Yes, Even More NIE Discredit

Posted by johnhouk on Dec 09, 2007
 It is like God Almighty is leading me to voices in Internet pundit land that tell things about the latest National Intelligence Estimate relating to Iran. The more I read these pundits the more I am convinced that the NIE has become rogue following its own perceptions of Foreign Policy instead of its boss the President of the United States.

Melanie Phillips has some information about the three main authors of NIE. She describes them as “hyper-partisan anti-Bush Officials.”

I presume “hyper” and “anti” mean no matter what actual Intelligence turns up, it will be written in such a way to discredit President Bush’s agenda to promulgate American National Interests merely because the Bush Administration currently has it stamp in managing foreign policy.

JRH 12/8/07
*********************************
The war within the west

Melanie Phillips
Friday, 7th December 2007
SPECTATOR

A propos my post below about the three State Department officials who were behind the NIE, this is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about them:

    The NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as ‘hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials,’ according to an intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).


This is what the New York Sun said about one member of this unlovely trio:

    Vann Van Diepen, one of the estimate's main authors, has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium. Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington.


Now the Worldwide Standard reports that the volte-face performed by a second member was even more abrupt than it appears from their report:

    Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

    Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

    This paragraph appeared under the subheading: ‘Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons.’ And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled ‘Information as of July 11, 2007.’ No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 ‘primarily in response to international pressure’ and they ‘do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.’


So what happened in the last four months to make Fingar so dramatically change his mind?

The NIE is not about intelligence or Iran. It is about the treacherous war that has been waged by the State Department and intelligence world against President Bush ever since 9/11. As the New York Sun went on to observe:

    The proper way to read this report is through the lens of the long struggle the professional intelligence community has been waging against the elected civilian administration in Washington. They have opposed President Bush on nearly every major policy decision. They were against the Iraqi National Congress. They were against elections in Iraq. They were against I. Lewis Libby. They are against a tough line on Iran. One could call all this revenge of the bureaucrats… The bureaucrats may even think they are stopping another war.

    It's a dangerous game that may boomerang, making a war with Iran more likely. Our diplomats, after all, hoped to seal this month a deal to pass a third Security Council resolution against Iran. Already on Monday the Chinese delegation at Turtle Bay has started making noises about dropping their tepid support for such a document. Call it the Van Diepen Demarche, since the Chinese camarilla can boast that even America's intelligence estimate concludes the mullahs shuttered their nuclear weapons program more than four years ago.


As a result of the NIE, the world is now an even more dangerous place. What perfidy. Ahmadinejad has every reason to gloat. Unless the US pulls itself together, this is the way the west loses.
_________________
 All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved

Leave a COMMENT.

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]