New York Times, US Intelligence Community, Now Run by Islamofascists

Everyone lets please ignore Mark Mazzetti's reporting:

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. [...]

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran’s ultimate intentions about gaining a nuclear weapon remain unclear, but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”[...]

The new report concludes that if Iran were to end the freeze of its weapons program, it would still be at least two years before Tehran would have enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. But it says it is still “very unlikely” Iran could produce enough of the material by then.

The only appropriate response to this is to do what we've done already with IAEA information on Iran, with IAEA information on Iraq, and with Intelligence and Research Bureau information on Iran: ignore it.

Note, after all, that this assessment of the Iranian political system is in line with what the overwhelming majority of experts on Iran think, so we should do what we've been doing with regional experts for the past six years: ignore them.

Islamofascism is on the march. Deniers and appears must be ignored.

I, for one, am confident that we can pull Operation Ignore off with sufficient hope not only from the Bush administration but also from the Washington Post editorial page which, I trust, can treat us to more sermons on how the people generating the alarmism are the ones really trying to stave off war.

Comments

Seriously now, aren't the crazy neocons the most totally pathological liars in the history of the human species, or what?...

Posted by RKU | December 3, 2007 1:22 PM

1. The report cites sanctions as the cause of the slow down in their nuclear weapons program.

Matt, will you give President Bush and sanctions supporters credit for this policy?

Will you support further sanctions to make sure iran does not get nuclear weapons?

2. The report does note:

"Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program"

"Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible
but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of
confidence"

Posted by Dave | December 3, 2007 1:27 PM

Deniers and appeasers?

" but that Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.”[...]"

In other words, they aren't crazy/stupid like Saddam was...

It also appears that the Washington/Arab/Israeli nexus/front is now trying to pull Syria away from Iran, no doubt Juan Cole will be pleased...

Posted by Peter K. | December 3, 2007 1:40 PM

note that Bush, Cheney and many of their advisers have likely known much of this for many years already.

Posted by cleek | December 3, 2007 1:52 PM

Peter K: Saddam wasn't all that crazy/stupid either. He didn't actually have any WMD program in 2002-3.

Posted by Whispers | December 3, 2007 2:27 PM

"Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program"

"Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible
but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of
confidence"

Posted by Dave | December 3, 2007 1:27 PM

Aren't there 16 agencies that contribute to the NIE? So 2 of 16 are only moderately confident that Iran's nuclear program has been halted. So what? That's how the process works. There will always be some dissent, but in this case it's extremely mild.

Posted by Kurzbein | December 3, 2007 2:35 PM

A pack of lies. Once again, Bush, Cheney, etc. (loyally supported by their bum-buddy Lieberman) issue hysterical statements about weapons of mass destruction to try to provoke a new war. And once again, it's just a pack of lies.

Impeach these people. Remove them from office. Prosecute them. Send them to prison.

Posted by Tom in California | December 3, 2007 2:37 PM

Wow, even after this report by our own warmongering leaders saying they halted work we still have blood thirsty neocon lunatics still wanting to rush us into $6.00 a gallon gas prices and armaggedon, if the idiots only knew they will be making countries like Russia
and other oil rich dictators flush with oil revenues, what a bunch of mindless fools!

Posted by Steven | December 3, 2007 2:43 PM

Matt,

Given the truly awful track record of the CIA - from estimating Soviet power 20 years ago to predicting Iraqi WMD in 2002, why do you think anything they report should be taken as definitive?

Had they reported the opposite, would you be giving it credence, or would you be citing their shoddy record?

Posted by James Robertson | December 3, 2007 3:24 PM

There's never been a group of politicians on the national level so aggressively and self-righteously dishonest as the Bush Admin and all their fatuous toadies and advisors.

It's too bad being a lying toad isn't a criminal offense.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 3, 2007 3:51 PM

RKU

Give Bush/Cheney credit??

Cheney was doing deals with terrorist nations when he was CEO of Hallibuton. You go to jail if you so so, but tricky Dick found that if he opened off-shore subsidiaries, he could deal with America's enemies ... putting profit over patriotism.

Posted by AJM | December 3, 2007 3:53 PM

Given the truly awful track record of the CIA - from estimating Soviet power 20 years ago to predicting Iraqi WMD in 2002, why do you think anything they report should be taken as definitive?

Had they reported the opposite, would you be giving it credence, or would you be citing their shoddy record?

Basic logic is apparently difficult to come by for some. If all the reasonable people I know support a particular policy based on assumptions that I think are reasonable and the crazy people I know support a different policy whose assumptions are contradicted by the conclusions of the people they paid to do the research for them, I would regard that as a stronger argument against the policy prescriptions of the crazy people. On the other hand, if the people they paid to do the research concluded things I thought were unlikely, but supported the crazy people's policies, I would regard it as an argument in their favor, but obviously I would still emphasize the bias and potential for mistakes in their analysis. And enough evidence were presented, I might even change my mind. That's one of the reasons I know who the crazies are.

These gotcha games of equivalency really get old after a while.

Posted by mpowell | December 3, 2007 3:55 PM

"whispers":

"Peter K: Saddam wasn't all that crazy/stupid either. He didn't actually have any WMD program in 2002-3."

You're wrong, Saddam was crazy and stupid, unlike the Iranian regime. This is not just rightwing, neocon propaganda.

He bluffed about having weapons, which is why he wouldn't fully comply with the weapons inspectors and kicked them out. Some of the UN inspectors made excuses for Saddam, not wanting war and who can blame them? but it in the end he was bluffing. He was bluffing his enemies inside Iraq and Iraq's neighbors and he payed the ultimate price for it.

Posted by Peter K. | December 3, 2007 4:01 PM

Mark Mazzetti or the New York editorial staff should be brought up for sedition at a minimum, treason charges for helping the islamofacists' fifth column endeavors and propaganda in the US at best.

But, as always, we won't learn from the lessons of history, including these appeasers' backstabbing tactics, until we suffer in the flesh first hand the consequences of our inaction.

We never learn.

Posted by Steve in Orange County | December 3, 2007 4:19 PM

"Had they reported the opposite, would you be giving it credence, or would you be citing their shoddy record?"

Perhaps if the IAEA, with its record, also argued the opposite, then you might have a point. Or, you might consider that much of the CIA's analytical work argued against Bush's pronouncements on Iraq, but was politicized on its way to the White House. If that were not true, then you might have a point.

In any case, the real story is that the intelligence agencies are openly pushing back.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | December 3, 2007 4:33 PM

Peter K. said:

"You're wrong, Saddam was crazy and stupid, unlike the Iranian regime. This is not just rightwing, neocon propaganda.

He bluffed about having weapons, which is why he wouldn't fully comply with the weapons inspectors and kicked them out. Some of the UN inspectors made excuses for Saddam, not wanting war and who can blame them? but it in the end he was bluffing. He was bluffing his enemies inside Iraq and Iraq's neighbors and he payed the ultimate price for it."

Of course this is not true. Saddam did not kick the inspectors out, in fact he let them in. It was Bush who forced the inspectors out so that bombing could commence.

Saddam was not "fully cooperating", but according to Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, it was a miscalculated bluff on Saddams part. He says of the situation, "It's like putting up the sign on the door, 'Beware of the Dog, and you don't have a dog."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wmd/etc/synopsis.html

Not "fully cooperating" isn't quite the same as "kicking them out."

Posted by Saddam didn't kick em out | December 3, 2007 4:40 PM

Given the truly awful track record of the CIA - from estimating Soviet power 20 years ago to predicting Iraqi WMD in 2002, why do you think anything they report should be taken as definitive?

Tee-hee. Mr. Robertson owes Digby a Pepsi.

(As Atrios notes, so does Howard Kurtz.)

Posted by mds | December 3, 2007 4:43 PM

Also, Steve in Orange County is apparently unpatriotic and crazy to boot!

According to him, reporting the conclusions of 14 out of 16 international intelligence agencies is equal to treason. But then again, reporting anything the 30 percenters disagree with is paramount to treason in their little world view.

Posted by Saddam didn't kick em out | December 3, 2007 4:46 PM

I have to assume Steve is joking.

Posted by mpowell | December 3, 2007 5:17 PM

Interestingly, over at the Krazy Korner today, Victor Davis Hanson attempts the double-bankshot maneuver of casting doubt on the accuracy of the NIE, while simultaneously suggesting that if Iran DID abandon their nuclear program, this just proves Bush was right to invade Iraq in order to scare the Iranians straight.

Credit where credit is due: VDH is the real deal. Few post-Soviet propagandists can match his skills.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 3, 2007 5:23 PM

RKU: "Seriously now, aren't the crazy neocons the most totally pathological liars in the history of the human species, or what?..."

Ah, no. Zionists are. And they predate the neocons by some decades.

But the neocons tend to overlap the Zionists, so maybe it's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 3, 2007 9:04 PM

Matt does get this right, however. This NIE will be ignored and spun. You can see the spin in some of the posts here. It will be nation wide in all the MSM by tomorrow.

In fact, this has already been the concept. I've seen numerous attempts to say that since the US was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, it's being too cautious about Iran who REALLY DOES have WMDs. And just because the IAEA was right about Iraq doesn't mean they're right about Iran. And so forth.

So this NIE will be ignored. It's too subtle to be represented correctly in the MSM so the general public won't get it - which is probably why it was weasel-worded the way it was.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 3, 2007 9:12 PM

Steve Sailer (with an assist from Greg Cochran) has a subtler and more plausible interpretation here:

"The headline in the New York Times, based on a National Intelligence Estimate, says:

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

On the other hand, Greg Cochran, who made the correct call back in 2002 that Iraq had no active nuclear weapon program, thinks that might be over-confident, saying that the line between civilian and military uranium-enrichment is fuzzy. He figures that the grown-ups in Washington, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, don't want a war with Iran and just want to run out the clock on the 13.5 months left in the Bush Administration without anything too stupid happening. So they might be spinning this report to calm the war fever.

Back in 1994, when Bill Clinton wanted to invade Haiti as a sop to the Congressional Black Caucus, an operation the Joint Chiefs thought was pointless, the brass hats misled the militarily-ignorant President for several months about how tough the job would be. Perhaps something similar is happening here?"

Posted by Fred | December 4, 2007 12:33 AM

Given the truly awful track record of the CIA - from estimating Soviet power 20 years ago to predicting Iraqi WMD in 2002, why do you think anything they report should be taken as definitive?

You need to flesh this out some. I can't make heads or tails of this. You would also need to start breaking down what you mean by "CIA". The analysts? The directors? Who do you have a knife out for here?

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 4, 2007 1:07 AM

Yes, I'd say that Greg Cochran's analysis is very close to my own.

I think the turning point was the recent turmoil in Pakistan, leading to the very real risk of actual---as opposed to imaginary---nukes getting into the hands of Bin Laden's close friends. It gave the Pentagon just the argument they need to explain why attacking Iran was just too insane to even consider. Just a few days later, we finally released all those innocent Iranian diplomats we'd kidnapped a year earlier.

I think the leaking of the no-Iranian-nukes NIE is the Pentagon's attempt to really nail down its momentary political advantage, and try to pretty much close the door on attacking Iran for the foreseeable future.

It's interesting that some crazy commenter calling himself "Evil Neocon" spews forth endless paragraphs of the usual rubbish in disagreement.

It seems pretty clear to me that the future health of the American body politic really does require a genomic cleansing.

A very thorough genomic cleansing...

Posted by RKU | December 4, 2007 1:30 AM

"Saddam didn't kick em out" and "whipser" - antiwar anonymous posters -

Followed the PBS link and found this, which is what I was saying,

"So what was Saddam's game? Why didn't he come clean with U.N. inspectors in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion?

One theory is that Saddam Hussein wanted to retain the self-image of a tough leader, both for Iraqis and for other countries in the region. Says Hans Blix, former top U.N. weapons inspector, "I think that he thought of himself as the Nebuchadnezzar of the Mesopotamia and … he felt that we [inspectors] were intruders. Iraq had gone along with Resolution 687. Yes, they would do that, but not one inch more. Not in a situation where they felt that they could have a reasonable argument of keeping inspectors out. I think that was a pride on his part. He didn't want to be humiliated."

And many think that Saddam Hussein simply may have miscalculated. He had bluffed about having weapons of mass destruction because he didn't think the U.S. would call his bluff."

After 9/11? And "Whisper" said Saddam wasn't stupid??? And Hans Blix is obviously being charitable here.

Also I've been saying for months there would be no war with Iran and have been willing to wager on it, but no takers from the anti-war, anti-Bush hysterics. People seem to like the drama.

Possibly, maybe, the quick takedowns of the Taliban and Saddam regimes (who were on either sides of Iran) after 9/11, conviced the Iranians to play ball. Plus we gave them a Shia government in Iraq. Unlike Saddam they see things in term of costs/benefits, that is, they are somewhat rational.

Or possibly, the Bushies are trying to trick the Iranians into complacency before the attack...

Posted by Peter K. | December 4, 2007 12:55 PM

Operation ignore? Try Operation Nuke the Messenger. Four days after this article, Mark "I have been maligning the CIA and the US Intelligence Community in Advance of this NIE for a year, you just haven't noticed it" Mazzetti broke the Two Destroyed Torture Tapes story. Coincidence? Ha! On Saturday , I predicted that we would see news stories about how 1. Democrats were equally to blame for torture and 2. stories about how the NIE could not be believed since the CIA destroyed two torture tapes. On Sunday, the NYT and the WaPo had editorials just as I described in 2 and the WaPo had its atrocious "Pelosi knew" headline. Propaganda campaigns are pretty poor when fiction writers can tell you in advance what the characters are going to say.

Now, I am off to write my story about the NYT's role in this farce. Isn't Google a great thing? For me, I mean. Not for Mr. Mazzetti.

Posted by McCamy Taylor | December 11, 2007 3:02 PM