Brilliant: "But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies."
« Congress In the Know | Main | Party ID Trends »
Wall Street Journal: Intel Insufficiently Politicized
09 Dec 2007 05:11 pm
Comments (42)
The Catholic church once made a similar mistake with Galileo, and now look at it.
When, exactly, did the duty of our intelligence agencies become enforcing executive policy, instead of making an honest and competent analysis of world events? What kind of madness is it to suggest a responsible executive controls intelligence analysis? This is nothing more than suggesting the correct course of American politics is literally propaganda, i.e. opinion disseminated as truth.
I mean, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. How do you read this trash and say to yourself, "Oh, that's exactly the problem here?" You have to be totally ignorant or a complete asshole, or maybe both.
As I told Mark Kleiman: I think you're mmisinterpreting the WSJ editorial. What they're actually saying is that poor, timid Bush is being brutally intimidated by the vicious anti-Americans at the CIA and the State Department into denying the REAL truth, which comes entirely from the Cheneyites -- who were also totally correct on the Iraq War (as the Journal declares once again).
Seriously, though, doesn't it look like this NIE is an sign of some serious organized powerful anti-Bush and anti-neocon resistance movement inside the establishment? Not the intelligence establishment, but the real establishment, powerful people, people who matter. I hope it's true.
Maybe the next step is for all those crazy cultists at the WSJ to declare that some Angel has provided them with golden plates of True Iranian Intel that only they can read...
Or that they're all moving down to some fortified compound in Texas and stocking up on AK-47s (and poisoned Kool-Aid) in preparation for approaching Armageddon.
The Journal article is a hoot. They cite the post-invasion Iraq mess as an example of not everyone being on board with Bu$hco policy. Following GWB and Cheney policy is what got them into all of this mess in the first place. Anyone with a different (and usually correct) point of view was ignored and marginalized. Then replaced with mental midgets to do Bu$hco's bidding.
L'etat c'est Bush. All government apparatus is Bush's personal fiefdom and all government employees swear loyalty only to Bush. WSJ obviously got the memo; why didn't the rest of you guys?
It isn't that surprising. There is a sizable chunk of the population that considers running the country perfectly analogous to running a company (a stupidity born out of outrageous conceit), and these people form most of the WSJ's readership. To this turn of mind, Bush is really just the most powerful CEO in the world, obliged at all times to ensure that the corporate image is monolithically adhered to by all subsidiaries. The corporate image does not emerge organically from the facts on the ground, but is a construct designed to promote the perceived interests of the company quite irrespective of those facts. Questions of justice are externalities to this mindset; it is more important to appear in command than to ensure one's decisions are really responding to empirically verified phenomena. It is better to make the wrong decision looking strong than to make the right decision looking weak. One can imagine how this attitude would be sensible in a a world where one's stock values are hinged on public perception. But a world leader, one would hope, should have much more than mere perception built into his decision calculus.
Here's the part of their thinking that really baffles me:
In this regard, it's hilarious to see the left and some in the media accuse Mr. Bush once again of distorting intelligence. The truth is the opposite. The White House was presented with this new estimate only weeks ago, and no doubt concluded it had little choice but to accept and release it however much its policy makers disagreed. Had it done otherwise, the finding would have been leaked and the Administration would have been assailed for "politicizing" intelligence.
Now, even if you grant the Journal's dubious premise that this NIE is all wet, how would suppressing it not be politicizing intelligence? Once you've let the cat out of the bag (i.e. using intelligence judgments publicly justify the policy), you can't put it back in.
You tell the public, "The CIA thinks Iran's going for the bomb." Then the CIA changes its mind. Even if you think the CIA is wrong, you've got to tell the public because it alters the credibility of your case. Is there really some sort of partisan disagreement about that?
If the Bush administration has good reasons why they think the CIA made a poor judgment here, they should have the President put them before the public. Otherwise, we're all just going to have to go along with what the experts in the field are saying.
If the Bush administration has good reasons why they think the CIA made a poor judgment here
IIRC, every intelligence group contributes to the NIE and all supported the idea that Iran had given up work on the bomb.
To this turn of mind, Bush is really just the most powerful CEO in the world, obliged at all times to ensure that the corporate image is monolithically adhered to by all subsidiaries
Ding ding ding. You win!
That's a great analogy.
IIRC, every intelligence group contributes to the NIE and all supported the idea that Iran had given up work on the bomb.
I think it's probably a compromise. The real general consensus was probably that there never was a weapons program, and this "they stopped" stuff is there to provide cover for the people who peddled it in the first place.
Ed Marshall has it partially correct. I think the NIE was iintended to be a CYA document to cover all the bases - by saying Iran had a nuclear weapons program but doesn't have one now.
People forget - you see it in the posts above - that the NIE said BOTH things.
Scott Ritter agrees with the Russians and the IAEA that Iran quite probably never had an actual weapons program. Allowing the public to think it did was a goal of the NIE. This provides 1) cover for those who said it did, and 2) a pre-emptive attack on the next IAEA reports which may clear - or substantially clear - Iran of having such a program.
Plus, as I've said, it makes it EASIER for Cheney and Israel - who have already said this - to claim that Iran has restarted the program, then citing the NIE as justification because the NIE has already said Iran HAD a program.
Anybody assuming this NIE is some sort of "attack" on Bush and Cheney just doesn't understand the
subtleties of the intelligence community.
The claims that it is an attack are in fact either a smokescreen by those who know the real motives or simply lack of understanding (probably the case with the WSJ). Bolton knows it's a smokescreen, you can be sure. And Cheney knows.
1) Has Rupert Murdoch already taken over the Wall Street Journal?
Or is this just some preemptive ass-kissing to surf ahead of the coming layoff wave??
1) Maybe this is some kind of "We didn't lie about intelligence this week " meme.
2) Soon to be followed by the "Ergo, We didn't lie about the intelligence in 2002 --we just screwed the pooch " meme.
3) All to dig in ahead of any "Phase II Report on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence" Report -- you know, the one that is supposed to compare what Bush/Cheney were telling the American people in 2002 versus what the CIA was telling Bush/Cheney in 2002.
The Phase II report promised to us -- and to Jay Rockfeller -- by Republican Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, in 2004.
Re "To this turn of mind, Bush is really just the most powerful CEO in the world, obliged at all times to ensure that the corporate image is monolithically adhered to by all subsidiaries"
----------
Yes -- and Members are Congress are just 550 small businessmen who are constantly kept on the verge of bankruptcy so that they remain "team players".
For the wonderful opportunity of basically owning the White House for the last seven years, this corporate rag is merely paying back the favor.
If the WSJ can't salvage the legacy of the single most insanely pro-business president in the history of this country, they're screwed. When will they ever get another dupe like GW?
Man those guys wanted another war real bad! Just look at how pi$$ed they are! They are seriously abnormal.
I'm looking forward to Rupert Murdoch bringing a higher level of integrity to the WSJ.
@ Justin B: Analogy? We're worse off than Arbusto. How much do you think China'll give us for the Hoover Dam? And hey, you think maybe the Easter Islanders are in the market for Mount Rushmore? Hmm, maybe Sarkozy'll buy back the Statue of Liberty, though it is awful tempting to let some Terrorists blow it up to ensure 8 more years of Romney...
Look folks. The Bush junta is 407 days from a coup. To succeed, it needs the support of two institution, the military and the intelligence agencies. This NIE is a shot over their bow telling them they will be conducting their coup on their own and the Secret Service will be hauling them out of the seat of power and into jail.
Hey WSJ, if you have such confidence in Bush and the job he's done, why don't you hire him to take over the editorial page once his presidency is over!
That WSJ editorial is pure Pravda stuff: The party and its leading cadres can never be wrong (after all, they have The Laws of History on their side.) Ergo, if something has gone wrong it must have been caused by spies and wreckers.
Essentially, they're accusing Bush of having too much respect for what the Soviets liked to call "bourgeois legalism" in dealing with the oppositionists in the intelligence community. They think he should just purge them all.
Ironic that the editorial page of the WSJ would become the last stronghold of the political Leninism.
WSJ" "In fact, the main reason to be concerned about Iran is that we can't trust this distinction between civilian and military. That distinction is real in a country like Japan. But we know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003, and Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, with 3,000 centrifuges, in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. There is no civilian purpose for such enrichment. Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from Russia at the plant in Bushehr."
First of all, the distinction is not "real...like Japan." Japan chose a dual capability technology like nuclear fuel enrichment knowing that it faces a nuclear China. Japan has the money and knowhow to make nukes any time. Undoubtedly Iran did the same. But that doesn't mean they intend to make nukes NOW any more than Japan does.
Second, "no civilian purpose" is bullshit. Iran cannot trust Russia any more than it can the US or any other country that might provide nuclear fuel. Russia has already delayed the fuel due to US pressure (although that appears to be on track now) and Iran can never be sure what Russia might do years from now for whatever reason. The notion that any country capable of mastering the fuel cycle is going to trust some other country to supply it is ridiculous - especially if that nuclear capability was chosen for its ability to be converted at need.
Third, we do NOT "know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003." We know that Iran concealed is development precisely because the US and the West used pressure to prevent other nations from supplying it with necessary technology - exactly the reverse of point two above - forcing Iran to go to the black market to get what it needed. It can also be confidently said that Iran knew, based on that, what the reaction would be if the West knew Iran was proceeding with its nuclear energy program.
Fourth, the reiteration of the nonsense about "industrial scale enrichment" and "defiance of UN resolutions" is a typical red herring. Iran's enrichment level is far below that needed to produce nuclear weapons both in quality of enriched uranium and quantity of enriched uranium, not to mention that both are under IAEA supervision.
In addition, the UN resolutions passed so far are both technically illegal and irrational, since the only "material breach" of the NPT that Iran is accused of (introducing nuclear material into mechanisms without declaration) is both in the past and has been cleared up. The rest of the "breaches of confidence" are also in the past and either cleared up or ambiguous (like the "laptop") or have been performed by other countries accidentally or deliberately without being subjected to UN sanctions.
In short, there is nothing in the WSJ article that isn't on a par with the rest of the nonsense on this issue - in other words, deliberate falsehoods intended to produce a sense of "crisis" without any material basis.
At what point will the reality-based community just stop regurgitating the propaganda of the faith-based community?
Left-wing bloggers seem to be as clueless about what to do with their recent wins as their counterparts in Congress.
*sigh*
Peter Principle has it right re: WSJ. Dear Leader can never fail; he can only be failed by his subordinates.
In fact, more than a few Stalinist apologists used this argument to excuse both his failures and his excesses.
Let's see. The IAEA says that Iran's enrichment activity while violating UN Resolutions produces "well below the expected quality..." and quantity of fuel. (WaPo 8/30/07) The administration's 'stolen Iranian laptop' gave indications of warhead designing to fit their Shahab missle but "experts say that Iran is still far away from producing the...fuel". (NYT 11/13/05) Ali Rez Asgari, former Iranian Deputy Defense Minister, "is cooperating with Western intellegence." (WaPo 11/13/07) Probably because of the 'Brain Drain' program by which the CIA enticed about six Iranian "key officials" and "top scientists" to defect. (UPI 12/09/07)
So isn't it a blessing that the WSJ sees through this mass of worthless data and KNOWS THE TRUTH.
Where would we be without them?
Anybody assuming this NIE is some sort of "attack" on Bush and Cheney just doesn't understand the subtleties of the intelligence community.
I do think it's a sort of attack or warning. Details are less important than the main point: that Iran is not a 'threat' to anybody. They could've produced an NIE sounding exactly the opposite, giving the impression that Iran IS a 'threat'. The fact that a bunch of government agencies working together produced the former version is, I think, significant and encouraging.
Actually, let's keep in mind that the NIE DOES say that Iraq can produce a Bomb within the next 2 to 7 years, which is not exactly grounds for rolling over and going back to sleep. What it does say is simply that:
(1) They aren't capable of producing one now before 2010, which is not that far off but does mean that we need not panic and jump instantly into an ill-planned military attack;
2) They MAY be dissuadable without any military attack by the proper combination of carrots and sticks (although the possible threat of such an attack is still probably going to have to be one of the sticks).
In my previous post: for "Iraq", read "Iran". (Must have been a Freudian slip.)
The problem is both what the NIE DOES say - without evidence - and what it does NOT say.
What it does NOT say is that Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon WITHOUT officially dropping out of the NPT and expelling the IAEA inspectors.
Therefore ANY estimate of when Iran COULD produce a nuclear weapon IF it started NOW is irrelevant and misleading. Because it is not starting now and shows no signs of wanting to.
As for the notion that a threat has to be one of the "sticks", this is rejected by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann in their latest Salon piece here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/07/iran_policy/
What is required is a "grand bargain" and Leverett and Mann both agree with me that none of the Democratic candidates seem up to it, let alone the bozos on the Republican side.
It doesn't matter what the NIE does and doesn't say; I take it for granted that anything and everything it says is bullshit, 100% political and it can't be anything else. The only thing that matters is what headlines it produces. The way it's framed, it apparently caused NPod and his ilk a major hissy fit, and that can't be bad. And there must be a reason for that.
You just IGNORE this key point Matt? Gee I wonder why..... 8-)
"""But we know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003, and Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, with 3,000 centrifuges, in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. There is no civilian purpose for such enrichment. Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from Russia at the plant in Bushehr. The NIE buries the potential danger from this enrichment, even though this enrichment has been the main focus of U.S. diplomacy against Iran."""
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010965
An even more amazing quite from the same article: What's amazing in this case is how the White House has allowed intelligence analysts to drive policy.
Boiled down, this is saying that it's amazing that facts are allowed to drive policy. My mind is now boggled.
At last all the cards are on the table. Iran lied, the NIE's lie (frequently, like a rug), Iraq lied, Churchill, FDR, JFK, and LBJ frequently lied, the Russians always lie as a matter of policy, and everybody knows policy drives intelligence.
At least the WSJ has the ethics to label opinion as such, while continuing to do splendid reporting, often in the face of editorial disapproval. Sorting out facts gets harder the fewer one is allowed, whether on grounds of ideology, or more concrete conditions on the ground in places like Iran, Iraq, and Washington.
Everybody has a political bias, including professionals in the intel and journalism communities. We all aspire to objectivity, but rarely achieve it.
This is the way it works in the schoolyard, guys. The bullies dictate the reality, and anyone who doesn't fall into line gets shunned or beaten up.
The problem is that the Intelligence Community refused to be bullied anymore. And the editorial board of the WSR, cheerleaders to the bullies, laments that state of affairs. Sad, really.
Isn't it ironic that one of the financial publications of record in the US has an editorial board actually willing to put to print its disappointment that it is the president' fault the CIA is not as corrupt as he is. Imagine the outrage if it was so bold to say the same about any publicly traded company the rest of the paper covers.
And even IF the NIE is somehow corrupted, even IF the WSJ is right with its loony logic, can we also remember this?:
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them."Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/17/abizaid_world_could_abide_nuclear_iran/
It's not just the WSJ editors who had issues with the NIE -- so did the Europeans and the IAEA, for that matter. Here are the facts, which get lost in the pointless lefty snark here:
1) Enrichment is the most difficult and crucial of the steps needed to create a nuclear weapon. Iran continues to pursue enrichment.
2) Iran has no need to do so to support a peaceful nuclear power industry. It has already been offered enriched nuclear fuel by Russia and others.
3) If you don't want to see military force used to prevent Iran from getting nukes, the best option is to increase economic sanctions and continue diplomatic pressure.
4) The NIE will make it more difficult to increase sanctions because Russia looks like it will use the NIE as cover to oppose further UN sanctions.
5) Thus, the next president will be more likely to eventually have to resort to a military option against Iran.
I bet the Russians would happily provide all the enriched uranium for the US nuclear power stations as well. Refusal to accept this commonsense arrangement makes the US dangerous. The only question: economic sanctions or military strike? Discuss.
Fred and JC, being too lazy to read posts preceding theirs, ignored the fact that I ripped the WSJ a new one in my post higher up in the thread on all these so-called important points - none of which are true.
abb1 is correct. Let's bomb Japan while we're at it - they have the complete nuclear fuel cycle and clearly can't be expected to trust the United States and vice versa since we were at war with them at one point and clearly the Japanese are subject to extremist, imperialist and expansionist ideologies - not to mention weird, terrorist religions that make WMDs domestically.
Japannuclear.com specifically states:
"The benefits of a closed nuclear fuel cycle for Japan are clear: increased energy security along with reductions in nuclear wastes. There are many reasons for the rationale behind Japan's nuclear fuel cycle."
Yeah - the main one is called China. Exactly as the main one behind Iran's desired for a closed fuel cycle is called the US and Israel.
Comments closed December 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Hasn't everyone gotten with the program yet? Doesn't everyone know that the facts must fit the policy? Its like walrus man, John Bolton says: If people intel want to make policy, let them join State or Defense. Until then, just write judgements that support the policy.
Next up - we have to blow up the moon because Saddam hid the nukes there. Get working on the intel to support our policy! Chop chop!
Posted by calipygian | December 9, 2007 5:19 PM