (by tweaking its civilian program) and purchased abroad the requisite technologies.

The question for me, then, is how we would determine whether Iran (i) has decided to restart its nuclear weapons program; or (ii) has begun to accelerate its enrichment of uranium; or (iii) is seeking the acquisition of the requisite technologies. Certainly we aren't going to send over Joseph Wilson.

kim

I suspect the estimate is merely wrong. The Iranians have been defending the program with tooth and claw. It would have been insane to persist in thumbing their nose at the worlds' powers if in fact they had given it up. Oh, wait.

However, I insist the mullahs are not mad, only their figurehead. They do seem to have paused in Iraq. I'm not sure what is going on but this NIE makes too little sense to be correct.
=============================

kim

You are watching the birth of a meme. Didn't you see the NYT pump up Gates role in chilling Cheney about Iran?

It's all hogwash, and we're in danger. Thank God for the DIA.

Oh yes, the dam joos, too. Somebody thank someone for them.
================

PeterUK

Would this be the same Intelligence Community that didn't, and apparently still does not,know what it was that the Israelis bombed in Syria? Time to order more sandbags!

vinman

What's our insurance against these wishy washy NIEs? We can't continue to rely on something so driven by bureaucratic consensus that it attracts every (untraceable) political influence.

As mentioned above, we're still *there* with a lot of equipment, people, and resources. The idea that our direct involvement in the region actually emboldened Iran is exactly wrong.

glasater

Comments on Newshour last night from two men from Venezuela that hold dual citizen with the US.
One man said that Chavez framed the election to the voters as a choice between him (Chavez) and George Bush.
An amazing observation.

bio mom

I seldom agree with Lou Dobbs but last night he flat out asked why we should believe this that they (intelligence agencies) are throwing at us now when they were wrong two years ago and in 2002. The left wing press et al are promoting this NIE like the ten commandments coming down because they think it will stop Bush from that invasion of Iraq they are so afraid of. What level of "intelligence" is possessed by our media these days? Iran poses a real worry to our country. Can our intelligence agencies tell us anything worthwhile about it with their lousy track record? That should be the emphasis of their articles, not another hoped for gotcha of President Bush. But I ask too much apparently.

Undeniable Liberal

Wow, that's alot of stretching and word parsing in that post. BTW, who annointed the USA as sole judge of who can or cannot have Nookuleer weapons. Being the only country is history to use them obviously makes us experts in determining that, right?

clarice

It's crap like that,UL, that drove me--and every sentient person I know--away from the Democratic party. If you cannot tell the difference between such a powerfully destructive force in the hands of Iran from the use of the bomb to end WWII, you are hardly worth reading once, let alone three times.

glasater

Wow--Undeniable!!

Sue
Being the only country is history to use them obviously makes us experts in determining that, right?

Pretty much.

PeterUK

UL*4
Iran would be in breach of UN non-proliferation treaties and resolutions.Do pay attention.

MayBee

UL- We are the sole arbiters of whether we want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Then we try to convince others to agree with our position. Others try to convince us of their positions. That's how the world works.

MayBee

Are we to believe that intelligence on Iran's nuclear capability has actually improved since Valerie Plame left?
That can't be!

Sue

Maybee,

Interesting point. It wasn't too long ago that the left was spinning the meme that we were doomed since our gal Val wasn't on the job keeping us safe from Iran's nukes.

clarice

Timmerman's take--
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes/2007/12/04/54359.html>IC pawned by Revoltionaty Guard disinfo and bad actors working on NIE

Jane

Clarice,

How is day 2 going? That Newsmax piece is exactly what I would expect to be true. I'm sure it will be ignored.

Norman Hsu just got indicted. That should help Hillary's numbers (if you are rooting against her that is)

clarice

Great--have to check it out. Jane, this is still a smoking week under the program as the Chantix enters the system and gradually blocks reception of nicotine. I have cut down a lot and haven't experienced any major problems so far. The no smoke part comes when I'm in the Virgin Islands next week--and there's always rum drinks to get me over that hump.%^)

Cecil Turner

Iran could obtain and/or generate enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon by 2009, but is unlikely to develop the technological capabilities to make a weapon before 2015.

Sorry, but that's a fundamental misreading of the estimate. As it implies, the time guess is based on the ability to refine and enrich, not subsequent weapons fabrication:

We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.
That also matches the professional proliferation estimates, which again cite enrichment as the limiting factor:
Obtaining sufficient amounts of fissionable material (highly-enriched uranium-HEU-or plutonium) is the greatest obstacle to a would-be proliferant. [. . . ]

Although successfully designing a nuclear explosive device requires individuals with expertise in metallurgy, chemistry, physics, electronics, and explosives, the required technology dates back to the 1940s, and the basic concepts of nuclear weapons have been widely known for some time. [goes on to list costs in the hundred million-billion dollar range]
The key activity here is enrichment. If the Iranians continue with centrifuges (beyond the level required for use in power plants), the only logical conclusion is that it's for a weapon. And the weapons fabrication portion of the program is both more easily concealed, and may reasonably be delayed until the fissionable portion is nearly complete. The time requirement after they have sufficient fissionable material can be measured in weeks, not months (and certainly not years).

clarice

I recall reading some time ago, that the weakest part of our intelligence is knowing when a nuclear weapons capacity will be reached (See Pakistan, i.e.).These are always highly secret operations and in recent years, agency fuckups have caused 2 Iranian spy networks we had to be rolled up. In any event this is so preposterous that I am beginning to suspect it's part of a Cheney plot to persuade everyone to scrap the CIA.

Jane

The no smoke part comes when I'm in the Virgin Islands next week--and there's always rum drinks to get me over that hump.%^)

It's very important to keep drinking when you quit smoking. You want to break the habit of associating the two vices. Because you wouldn't want to quit drinking too.

clarice

I don't drink all that much now..But if even surrounded by azure water and tropical flora and my family I get jumpy, there's always something with a parasol and pineapple stuck in it.

Jane

I don't drink all that much now.

WEll then, you must start. Just ask Hit!

allen

Clarice, thanks for the Ken Timmerman link. Why can't we get him on all these news shows?

clarice

You're welcome, allen. I'm not a booker. I don't know.

AJ strata finds links between the authors of this NIE and Plame/Wilson, suggesting it's another Clintonian stab in the back. Take a look at Bill FInger, he may have been Plame's so far unnamed boss. (Yes, in VF they said it was AlanFOley, but if you remember he wrote to tell me that was untrue.)

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4734>Plama again?

davod

Read below. They don't f......g know whether the Iranians stopped all production, and they do not know if they have restarted production.

Just how does someone assess that it will take the Iranians another seven years to get the bomb if they were to start to-day?

I am beggining to wonder if this summary is really the work of partisans or whether the said partisans actions are influenced by the analysis of a group of highly placed (in different agencies) Iranian spies, ala Ana Montes.

Remember, Montes had everyone convinced that the Cubans were relatively benign. This report could well reflect the same level of disinformation.

"We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.

MayBee

Perhaps Nada Nadim Prouty helped interview the new Iranian sources.

PeterUK

The Times take on NIE casts doubt on conclusions.

narciso

Maybee. I almost did a spit take when you mentioned Prouty. But stranger things have happened in the past.

narciso

Reading the NIE's judgements, we don't get any clue as to the nature of the evidence.
If they had done an evaluation of the key facilities (Bushehr, Isfahan, Araz & Natanz)
status of scientific progress; including any involvement of proteges of the AQ Khan
network. Projections based on new scientific
research into plutonium separation; which would affect timetables for weaponsdelivery.
I though the last NIE; (AQ wants to attack US targets; Iraq is a major training ground for jihad)was stupid; but this one takes the
cake. Maybe Valerie Plame did work this on contract spec; as a 'green badger'

clarice

What's even stupider is the Dems' making this into a political issue. Have they no shame?

RichatUF

PUK-

Thanks for the link. This graf is an eye catcher:

But one rider is necessary: the report would have far more power to convince if it included evidence of the weapons programme that it says existed. Such evidence has eluded UN inspections, and there must be a whisper of doubtwhich, after Iraq, the US cannot afford – that the US does not possess it in solid form.

I didn't know that for a political question the standard for action is beyond a "whisper of doubt". It is curious this NIE.

RichatUF

narciso-

I though the last NIE; (AQ wants to attack US targets; Iraq is a major training ground for jihad)was stupid; but this one takes the cake.

Great observations as usual. I'm trying to figure out why the IC is hitting the gas on the "Iran is not a threat" card. The US doesn't seem to want to really hit back hard against Iran and I am doubtful that Isreal would sacrifice pretty much their entire air force to really set the Iran nuclear program back [not withstanding the NIE's judgements on Iranian nuclear ambitions].

Wouldn't be shocked waking up one day in a week or so to find out that the Iranians have tested a few-iirc that was what happened regarding the NIE's during the Clinton administration wrt North Korea and missles. I'm sure that el-Baradei would be shocked, just shocked at that development and would be hard at work crafting the strongly-worded memo.

RichatUF

oops...Isreal->IsrAEl

Bill in AZ

Another take on NIE source:

So, why the stunning reversal?

The answer probably lies in a single name: General Ali Rez Asgari.

General Asgari is the former Deputy Iranian Defense Minister and Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander who defected to the west earlier this year. Asgari is the highest-ranking Iranian military defector in decades; it is widely believed that he has detailed knowledge of Tehran's most sensitive operations, including its sponsorship of Hizballah, and information on Iran's nuclear program.

...

While some Congressional Democrats praised the "independence" of the new NIE, the report is also evidence of the continuing war between the CIA and the White House. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were briefed on the new assessment (and its conclusions) last week, but interim reports on the Asgari debriefing were available for months--almost from the day he defected. It would be interesting to know how much of this information (if any) was included in the daily intelligence briefings for the President and Vice-President, given their frequent comments on Iran's nuclear program.

Some interesting stuff in there, and a different take than anything I've seen...

davod

U.S. Intel Possibly Duped by Iran Kenneth Timmerman has an interesting viewpoint.

Does one source with no direct contact -ring any bells. Timmerman says this might have happened.

Join one source with State Department partisans or just plain incompetance and what do you have - Lousy NIE.

RichatUF

BillinAZ-

Good catch, the comments are pretty good over there too.

I'm doubtful that the IC would base such a radical change between 2005 to 2007 on the testimony of a single defector however. Spook86 points this out; however, a polygraph with a subject like Asgari would be pointless. Also if the main body of product prior to his defection were technical collection the Iranians could have just been filling in the details of the then closed window of AQ Khan and [my speculation] Oil-for-Food.

willem

McDonald, NIE head, was head of the NSA under Clinton 1992-1996. He and Vann Van Diepen are both diehard Dems. Hillary's fallen behind Obama in Iowa. Rumbles of gender and clouds of war eroding Hill's window of opportunity. So careerists come riding to the rescue: "Clouds? What clouds?"

Sure it's not all that simple.

But some of it is.

davod

Big Lizards has a good summary with links.

Bill in AZ

RichatUF
"I'm doubtful that the IC would base such a radical change between 2005 to 2007 on the testimony of a single defector however."

The "IC" wouldn't, but it's within the realm of possibility that some influential opportunists within that IC could cherry pick some of what Asgari said, omit that he was incapable of knowing some things, and make a "compelling" case - all for the purpose of once again derailing Bush.

We're witnessing the birth of a new "Bush Lied, People Died" meme. How long until some BDS afflicted MSM script reader bloviates "What did Bush know and when did he know it".

Hopefully the Whitehouse will have learned from the Joe Wilson "Bush Lied, People Died" fiasco, and not do everything in the world to play into the hands of these manipulators - such as having a Tenet back down on something he should not have backed down on.

Cecil Turner

We're witnessing the birth of a new "Bush Lied, People Died" meme.

Sure looks like it. And again, the only significant issue is whether the Iranians are continuing to enrich uranium. And that hasn't changed in about two years:

Iran announced Tuesday that it had resumed uranium enrichment efforts in defiance of international pressure to curb its nuclear program and said it will no longer comply with voluntary measures designed to enhance international inspectors' access to its nuclear facilities. [February 15, 2006]
Doesn't matter whether you call it a "weapons program" or a program to form the basis for a weapons program: as long as the Iranians are enriching uranium, the only logical conclusion is that they're planning on building a weapon. (whether we want to accept a nuclear weapons program in the world's most active terror sponsor is another question, but one that I think answers itself.)

bio mom

Apparently, last night Chris Matthews asked: What did Bush know and when did he know it!" The sun also rises in the east.

Bill in AZ

I figured the first to bloviate would be the chronically BDS afflicted Chris Matthews... yawn...

clarice

THE WSJ has a great editorial on this today.Some folks are playing a very dangerous game with national security, I think.
And today from the nation's capitol:The congress is taking up the matter of global warming and we are having our first snowstorm of the year. The Gore curse lives on.

Rickter

From the WSJ editorial, Clarice referenced: For a flavor of their political outlook, former Bush Administration antiproliferation 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.

In Rowan Scarborough's Sabatoge, then DNI Negroponte was the knife in Porter Goss's back. Bush was a fool to put a career State dept. hack above Goss trying to bring credibility back to CIA.

Rick Ballard

"The congress is taking up the matter of global warming..

If that doesn't make your blood run cold, nothing will. What will the Greates Collection of Buffoons in the History of the World propose as a solution to a nonexistent problem? Will the embodiment of the falsification of the concept of "brain death", Barbara Boxer, lead the charge over the cliff? Will she hold hands with Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell as she does so?

It's a true field day for cretinologists.

Bill in AZ

The triangulation continues... WSJ, virtually all of the astute bloggers who are focusing on this (Mac, AJ, BigLizards, FormerSpook, LGF, Atlas, and many more) are coming to the same conclusion - and the damage has been done, it is significant, and it is most likely not reversible in this day of leftist media control. Outside of a few bloggers, most of the world will only hear the soundbites that have already been created. It does not matter that Iran continues to produce weapons grade uranium which should be hugely significant. That has already been pooh-poohed by the press and will never be mentioned again.

The world faces the threat of Islamofascism, but this country's greatest threat is the American Left. They were for America for about 10 minutes after 9/11, but once they figured out "Bush's war" would derail their ideological march to socialism, they have been at war with the rest of us, and right now pose the greater threat. The American Left views the threat of Islamofascism as insignificant compared to temporary halt in their march to socialism. They will do absolutely anything to regain power and get us back "on track". We will never have a chance against the real threat until we can stop them from derailing America at every single turn.

So far, this administration has been incapable of responding to this kind of damage. I continue to hold out hope. It's not for lack of trying, though in some cases it has been absolute incompetence (response to lying Joe Wilson). But with the media headwind, it's difficult to mount anything of significance against it.

Bill in AZ

I hope the global warming continues for a while. 5 inches of rain across most of drought stricken central AZ last weekend, with more on the way this weekend along with snow - woohoo!

TM

OK, my current official editorial position on the question of why this report came out now - i am linking the NIE release to the Annapolis Mid east summit.

The NIE release is meant to reassure "moderate" Arab states that if they back the US on whatever the heck we are advocating, that we won't mousetrap them by going to war on a Muslim (albeit non-Arab) nation next year.

The NIE release also pressures Israel, who once claimed that it could not negotiate while Saddam was brandishing a gun and now says the same about Iran.

That official position and 50 cents gets you a small step towards a half-caf mocha latte at Starbucks, but there it is.

BONUS POINT _ why did Iran stop in 2003? Obviously, US troops on their border caught their eye. Maybe less obviously, Saddam had a WMD program partly to impress the US and mainly to daunt Iran; presumably Iran had similar incentives, so with Saddam gone, their sense of urgency diminished.

And I agree that enrichment is the key, and they are just playing for time.

PeterUK

Calling all JOMers,you are needed over on Melanie Phillips comments Plameishness has reared its ugly head once more.

BTW,Absolutely brilliant of the "Intelligence " Community to effectively remove the military option from the table.The stick has gone all that is left is the carrot.

MayBee

2003 was a big year when it comes to nukes, no?

N Korea admitted it had a nuclear weapons program
Libya admitted it had a nuclear weapons program, and began disarming
Khan's network was uncovered
we heard that Khan had been dealing with Iran
Iran put it's program on ice

But somehow Bush is a big fat failure?

PeterUK

Comment from the Tehran Times concerning the Doha Summit of Persian Gulf States.The last remarks are somewhat chilling.

narciso

If you google Van Diepen and CIA or NIE; you get the dissenter's point of view.(Amer. Thinker, News Max, N. Y. Sun et al. Little details like
the Mousavian letter to Khamenei
revealing the deception from 2003-2005 haven't made it into the stream yet. Van Diepen seem to be the missiles and UAV specialist, not a nuclear specialist (then again neither was Valerie Plame.
Ahmadinejad does show his similarity to Stalin, in so far as he's demoted or purged even the most solid followers.

NewsWeek's latest piece involves the deification of Robert Gates
(which just happens to agree with
the NIE: coincidence?. Other pieces
include a slam on Guiliani for having Quatar as a client (you know the country where Centcom is based)the verbal civil war in Iraq,

PeterUK

Ahmadinejad declares victory over the NIE Left wingers take to the streets in spontaneous celebration.

narciso

You know I hate to beat a dead horse, actually I don't; but the last NIE , not only didn't predict the surge' progress
including the Anbar Rising, the return of
the exiles from places like Saida Zeynab;
but actually cautioned against it. the whole NIE as formulated by Van Diepen, Brill, et al; all INR veterans is the result of one of the stupider 9/11 commiss. recommendations; the formation of the DNI
as in independent era. So John Negroponte,
who due to his experience as Kissinger's conscience; which got him blackballed to
the Consul Gens of Guayaquil and Thessa-lonica, plus his work with the Contras would have argued against it. stabbed his
Book & Snake classmate '60, then left to
play senior diplomat.

kim

Not coincidence. Something is brewing with Gates.
===============================

Rickter

I belive Gates is a member of the Negroponte/Rice cabal.

kim

Curioser and curioser.
==============

kim

You don't suppose they are making waves in Annapolis?

Now if we could only balance Bali. Robert Tracinski at RCP compares the disinformation of this NEI with the disinformation in the Summary for Policymakers in the 4th IPCC report on climate change. When we cool, the temblor and the tempest will astound. This will be fundamentally more disturbing than anything so blase as global geopolitics conflicting with progressive groupthink to produce BDS. This will cause a bedrock loss of faith in science, and it shouldn't because it isn't science that is failing, but rather a few scientists.

Who has the duty of care to prevent the encumbering of carbon with taxes, and the ongoing impoverishment of the 'other half' of the world's population still depending on their own physical labor for a living?
====================

kim

John Bolton takes apart this NIE in the WaPo.
==========================

kim

Given that this NIE is horseshit, and the facts are different, is this the equivalent of the CIA sending the yellowcake forgeries on to the AIEA? If you suppose that was to forestall the march to war in 2003? Highly speculative, but the pattern is there.

What's with the mullahs? Has Sistani had any effect on them? Has Abdullah?
======================

kim

So read Nasr and Takeyh at Foreign Policy.
========================

clarice

Roger SImon also thinks a deal must have been struck.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2007/12/iran_the_mullah.php>Subrosa

Maybe.
Maybe they were doing the dirty work in Syria and the Israelis stopped it.Because it's another mystery why the Syrians and Iranians never really protested that airstrike.

narciso

So the excuse is an Iranian laptop fell into the hands of the CIA. In addition,
they received confirmation from intercepts
of Iranian communications. Like the supposed intercepts between Iraqi mobile lab drivers that Powell revealed at the UN meeting prior to the war. Aren't these the same folks who argue that Chalabi informed the Iranians told them that the US had broken their codes, as of 2004.And that
Larry Franklin most likely tipped them off.
I even recall that Haig's son Brian wrote his recent mystery "Man in the Middle" about
the death of a Franklin like figure who was killed in revenge for such an act. It's all coming back to me; now, The other thin reed, General Azgari, seems to be lacking expertise in this area. Maybe M Prouty really did do the debriefing. Of course, just like Wolfe and Nordland's friendly chats with Taliban leaders show; only the word of Fmr.? IRGC Gen. Mohzen Rezai and Fmr. Iranian foreign ministry? turned IRGC
chief Mohammed Jafaari, matters to thelikes of News Week's Michael Hirsch. I swear one of these days; they'll be an interview by say Christopher Dickey of Imad Mugniyeh; Beirut Airport Security Director (ahem) telling us he was sorry for the Marine Barracks bombing; but blame Sharon for the
misunderstanding. And how we would have stopped him, if not for the torture of bomb
facilitator Christian Nimr. This isn't far from the message George Clooney heard from Nasrallah, prior to filming Syriana.

Chris

By the way, kudos to the author. This was an incredibly objective piece, which, unlike our comments, was devoid of partisanship.

The truth is that no U.S. (Clinton, Bush, or otherwise) would start a war with so much to lose and so little to gain as with your negative description. I to believe that all of our leaders have gotten us into conflicts in good faith whether they were right or wrong in doing so. It is poor foolishness to believe otherwise.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame