Comments (38)

julimac wrote on December 3, 2007 5:42 PM:

And is the rosy NIE the reason Wolfie is coming back on board to "advise" Condi on WMDs, maybe even throw a little dirt on unreliable intel sources?

Will White wrote on December 3, 2007 5:50 PM:

I have seen Hagel's name thrown out there as a possibility ... sounds plausible to me.

nofltwlt wrote on December 3, 2007 6:06 PM:

Finally, a Bush appointee who has done the moral and ethical thing.

carolyn wrote on December 3, 2007 6:17 PM:

Wait, nofltwlt, wait. We do not have a motive yet. My bet, it was going to leak out somewhere. Damage control.

sandy wrote on December 3, 2007 6:19 PM:

Spencer Ackerman and 2 scoops of naiveté:

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)" + "obvious culprit in any Senatorial intelligence push" = are you out your fucking mind? Jay Jay puts wet noodles to shame in the field of not pushing. if some Republican somewhere gets every fucking thing he ever wanted plus a new bike, then Jay Rockefeller would be your obvious culprit.

somebody(s) pushed and threatened, and that same somebody(s) agreed as part of the deal to keep his mouth shut about the pushing. how is that not bleeding obvious?

JohnW1141 wrote on December 3, 2007 6:30 PM:

The Legacy Clock is running on the Bush Barbarians.

This release of the NIE is another attempt by the Bush Bacteria to salvage their place in History. The NIE means the Bush Bandits can now save face by not taking military action against Iran, something they have been pushing for some time now.

This release follows the Annapolis meetings and subsequent photo ops. Will Bush go to Israel?

Look for the Bush Burglars to start pushing diplomacy with Iran, either direct or through the UN. Will Condi go to Tehran?

TJ wrote on December 3, 2007 6:44 PM:

Likely Suspects: CIA and Joint Chiefs joined forces to head off another disaster that they would take the heat on, in order to take the wind out of Cheney's sails.

Bibbles wrote on December 3, 2007 6:49 PM:

Reid said today he asked for it. No confirmation from anyone else on that, though.

MIchael Lafferty wrote on December 3, 2007 7:35 PM:

Most of you are out there flailing wildly. If you had any substantial military experience, and followed the careers of the primary players—including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Admiral Mike Mullen and Director of National Intelligence and Admiral Michael McConnell—you could easily pencil in the lines between the points.

It's clear that some individuals who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States take that oath and their duties very seriously. While two in particular, from my point of view, exhibit historically flawed behavior, I believe that they see themselves and others allied with them as the last wall between our present course of action and the unleashing of an early April 2008 attack upon Iran.

I spent fifteen years in the active US Army and active reserve components as a military police and military intelligence staff member, and—while I have not had access to classified versions of the National Intelligence Estimate for two decades—I did read the publicly available unclassified NIE about a year prior to our invasion of Iraq. It firmly disputed the conventional belief that Iraq possessed or could soon develop any meaningful chemical, biological or nuclear weapons capability, and concluded that Iraq did not pose a substantial threat to its neighbors. It found that Iraq was decades away from an intercontinental missile delivery system, and that its short and medium range capabilities were degraded and could be contained. The consensus estimate concluded that Iraq was not a present—and, not a likely future—threat to the United States.

I was confident, even before the latest unclassified National Intelligence Estimate became public, that the 'Iranian threat' would similarly be dismissed in a consensus finding. In my time in the intelligence field, brief as it was compared to so many others, policy did not drive conclusions: research and analysis drove policy. I am confident that Admiral Mullen, and many others in positions of responsibility in the Department of Defense, still believe that should be the case.

EH wrote on December 3, 2007 7:45 PM:

Shorter Lafferty: "I was trained to trust the chain of command, so they're probably doing the right thing here."

Without any cites, that's as much of a flail as anything else posted so far.

Luce Imaginary wrote on December 3, 2007 7:46 PM:

Uh, think about this. Why is McConnell bucking his own non-disclosure policy right now?

Could he have found that war with Iran is closer than he might have thought?

global citizen wrote on December 3, 2007 7:51 PM:

Could it be? An outbreak of intelligence in both senses of the word?

Kenji wrote on December 3, 2007 8:01 PM:

I hate to give the guy a glimmer of credit, but maybe this is Bush undermining Cheney's last-ditch attempts to throw us in one more last ditch. He does the authority, after all -- not just the 'signing' kind, either.

hass wrote on December 3, 2007 8:04 PM:

Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all?

From IranAffairs.com:

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?

hass wrote on December 3, 2007 8:04 PM:

Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all?

From IranAffairs.com:

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?

asdf wrote on December 3, 2007 8:22 PM:

One obvious explanation: There are talks and this is about creating time to let the “sticks” do their job.

I believe that the Cheney faction has been sidelined by camp Condi on at least Iran and Israel/Palestine if not also Pakistan and Lebanon.
* This is why Iranian prisoner where let go
* Cheney mentions Iran way less if he talks publicly at all
* Iran helps keep Sadr and SCIRI from blowing each other up... for now
* Iran and the IAEA have been getting along for months now
* All the neocons say there will be bombing any day now just like normal *except they started using all sorts of qualifiers!!!* like how bombing impedes regime change.
* Lots of military folk with a history of advocating having Iran and Syria help settle Iraq are happily talking about the surge rather than leaking whining and resigning.
* I haven`t heard about terrorist bombings inside Iran either but who knows what that is about.

Remember the US has seriously been planning bombing since 04.... *so why hasn`t it!!*?? Laura Rozen started counting the remaining Cheney loyalist with “Cheney`s deadenders” in what, 2006? and the neocon cause went downhill from there.

So I think there are serious talks, but feel free to disagree.

But the funny thing is that Iran has been biggest source of talk about how serious its enrichment is. Stories about centrifuges running intermittently, below optimal speeds and without UF6 feedstock are a dime a dozen, but few speculate why Iran would be building thousands of them before getting them to really work properly. I suspect that makes tweaking thing harder. My bet is its to create “facts on the ground” that show Iran has a lot it may or may not give up... as long as the US comes with a lot of concessions. fast. It worked for North Korea

This very public report more or less says that the US is not impressed by all that Iranian boasting, missile testing, the military exercises and press tour of the facilities.

This is telling Iran to silently fold its bluff so the serious game can begin.

Iran reading this NIE is gonna make talks so much easier! The US is basically saying it isn`t afraid of Iran, though with all the talk from the Cheneys clan you could be forgiven for mistakenly thinking so.

If Cheney`s supposed secret undeclared enrichment passes some sort of red line between now and say half a year, that just means there will only ever be half a year of the sanctions the US worked so hard to get. Then maybe some ineffective bombing and then Iran is home free. If the US says it doesn`t think Iran is a problem until 2015, then its saying its fine with using sticks until 2015. Thats enough economic troubles to ruin careers in Iranian politics.

And a psyop-ish explanation could explain why IC folk loyal to dove and hawk, realist, and idiological camps signed up, in such a confusing way.

But thats just one theory. I bet the people around Baker know the story.

etmthree wrote on December 3, 2007 8:26 PM:

Isn't Lord Cheney still in the hospital? Maybe the Intel community just figured they could sneak this one by, kind of like a recess appointment.

Baschenis wrote on December 3, 2007 9:23 PM:

This cuts Cheney's legs off at the knees and has to make Bush look ridiculous even to his shrunken base. I think it's an insurgency.

YY wrote on December 3, 2007 9:57 PM:

It would be interesting to see if any sudden departures/lay offs happen in the Intelligence community or State Department in the wake of this report.

Would there be a way for TPM and the blogosphere to track this??
I'm sure a pissed of Cheney would be a vengeful Cheney.

romath wrote on December 3, 2007 11:04 PM:

There seems to be a good majority consensus in the capitalist class (big business leaders) that not only has the Iraq occupation become an unwieldy burden, if not folly, but also that taking on Iran militarily at this point is not particularly smart (Hilary Clinton represents this point of view most authoritatively among the Presidential candidates, which is why she's gotten so much big backing). The new NIE report is a way of expressing that point of view forcefully and in a manner that completely stops the Bush Administration.

RepubAnon wrote on December 3, 2007 11:13 PM:

I rather expect that the professionals in the Intelligence community didn't much like having their "no WMDs in Iraq" changed to "lots of WMDs in Iraq by Doug Feith, and then being saddled with the blame for bad analysis. The "no nukes in Iran" stories are probably their attempt to document their analysis.

Not to worry, though, I'm sure that further analysis by the new Team B folks will suddenly find new, incontrovertible evidence that Iran has trained whirling dervishes to act as centrifuges for making weapons grade U235 and plutonium. Their source: "Spitball" (Curveball's brother). It should hit the news around mid-January.

Rionn Fears Malechem wrote on December 3, 2007 11:41 PM:

nofltwlt says "Finally, a Bush appointee who has done the moral and ethical thing."

Can Stuart Bowen get a shout out?

johnnydoughey wrote on December 4, 2007 12:01 AM:

It would be nice if someone with deep pockets would get the numerous folks suggesting going into Iran or just nuking them on video, followed by the new IE report... then put it on the networks for a few days to remind "We the People" just who is back in Washington protecting us... and from what!!

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 8:05 AM:

Thank god somebody in this criminal administration has a modicum of ethics. What is mind boggling to me is that they obviously knew this conclusion for the last year or so and that's why they had the NIE on hold and yet they ran around threatening Iran and calling them liars. In fact, in october the king claimed that he was trying to stop WWIII because of the threat. It is an outrage and actually puts iran, russia and china in an incredibly good light and makes the us look again like a lying criminal in the eyes of the world. I hope congress holds hearings on this for the world to see the criminal acts of this administration and holds people accountable, including the king.

MarkV wrote on December 4, 2007 8:22 AM:

I think the story that isn't getting talked about enough is this: the administration must have had access to this intel for a long time ... must have known that the research indicates no active Iranian nuclear weapons program for FOUR YEARS. If we've learned nothing else, we've learned that with these guys, we are on the tail end of the Fact Train. And YET, KNOWING this, there was still active agitation, particularly from Cheney, for military intervention in Iran. This would repeat the WMD fiasco by starting with an agenda and bending the media to support it. How is this NOT a situation where you would proceed with an impeachment resolution?

BruceB wrote on December 4, 2007 8:58 AM:

Has no one considered that perhaps we have made some kind of negotiated deal with Iran and that this assessment was made public as part of the deal -- to show that we are now not going to attack them?

prediction predilection wrote on December 4, 2007 9:29 AM:

McConnell is a "Billy Bathgate" type sympathetic character actor shoved up to the mic to "cloud seed" the impression to the 300 million americans that they need not fear more war because it's been determined things weren't as bad a s they thought they were in Iran. The next thing you know they'll be announcing that they've decided to pull some of the troops out of Iraq and that that conflagration is nearing it's end. Meanwhile they have no intention of either. A Republican (yes you can interchange the word with MAFIA) president in 2008 means we will have more permanent bases not only in Iraq but in Pakistan (the mobs next mark on the screw over list) but that Iran will in short order be attacked by United States and Israeli bombs for no other reason than to continue our investment in our country's own demise

prediction predilection wrote on December 4, 2007 9:40 AM:

Meanwhile Katie Couric actually was on a network TV commercial announcing an up coming "Gnews" program addressing the pressing question to average americans as to "which country are you most afraid of".I really can't speak for everyone or comment as though I am even representative of the "average" but if it were me, I'd be afraid of and for THIS one (America). Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!

(By the by, I'm sure when translated and fed into Couric's dispersion atomizer the wiff of her question is "Who would you like to ATTACK next?

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 9:43 AM:

anyone for a round of Win Ben Stein's Grief

Michael A wrote on December 4, 2007 10:03 AM:

You may be right Bruce B. The rhetoric about how iran is killing our troops in iraq and doing all kinds of nasty stuff in iraq died off a couple of months ago. Also, the iranian "revolutionary guard" guys that we were holding in iraq were released as well. It is possible. Iran did help us in afghanistan and don't want the taliban to regroup in afghanistan, so maybe a deal was cut.

BruceB wrote on December 4, 2007 11:17 AM:

Further, consider that regarding the "Axis of Evil" trio:

1) Syria - weren't they present last week at the Annapolis Middle-East negotiations?

2) North Korea - We've already made a deal with them.

3) Iran - Well, maybe this NIE release is our way of telling them that we'll keep our part of the deal if they keep theirs.

danger wrote on December 4, 2007 12:32 PM:

It's amazing to think that Bush and Cheney may have come to their senses, but it's equally ridiculous that they aren't being public about any of this.

The cynical part of me too thinks they are doing this to salvage the election, because they know that as it stands, their party is screwed three ways from the weekend, and will likely be buried for decades as a result. Actually, forget salvaging the election, they need anything to give them a hint of credibility to not throw them in jail at this point. I really hate to think that by this time next year members of the neo-con establishment could be writing stories for themselves as winners of the peace, or heaven forbid, Bush as a bringer of world peace.

And the beat goes on..... wrote on December 4, 2007 1:15 PM:

This has nothing to do with coming clean. As a caller pointed out this morning, in the last several months BushCo has changed his rhetoric from "Iran producing" a nuclear weapon to Iran "gaining the knowledge to" produce a nuclear weapon. Listen to some key clips from the last few months (if you can stomach it) and hear it for yourself. Nothing has changed.

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 6:02 PM:

Another view: Senators have been gagged from discussing the intelligence they've been given about Iran -- right or wrong.

What plan does the Senate plan to compare the NIE with the classified information they've been provided -- in secret, without a chance to comment/question/refute it, as was the case with classified Iraq briefings that were wrong -- since 2003?

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 6:04 PM:

Any DoD targeting that was not linked with an imminent military threat -- as would be the case since 2003 -- would be a war crime.

I would like to know what DoD has been sharing with Congress on the "target list" for Iran. What has DoD targeting been planning since 2003?

Anonymous wrote on December 4, 2007 6:05 PM:

BruceB wrote on December 4, 2007 11:17 AM

Iran: On the Axis of Not-So-Evil.

coriolis wrote on December 4, 2007 6:07 PM:

It seems the intelligence community, smarting from the multiple hits it has taken from the Bush Administration, is engaging in a little pushback.
No one wants to serve the Administration anymore, least of all by milking evidence to start WWIII. I think this NIE is possibly semi-fictional, but people are throwing up their hands and saying they want no more of Apocalypse.

anonys wrote on December 7, 2007 2:29 PM:

Whatever else is true, it's sad that we have to dig for a motivation and not accept that there are are still people with integrity who act out of a sense of honour. Somehow that seems the most unlikely scenario. And that's sad.