Classical Values :: Distinguishing between N and Q

December 04, 2007

Distinguishing between N and Q

I must not be paying enough attention to the news.

From the tone and huge New York Times headline in today's Inquirer (and, no doubt, in many other newspapers), you'd almost think that Bush went to war against Iran based on faulty intelligence. (Or might as well have.) And once again, our warmongering president has been proven wrong. (Or might as well have.)

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

(Via James Joyner, who thinks the problem may stem from "an intelligence system that so incentivizes bureaucratic backside covering that it overemphasizes threats and disregards contrary information.")

What I want to know is simply, who is in charge of the contradictions?

Is there a contradictor in chief?

Sheesh.

I had barely adjusted to the "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" faulty intel about Iraq, and then they have to change the channel to "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" faulty intel about Iran?

Intel is a tricky business. For starters, I need to watch my Ns and Qs.

Or am I missing something? Did Bush and Cheney go to war in Iran based on faulty intel? I didn't think so, but maybe my memory is as screwed up as the "National Intelligence Estimates." And besides, I hardly watch any television.

Regardless of what side you take, these NIEs really do have a way of disappearing or getting whited out though:

The CIA's censorship of the estimate mirrors its apparent treatment of the Senate's own report. The Senate Intelligence Committee had previously noted, in a 17 June 2004 press release, that "The Committee is extremely disappointed by the CIA's excessive redactions to the report." News accounts quoting Senate sources estimate that this excessive redaction amounted to 50% of the entire text. After a month of back-and-forth, not only did a number of Senators gain an education in the subjectivity of classification, but also the CIA retreated, to a final censorship level (by word-count) of 16%. Perhaps the most egregious example of the CIA's knee-jerk secrecy occurs on pages 49-50, when only one sentence survives censorship in the Committee's discussion of the British White Paper - and that sentence reports that the British had actually published the Paper. Large sections of blacked-out discussion following the Committee's Conclusions - such as the CIA's misleading of Secretary of State Colin Powell for his February 2003 United Nations speech (pages 253-257) and the CIA's misleading the public in its October 2002 white paper that left out the caveats, hedged language, and dissents in the underlying intelligence (pages 295-297) - are currently under declassification review by CIA. The Committee itself withheld these sections from the CIA's review until release of the report so as not to be scooped or spun.

The estimate has been the subject of multiple public speeches, statements and testimony by CIA and other intelligence community officials - even more of which is published in today's Senate report. These include public statements by CIA director George Tenet on 11 July 2003 and 11 August 2003, Tenet's Georgetown speech of 5 February 2004, and NIC vice-chairman Stuart Cohen's statement of 28 November 2003.

Hmmm...

That would have been the famous "slam dunk" remark, which Tenet would simply love to have whited out. Tenet said that the presence of WMDs was a "slam dunk" (and of course the Democratic leadership endorsed this view), but it's getting harder and harder to tell what anybody said about anything.

Here are (were) what are (were, at least I think) said to be the key, um, "judgments":

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these Key Judgments.)

We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.

And the "high confidence" stuff:

High Confidence:
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material

I'm supposed to take this National Intelligence Estimate business seriously this time?

Apparently. Provided, however, it can be made to make Bush look bad.

Isn't that the real subtext here? That we have a president who regularly starts wars based on faulty intelligence, and that he might as well have here? The difference here seems to be that in Iraq, he started a war based on NIE judgments that turned out to be faulty, while in Iran, he's being prevented based on intelligence that will never turn out to be faulty because it can endlessly contradict itself.

But the larger point is that he might as well have started the war we might as well be in anyway.

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, a good question from Soccer Dad:

"If the 2005 estimate concluded that Iran had stopped its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the new one concluded that it was now close to fielding a weapon, would the administration's critics be counseling caution or action?"

I think they'd be accusing Bush of warmongering hysteria and relying on faulty intelligence.

UPDATE: Israel disagrees with the latest NIE assessment:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Iran was continuing in its efforts to produce a nuclear bomb despite the report. According to the minister, Iran had indeed stopped its program four years ago but has since renewed it.

The Israelis also recognize something that shouldn't be forgotten:

Regardless of the fact that the report said that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons plan, the fact was that such a plan did indeed exist until 2003.

Halting its program is not the same thing as never having had one.

Whatever might have made Iran halt their nuclear weapons program? (Assuming they did, of course...)

"Diplomacy"?

Call me skeptical.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and especially for clearing up the matter of who is in charge.

All comments welcome!

posted by Eric on 12.04.07 at 08:45 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5864

Comments

Cue the bit from Ali G, where he's asking Brent Scowcroft about a pilot who gets a partial order to go bomb Ira-......

Patrick Carroll · December 4, 2007 01:12 PM

What was the NIE on Syria over the summer? Any "high confidence" there?

These guys are clueless.

TallDave · December 4, 2007 01:13 PM

Will the take be... "Iran halts nuclear program after decisive US victories in Afghanistan and Iraq"? No. Never in a million years. Unless this all happened under a Clinton presidency. And yes Iraq was a victory. A long time ago. What we have now is something much smaller than a war. We have to be honest about it. And didn't Obama say that $30 of the price of a barrel of oil was because of Bush sabre rattling on Iran. Did the price drop 30 bones today?

Tom · December 4, 2007 01:21 PM

My bad. It was Joe Biden who said $30 of the price of oil is a "security premium".

Tom · December 4, 2007 01:30 PM

If they halted it because of "diplomacy," wouldn't they make the halt public? Why keep it a secret if it's for diplomatic reasons?

Daryl Herbert · December 4, 2007 02:05 PM

Discontinued production in 2003...

Ahmadinejad elected in 2005.

Democrats are relying on intel that is five years old.

The method for the NIE making their conclusion about 2003?

Solid. Old members of the former party in power in 2003, were given a lie detector test, and paid quite handsomely, to corroborate what they were saying.

This is humint.

NIE says they have no humint on current regime.

The NIE may very well start reporting that we won WWII, as activity in Iran 5 years and one regime ago, is about as current as the status of WWII.

mark l. · December 4, 2007 02:32 PM

If they (intel weanies) were so wrong about Iraq, why should anyone put too much faith in them now?

Ed · December 4, 2007 02:34 PM

Why would I have any faith that today's estimate is any more accurate than 5 years ago? Will we hear in a few more years that their efforts were never really halted after all, and they now have the bomb?

sammy small · December 4, 2007 02:53 PM

Well, I seem to remember that they (NIE, etc) grossly missed on the Pakistani bomb, didn't they? What evidence is there that they're better now? Their Iraq work?

How nice that one can pick and choose which NIE reports are the 'right' ones.

How about this. Anyone who accepts this NIE report as accurate has to resign their job or position (elected, appointed, or private) if it turns out within the next 2 years to be incorrect? Put their asses on the line.

JorgXMcKie · December 4, 2007 03:39 PM

The gop should quickly move to have a vote on the 'sense of Senate':

"Based upon the recently released report from the NIE, reporting the discontinuation of Iran's nuclear program in 2003, the US Senate now believes that Iran is not currently seeking to develop a nuclear program."

This thing wouldn't get 20 votes, and it would be most revealing about the current 'sense of the Senate', and their faith in the NIE.

Anonymous · December 4, 2007 03:45 PM

So you guys might not be able to lie America into another war after all. I'm sure that's frustrating.

Laney · December 4, 2007 04:50 PM

Great news, if true. Mossad says the Iranians will have a bomb year after next. CIA says no they won't. Who to believe? CIA, who failed to predict the breakup of the Soviet Union, failed to warn of 9/11, called the Iraqi bomb a slam dunk sure thing, and spends a lot of time destabilizing the Bush administration?

David Starr · December 4, 2007 04:58 PM

This is Valerie Plames area of expertise. She has seniority. Very liely she wrote it.

sol vason · December 4, 2007 05:11 PM

>>> So you guys might not be able to lie America into another war after all. I'm sure that's frustrating.

So which part was the lie? The part where intelligence agencies reported that Iran was working on a nuclear device or the part where intelligence agencies said Iran *wasn't* working on a nuclear device?

Thank God for the Iraq War, it pressured the lunatics in Tehran into suspending their nuclear programs! War works! Bush was right!

John · December 4, 2007 05:47 PM

>>> So you guys might not be able to lie America into another war after all. I'm sure that's frustrating.

> So which part was the lie?

Pretty much everything said by anyone from the Bush administration, the neocon pundits, and the rightwing blogs in the months before the attack on Iraq.

Likewise anything these folks have said about Iran lately.

> Thank God for the Iraq War

What's a few dead Arabs? It's not as if they were real human beings, like Americans or Israelis.

Laney · December 4, 2007 08:45 PM

>>Pretty much everything said by anyone from the Bush administration, the neocon pundits, and the rightwing blogs in the months before the attack on Iraq.

And the Dems who agreed with Bush, including a majority all of them, were they lying as well? Or was it only people on the right that lie? Even if the two groups say the same thing?

>>Likewise anything these folks have said about Iran lately.

So is this NIE a lie as well? Or is it just the last one that was a lie?

OK, I get it. Stupid to engage these people.

Pete · December 4, 2007 09:36 PM

>And the Dems who agreed with Bush, including a majority all of them, were they lying as well?

Yes, by and large the Democrats were lying, too. Some of the Dems -- and more than a few Republicans -- knew better but they were intimidated by 9/11 hysteria and the Israel Lobby.

You do understand that no one in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, don't you? And you're not going to claim that the Bushies didn't use the 9/11 hysteria to promote this war you're so proud of, are you?

> So is this NIE a lie as well?

The NIE doesn't come from the Bushies. The intelligence professionals -- and probably the military brass -- forced the info into the public domain over the objections of the Bushies who had been sitting on it for months. The professionals and the brass are afraid that the Bushies will start another war that doesn't have an end. Which is what you seem to want to do, which makes it a little amusing when you throw around words like

> Stupid.

Laney · December 4, 2007 10:05 PM

Slur:

"What's a few dead Arabs? It's not as if they were real human beings, like Americans or Israelis."

Counter-slur:

What's a few dead Kurds, or Shi'ites in southern Iraq, or Sunnis who don't exhibit proper loyalty to their police state overlords ? It's not as if they were real human beings, like Saddam or his Ba'ath party followers.

It's sad how much the tragedy value one assigns to the victims of violence depends on how much one personally hates the perceived perpetrator.

P. Aeneas · December 4, 2007 11:29 PM

Any chance some lefty, who has read the report, can explain why they are enriching uranium?

If I understand correctly, the Iranians are working on missiles capable of delivery.

They are enriching uranium.

This is like arguing that one is disarmed, becuase the bullets are not in the gun.

In two years, they will have enough enriched uranium to test a nuke. This is just too good.

mark l. · December 5, 2007 12:16 AM

Careful, laney, your antisemitism is showing. Happy Hanukkah, by the way.

I'm so disappointed that we won't be able to lie our way into another war; this one's been so much fun. Honestly, do you people listen to yourselves? Let's try again, with props to john:

So which part was the lie? The part where intelligence agencies reported that Iran was working on a nuclear device or the part where intelligence agencies said Iran *wasn't* working on a nuclear device?

If your answer is, "The part where Bush looks like a warmongering chimp, fiendishly smart enough to fool the whole world yet somehow too stupid to fool me," let me get you a glass of warm milk and tuck you in.

Jamie · December 5, 2007 04:21 AM

>Careful, laney, your antisemitism is showing.

Anyone who notice that there is such a thing as the Israel Lobby or that it supported the attack on Iraq and is supporting an attack on Iran is an antisemite.

The slur of antisemism is used to keep Americans from even discussing the support for war by AIPAC, et al. It's about as creditable as most of Al Sharpton's charges of racism. It's an ad hominem lie you tell when you can't discuss the substance of the issue.

Any of you guys know enough about the net to use Wayback? Take look at cached copies of what AIPAC was saying to hype the war before the attack.

>If I understand correctly, the Iranians are working on missiles capable of delivery.

I suppose you have to have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, which I do, to know how jaw-droppingly dumb this statement is. Every country on the planet with a military of any consequence uses ballistic missiles.

>Any chance some lefty, who has read the report, can explain why they are enriching uranium?

Iran is running out of oil at the same time that it's population is growing rapidly. If you followed the Middle East, you would already know this. If you didn't already know this, you need to examine your information sources.

>What's a few dead Kurds, or Shi'ites in southern Iraq, or Sunnis . . .

The Kurds were already protected before the invasion. So, by and large were the Shia in Southern Iraq by this time.

A lot more Arab civilians have died -- and will die -- in this war than would have died if Saddam had remained in power. Hundreds of thousands more.

And drop the whining about how much you care about dead Arabs. If there's anything that distinguishes the 30% or so Americans who still support Bush from the other people on the planet, it's their indifference to the torture, suffering, and death of third-world riffraff.

After all, you guys have classical values.

Laney · December 5, 2007 08:27 AM

"A lot more Arab civilians have died -- and will die -- in this war than would have died if Saddam had remained in power. Hundreds of thousands more."

BS. You have NO way of knowing this. You're just using this as a moral club to bash "Bush supporters".

Lies. Hundreds of thousands more of an unknown number is an unkown number and therefore meaningless.

"And drop the whining about how much you care about dead Arabs. If there's anything that distinguishes the 30% or so Americans who still support Bush from the other people on the planet, it's their indifference to the torture, suffering, and death of third-world riffraff."

Lie. Smear. You have NO way of knowing what distinguishes 30% of Americans feel about "third world riffraff".

Stop lying.

Anonymous · December 5, 2007 02:37 PM