Iran Has No Nukes
Should Bush face impeachment for fixing intelligence? Is this not Iraq all over again?
The assessment that Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program” was not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. The intelligence reporting did show that Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that had potential nuclear applications, but all of the equipment had conventional military or industrial applications. In addition, none of the intelligence reporting indicated that the equipment was being procured for suspect nuclear facilities. Intelligence reporting also showed that former Iraqi nuclear scientists continued to work at former nuclear facilities and organizations, but the reporting did not show that this cadre of nuclear personnel had recently been regrouped or enhanced as stated in the NIE, nor did it suggest that they were engaged in work related to a nuclear weapons program.
RUDY’S NEW AD ON GETTING TOUGH ON IRAN!
UPDATE
Former CIA Officials: Bush Iran Claims “Preposterous”
HP-Four former CIA officials who provided intelligence information to past presidents described as preposterous President Bush’s claim that he was unaware until very recently that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
“It’s unbelievable,” said Melvin Goodman, who worked for the CIA from 1966 to 1990 and now is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy.
Goodman’s assessment of Bush’s assertions were very similar to those of Larry C. Johnson, who worked at the CIA from 1985 to 1989 and from 1989 to 1993 served as Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism; Ray McGovern, a former CIA official who gave daily intelligence briefings to George H. W. Bush while he was vice president; and Bruce Riedel, who spent over two decades at both the CIA and National Security Council and is the former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs
FROM THE HILL
Dems seeking answers about report on Iran
FROM Max Follmer
In Wake Of Intelligence Report, Rivals Pounce On Clinton’s Iran Vote
A
Yes, impeach him…do it now. Join with Dennis Kucinich in supporting his impeachment resolution. Let’s spend the remaining months of Bush’s presidency in impeachment hearings.
This would be the best Christmas present dumbass dems could give the GOP!
John,
Why did you link to an IraQ NIE report under the headline; Iran has no nukes?
Do you find Keith Olberman to be an unbiased, objective journalistic source? You repeatedly attack Fox as biased…is MSNBC your source for news?
Bart
Do you get it?
“Is this not Iraq all over again”?
Bush Calls on Iran to ‘Come Clean’
John,
I absolutely get it. You and the other dems take a couple of statements from a long report in an attempt to impugn the president.
In reality, the report provides considerable evidence to be cautious with Iran, continue sanctions and be ready for Ahmadinejad to act as he promises with regard to Israel.
Bush did not lie, the report actually substantiates his concerns. Of course, if you only rely upon MSNBC and Keith Olberman for your news, you would buy into a total fabrication of the report.
Your first reference is not to the 2002 NIE report. It is the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which reviewed the intelligence presented to Bush based upon (among other resources) the NIE. It was the NIE that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence surmises “overstated” Saddam’s WMD.
So now you want to believe them lock, stock and barrel when the NIE declares Iran stopped its nuclear proliferation in 2003?
And why aren’t you referencing the 2005 NIE report on Iran’s WMD.
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/12/iran-nie-report.html
“Iran NIE report – Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
If the 2005 NIE report was wrong when it claimed with “high confidence” that Iran had a active nuclear weapons program, why should the 2007 NIE be any more credible when it claims that Iran had a nuclear weapons program until 2003? If Iran really had a nuclear weapons program until 2003 as the new report claims, then why has the IAEA found no evidence of it? Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all?
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council prepared a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Irans nuclear program entitled, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.
The previous NIE report issued in 2005 stated with “high confidence” that Iran had an active and on-going nuclear weapons program – but no actual evidence of that ever turned up. So now, the 2007 NIE report disowns that claim, and instead asserts that Iran used to have a nuclear weapons program until 2003, and could decide to restart it someday.”
Or even the Senate hearing testimony of one of the three authors of the latest NIE report-Thomas Fingar who has previously stated that “the US must learn to live with a nuclear Iran” and who in July 2007 testified the following:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp
“Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons–despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.”
So what “new” intelligence has surfaced in the last 5 months that debunks Fingar’s testimony in July 2007?
Our intelligence agencies and State Department have been attempting to undermine President Bush and act as unelected “Commanders in Chief”.
And Iraq did possess WMD. Just read David Kay’s Senate hearing testimony, the Duelfer Report, even the Senate Intelligence Commitee Report and then read Ken Timmerman’s “Shadow Warriors” to discover how our CIA, State Dept. and Democrats have obfuscated the Iraq WMD intelligence to support their “Bush Lied, People Died” agenda.
Hoads
Are you saying the CIA officials are lying? Why?
Four former CIA officials who provided intelligence information to past presidents described as preposterous President Bush’s claim that he was unaware until very recently that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
“It’s unbelievable,” said Melvin Goodman, who worked for the CIA from 1966 to 1990 and now is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy.
Goodman’s assessment of Bush’s assertions were very similar to those of Larry C. Johnson, who worked at the CIA from 1985 to 1989 and from 1989 to 1993 served as Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism; Ray McGovern, a former CIA official who gave daily intelligence briefings to George H. W. Bush while he was vice president; and Bruce Riedel, who spent over two decades at both the CIA and National Security Council and is the former National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asian Affairs
Bart
Keep your head in the sand if you want!
John,
Did you see Buchanan and Scarborough going on about this?
John
It is you who has his head in the sand with an Iranian nuke aimed at your ASS! Hope you enjoy it.
John,
You gotta be kidding me! 4 retired/ex CIA have insight into the current NIE report? This is just HP non-sequitor propaganda.
Here’s what John Bolten has to say about the discrepancies between the 2005 and 2007 Iran NIE reports:
http://tinyurl.com/2hwcsq
The Flaws in the NIE Report
Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the “intelligence community” on issues such as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.
All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than “intelligence” analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.
Consider these flaws in the NIE’s “key judgments,” which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified.
First, the headline finding — that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 — is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between “military” and “civilian” programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran’s “civilian” program that posed the main risk of a nuclear “breakout.”
The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs’ motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause.
Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of “intelligence.”
Third, the risks of disinformation by Iran are real. We have lost many fruitful sources inside Iraq in recent years because of increased security and intelligence tradecraft by Iran. The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism. In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was “possible” but not “likely” that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions. One contrary opinion came from — of all places — an unnamed International Atomic Energy Agency official, quoted in the New York Times, saying that “we are more skeptical. We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.” When the IAEA is tougher than our analysts, you can bet the farm that someone is pursuing a policy agenda.
Fourth, the NIE suffers from a common problem in government: the overvaluation of the most recent piece of data. In the bureaucracy, where access to information is a source of rank and prestige, ramming home policy changes with the latest hot tidbit is commonplace, and very deleterious. It is a rare piece of intelligence that is so important it can conclusively or even significantly alter the body of already known information. Yet the bias toward the new appears to have exerted a disproportionate effect on intelligence analysis.
Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran’s nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as “intelligence judgments.”
That such a flawed product could emerge after a drawn-out bureaucratic struggle is extremely troubling. While the president and others argue that we need to maintain pressure on Iran, this “intelligence” torpedo has all but sunk those efforts, inadequate as they were. Ironically, the NIE opens the way for Iran to achieve its military nuclear ambitions in an essentially unmolested fashion, to the detriment of us all.
Why would anyone trust or listen to John Bolten?
Is this the same John Bolton who said Iraq would welcome us with roses when the CIA said no way?
Is this same John Bolton who said the CIA was wrong about the sectarian issues?
Is this the same John Bolton who thought the military and CIA was wrong when they said we need 2 to 3 times the troops?
I could go on and on !!! John Bolten track record is piss-poor at best!
Caroline,
I do think this may be impeachable! We need hearings yesterday!
It is the same NIE who in 2005 said with “high confidence” that Iran had an active nuclear weapons programs and the same NIE who in 2002 concluded that Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program,” “has chemical and biological weapons,” was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ” probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents,” and that “all key aspects – research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization – of Iraq’s offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War” …
So you want to dismiss the 2002 NIE report on Iraq WMD and the 2005 NIE report on Iran WMD but embrace the 2007 NIE report on Iran WMD that does a 180 from the testimony of Fingar in July 2007 who stated Iran’s nuclear capability is a threat? Is that the way it works? Pick what you like and discard what you don’t like without question?
The report you mistakenly labeled as the 2002 NIE report, rakes the NIE over the coals for what it concluded was an “overstatement” of Iraq WMD and was identified as a component of the intelligence Bush relied upon in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. And now you have whole faith in the NIE ? Amazing what BDS does to people.
John Bolton is not the only high level official questioning the NIE’s report. Get off the leftists media and see for yourself. The MSM is spinning this to create another narrative that Bush is a warmonger, cherry=picking intelligence. It wasn’t true with Iraq and it’s not true with Iran but let’s not let the facts get in the way.
Declassified Report: No Al Qaeda Link In Pre-War Iraq
This is the second in a series of articles reflecting on the state of America since 11 September 2001.
A newly-declassified (but redacted) 400-page Senate Intelligence Committee analysis of pre-war Iraq reports no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It concludes that Hussein “distrusted” al Qaeda and “viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime.”
It includes a CIA determination that prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein ”did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.” Instead, he “attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi.” A US airstrike killed al Zarqawi this summer.
The document is a scathing indictment of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the document which presents a unified (some say political) front, reconciling or brushing over difference of opinion among various intelligence agencies. The NIE was used to justify attacking Iraq in March 2003.
Both post-war and pre-war intelligence show “no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al Qaeda strikes.” Nevertheless, Iraq is the most visible — and costly — US action since 9-11. In the name of protecting the US against terrorism, far more money is going to Iraq than to this nation’s infrastructure.
Committee Comment
Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) says pre-war assessment was ”a tragic intelligence failure” but that there’s no news in the report.
Minority Leader Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) accuses the Administration of ”[exploiting] the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks.”
From The Report
Other conclusions from the report:
“Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Information obtained after the war supports the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s (INR) assessment in the NIE that the Intelligence Community lacked persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.” (p 52)
“Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgment that Iraq’s acquisition of high strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program. The findings do support the assessments in the NIE of the Department of Engergy’s Office of Intelligence and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s (INR) that the aluminum tubes were likely intended for a conventional rocket program.” (p 52)
“Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgment that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake’ from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ‘highly dubious.’” (p 53)
“No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The 2002 NIE, however, asserted that Iraq would “probably attempt clandestine attacks” if Hussein felt threatened. (p 111)
The NIE is prepared by the Executive Branch — all agencies are under the direct control of the President. However, Congress is supposed to provide oversight. Was the 2002 NIE flawed? That’s obvious. Was it intentionally misleading … did it intentionally overstate questionable intelligence? And is the current system for preparing the NIE any better?
Those are the 64-dollar questions that voters should consider this fall, and again in 2008.
The Story that Bush cannot keep straight!
Bush told in August that Iran nuke program ‘may be suspended’
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush was told in August that Iran’s nuclear weapons program “may be suspended,” the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.
Adm. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told Bush the new information might cause intelligence officials to change their assessment of the Iranian program, but said analysts needed to review the new data before making a final judgment, White House press secretary Dana Perino said late Wednesday.
“Director McConnell said that the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment of Iran’s covert nuclear program, but the intelligence community was not prepared to draw any conclusions at that point in time, and it wouldn’t be right to speculate until they had time to examine and analyze the new data,” Perino said in a statement issued by the White House.
The new account from Perino seems to contradict the president’s version of his August conversation with McConnell and raised new questions about why Bush continued to warn the American public about a threat from Iran two months after being told a new assessment was in the works.
But Perino said there was no conflict between her statement and Bush’s Tuesday account of the meeting, when he said McConnell “didn’t tell me what the information was.”
“The president wasn’t given the specific details” of the revised intelligence estimate, which was released Monday, Perino said. Nor did Bush mislead Americans in October, when he warned of a third world war triggered by Iran’s development of nuclear technology, she said.
“The president didn’t say we’re going to cause World War III,” Perino said. “He was saying he wanted to avoid World War III.”
Give up Hoads. Johnoline will never pass up an opportunity to blame America, blame Bush while trusting tinpot dictators like Ahmadinejad.
John Bolton…can’t be trusted.
George W. Bush…can’t be trusted.
Dick Cheney…can’t be trusted.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…trustworthy, innocent and only trying to do what is best for his country…gag me.
John,
You are apparently content to be spoon fed. I am not and know not to rely upon the MSM’s “analysis” of news, government documents and the like. The fact is, ties between Saddam and Al Queda are numerous and well documented even in the Senate Intelligence Report and the 9/11 Commission Reports but this information is suppressed/distorted or ignored in most of MSM.
You have bought into the narrative created and are incapable of processing information that debunks the original propaganda. I suggest you expand your media resources and dig a little deeper if you want to stay informed and up to date.
You can start here–numerous links to media sources from the 90’s through present of information describing Iraq/Al Queda ties:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts?page=151,50
And here for government documents that detail Iraq/AlQueda ties:
http://www.floppingaces.net/iraqalqaeda-connection/
You are being naive if you believe that Bush is a liar and the rest of our government agencies are stellar representations of honest government. The DC Beltway is a toxic place where agendas and vendettas are the name of the game and the ends justify the means if it means attaining, maintaining or retaining power.
I don’t trust Bush on the immigration issue but when it comes to Iraq and the GWOT, the man will be vindicated for his resolute and valiant efforts to make the world a safer place. And, the subversive tactics of both unelected and elected officials in high places, as well as, the complicity of our media in this charade to undermine our war effort and disavow a sitting President is well documented and will hopefully be exposed and denounced in due time.
No nukes is good nukes.