the NIE report

bob

bob

a member named bob
just read this lil artical that actuly ask a few good questions

NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

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.
​
This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:
  • Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
  • Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
  • Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?
Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)



http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp

whats you take ?
 
I have several responses to this tripe.

First, an NIE is the collective judgment of the 16 intelligence agencies, not the judgment of a single person amongst the analysts.

Second, "continuing to pursue uranium enrichment" and "has an active nuclear weapons program" are vastly different. We're talking apples and aardvarks.

Third, anonymous sources to the Wall Street Journal opinion page are simply not credible. At all. From all appearances, Fingar is a career public servant with over thirty years of experience in the intelligence field and his consistent promotion under the current president don't jive with the notion that he is anti-Bush.

Fourth, the authors of this piece ask these questions knowing full well that they cannot be answered by the intelligence community as answering those questions would undoubtedly lead to the disclosure of classified information. This piece is written for the 28%ers, not in an effort to shed any light on the NIE.

Fifth, and the most interesting point, is that there are indications that, indeed, a lot changed by way of intelligence regarding Iran last year. A former deputy defense minister disappeared in Turkey and reportedly sought asylum in the US. He was privy to the details of the Iranian government's nuclear progem.

Sixth, there has been additional reporting on how the conclusion was reached and that the "high confidence" rating indicates that there are multiple intelligence sources for reaching the conclusion.

Seventh, another word on Fingar, he was formerly head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the one agency that mostly got Iraq right.

Finally, I realize why there is push-back but this is crazy-talk.
 
Dungheap said:
I have several responses to this tripe.

First, an NIE is the collective judgment of the 16 intelligence agencies, not the judgment of a single person amongst the analysts.

Second, "continuing to pursue uranium enrichment" and "has an active nuclear weapons program" are vastly different. We're talking apples and aardvarks.

Third, anonymous sources to the Wall Street Journal opinion page are simply not credible. At all. From all appearances, Fingar is a career public servant with over thirty years of experience in the intelligence field and his consistent promotion under the current president don't jive with the notion that he is anti-Bush.

Fourth, the authors of this piece ask these questions knowing full well that they cannot be answered by the intelligence community as answering those questions would undoubtedly lead to the disclosure of classified information. This piece is written for the 28%ers, not in an effort to shed any light on the NIE.

Fifth, and the most interesting point, is that there are indications that, indeed, a lot changed by way of intelligence regarding Iran last year. A former deputy defense minister disappeared in Turkey and reportedly sought asylum in the US. He was privy to the details of the Iranian government's nuclear progem.

Sixth, there has been additional reporting on how the conclusion was reached and that the "high confidence" rating indicates that there are multiple intelligence sources for reaching the conclusion.

Seventh, another word on Fingar, he was formerly head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the one agency that mostly got Iraq right.

Finally, I realize why there is push-back but this is crazy-talk.
Click to expand...

Great post. But it’s all been crazy-talk from the beginning bought only by fanatics and fools. It is stunning that post-Iraq “Run for your lives, the WMDs are coming!” anyone can still believe these maniacs but they do, and Bush signaled yesterday with his Orwellian “that report only proves me right!” that he is still going ahead with whatever plans they have with Iran.

My personal opinion is the only reason they haven’t hit Iran yet is the situation in Pakistan. And, that may yet be the only thing that prevents this.
 
Also, the below seems relevant to this conversation. Former White House counsellor Dan Bartlett had this to day about conservative blogs:

I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.
Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . I wonder where this spin is coming from. Oh, the Weekly Standard's blog, huh? Well, it is an unimpeachable news source so it must be true.
 
LMAO...again

Dungheap said:
Also, the below seems relevant to this conversation. Former White House counsellor Dan Bartlett had this to day about conservative blogs:



Hmmm . . . I wonder where this spin is coming from. Oh, the Weekly Standard's blog, huh? Well, it is an unimpeachable news source so it must be true.
Click to expand...



Like you are a source to be reccond with....:cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top