The article is a little on the biased side, but it does reveal a recurring problem with this administration - that they only want to hear what they want to hear. Obviously, it is not a good thing for someone to try to dictate the opinions of those who have been hired to render those opinions.turbo-1 said:There are indications that the White House knew last fall that the NIE would say that Iran had stopped any nuclear arms program four years ago, but that they repeatedly rejected that version of the NIE and tried to get it changed to portray Iran as a serious threat. Unless somebody didn't bother telling Bush the truth, he has been lying through his teeth about Iran for over a year.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978
Emphasis mine, because anybody who thinks our surveillance/intelligence gathering capabilities have not improved since the Cold War needs to re-think. If the CIA says with a high degree of confidence that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, who are Bush and Cheney to dispute that?Seymour Hirsch said:The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)
The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.
A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House’s dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. “They’re not looking for a smoking gun,” the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. “They’re looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission.” The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.’s analysis. “The D.I.A. is fighting the agency’s conclusions, and disputing its approach,” the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, “but they can’t stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community.” The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney’s office, had made just such an assumption—that “the lack of evidence means they must have it,” the former official said.
Precisely. This article by four CIA officials show how angry the CIA are with the Bush Admin's constant fake warmongering. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/05/former-cia-officials-bus_n_75518.htmlturbo-1 said:Anybody who thinks our surveillance/intelligence gathering capabilities have not improved since the Cold War needs to re-think. If the CIA says with a high degree of confidence that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, who are Bush and Cheney to dispute that?
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.
At a December 4 (Tuesday) press conference, Bush asserted:
I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell [Director of National Intelligence] came in and said, 'we have some new information.' He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public. [...]
Ray McGovern is 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. [...]
McGovern was totally incredulous: "The notion that the head of National Intelligence whispered in Bush's ear 'I've got a surprise for you and it's really important, but I'm not going to tell you about it until we check it out' -- The whole thing is preposterous," he said in an interview with The Huffington Post.
Riedel agreed, saying "the president either chose to ignore what he heard or his director of national intelligence is not doing his job." Riedel said he doubted McConnell failed to "do his part of the bargain."
"To me it is almost mind boggling that the President is told by the DNI that we have new important information on Iran and he doesn't ask 'what is that information?'" said Riedel, who is now a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center For Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=c56b80c3-0500-44e2-8c5f-a8ab0589fa3a&k=98193CIA says it drained Iran of nuclear brains
But British spy agency says Tehran fed disinformation to Americans
The Edmonton Journal
Published: 3:07 am
The CIA launched a secret program in 2005 designed to degrade Iran's nuclear weapons program by persuading key officials to defect, an effort that has prompted a "handful" of significant departures, current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation say.
The previously undisclosed program, which CIA officials dubbed "the Brain Drain," is part of a major intelligence push against Iran ordered by the White House two years ago.
Intelligence gathered as part of that push provided much of the basis for a U.S. report released last week that concluded that the Islamic regime had halted its nuclear weapons work in 2003.
Although the CIA effort on defections has been aimed in part at gaining information about Iran's nuclear capabilities, its goal has been to undermine Iran's emerging atomic energy capabilities by plucking key scientists, military officers and other personnel from its nuclear roster.
They did not, have not. You mean they have abandoned their weapons program - may have according to US intel. agencies, the sources for which, we know not.fourier jr said:Not only did Iran abandon their nuclear program in 2003...
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=c56b80c3-0500-44e2-8c5f-a8ab0589fa3a&k=98193
One does need to 'defect' from a western democracy. You are free to leave any time. I'm curious as to exactly what you believe the US or EU policy should have been w/ regards to Iran given its public statements. That is, back when, 'with high confidence', it did have a weapons program?Can anyone imagine what the US would do if Iran had done the same to the US? Start brainstorming!
Oh right, US intelligence agencies have been infiltrated by liberals, commies & terrorists. Are you concerned that Iran pursuing a nuclear program but not a nuclear weapons program? What is the US going about other countries that have no nuclear weapons programs? Aren't there many more "nuclear" countries with no weapons programs besides Iran? Countries such as Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Sweden, Belgium... ? Watch out for Canada, they've been brazenly pursuing a nuclear program for decades now, & right under the US's nose!mheslep said:They did not, have not. You mean they have abandoned their weapons program - may have according to US intel. agencies, the sources for which, we know not.
One does not need to defect from Iran either, apparently. Why would the CIA need to encourage their scientists to emigrate then? You'd think they'd just leave.One does need to 'defect' from a western democracy. You are free to leave any time. I'm curious as to exactly what you believe the US or EU policy should have been w/ regards to Iran given its public statements. That is, back when, 'with high confidence', it did have a weapons program?
mheslep said:I'm curious as to exactly what you believe the US or EU policy should have been w/ regards to Iran given its public statements.
I don't assert that, have no idea. Look, I only draw attention to the fact that we have an intelligence estimate, only. Nobody posting here can even name the primary authors and certainly can't get access to the primary source material, yet its being tossed around like a 9th decimal place scientific measurement. Now, it is nevertheless (probably) wise to use the NIE as the best current assessment of the Iranian nuclear situation, but we don't 'know' the reality, can't know 100% like this was some TV drama where we smugly see who done it. Thus its prudent to also consider the consequences in case, just in case, the NIE is wrong. I recall that it was (in part) the cavalier use of earlier intelligence estimates that got the US/Coalition into Iraq.fourier jr said:Oh right, US intelligence agencies have been infiltrated by liberals, commies & terrorists.
Yes I am concerned a) for any country run by theocrats that make http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml" likeAre you concerned that Iran pursuing a nuclear program but not a nuclear weapons program? What is the US going about other countries that have no nuclear weapons programs? Aren't there many more "nuclear" countries with no weapons programs besides Iran? Countries such as Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Sweden, Belgium... ? Watch out for Canada, they've been brazenly pursuing a nuclear program for decades now, & right under the US's nose!
and b) I know there is no sharp dividing line between the technology of a nuclear power and a nuclear weapons program. If Canada starts doing a) then Ill worry about that great country."Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.
[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.
I wonder what sort of twisted logic makes it unacceptable to question comments such as those made by Ahmedinejad - even in the most apologetic translation, yet assumes Israel controls all those translators that to this day maintain the original translation is correct.PlasmaSphere said:And please don't use the widespread myth that Iran wants to 'wipe Israel off the map', that was a complete mistranslation, promoted mainly by Israel for their own benefit. Irans position is very clear, they oppose the racist ideology of Zionism and the illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanon and Palestine, not Israel in itself.
PlasmaSphere said:I am curious as what these statemants are, a couple of quotes would be nice. I do not like much of what ahmedinijad says, as anyone who is religious should not be leading a country
(that goes for Bush too), but often his words are misquoted in the press and the true meaning behind what he is saying is lost.
I agree the 'wipe' quote is disputed in translation, I can't find a clear primary source on that. I did hear Ahmedinijad say on tape 'they [Israel] should not be there' - again through translation, and that they should be somewhere else like Europe instead. Might have been the CBS interview. In any case I applaud requests for sources and careful analysis. Unfortunately this is then belied by blathering follow-on statements asserted as if they were beyond dispute, much less backed by any cites: 'Myth', 'very clear', 'mainly by Israel for their own benefit', 'racist ...Zionism'. Consider enclosing the like with (Unsubstantiated BS) (/Unsubstantiated BS) tags.And please don't use the widespread myth that Iran wants to 'wipe Israel off the map', that was a complete mistranslation, promoted mainly by Israel for their own benefit. Irans position is very clear, they oppose the racist ideology of Zionism and the illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanon and Palestine, not Israel in itself.
But Iranian supported Hezbollah does occupy Lebanon. :rofl:Yonoz said:, and Israel does not occupy Lebanon.
The NIE is just fine, it's the way it's misrepresented and consumed that's a problem. They wouldn't have put up 3 pages (half of the printed material) of explanations right at the start of a highly de-bloated report for nothing.mheslep said:Thus its prudent to also consider the consequences in case, just in case, the NIE is wrong.
Suddenly some of those regularly calling for long-term solutions have become myopic.We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran's key national security and foreign policy objectives (What are those? - Yonoz), and given Iran's considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons.
Killing and occupying Arabs is only a problem when EDIT:non-Arabs do it.mheslep said:But Iranian supported Hezbollah does occupy Lebanon. :rofl:
Agreed, I was joking to make a point.Yonoz said:...
EDIT: I wouldn't call Hizbullah's relationship with Lebanon occupation, though they are conspiring with Syria - which may not have as large a military presence as it once had, yet feels free to decide who will rule Lebanon.