| Michael Goldfarb and Thomas Joscelyn point out a major problem with the NIE estimate on Iran, to wit -- |
Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIEÂ’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee:
Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United StatesÂ’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of IranÂ’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 FingarÂ’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."
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of FingarÂ’s colleagues yesterday.)
So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:
Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?
Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (DonÂ’t hold your breath.)
| Assume for a moment that the current NIE is an honest effort by honest people. Okay, I said assume, so assume already. If Iran decided to stop nuclear weapons development in 2003, that means they looked at Saddam's removal and got very worried. They figured out that the Dhimmicrats, Germany, France, Russia and China combined couldn't restrain George Bush, and decided that perhaps weapons development was pushing things a little too far. So put the program on ice til, say, 2009, all the while waving a big stick and acting like big heat knowing that they can still buffalo and cow the Euros (that's certainly been the case). Now, assume for the moment that Fingar and his fellow-travellers are the worst sort of scum who are using their positions to sabotage a President whom they openly admit they hate. If the current NIE has been tailored as an attack weapon against Dubya, the real meaning is that CIA is no longer an honest broker (to the extent that it has been one the last thirty years) of intelligence. Is that really something the Dhimmicrats want tied to them if Hildebeast or Obama win in 2008? No amount of lipstick -- claiming that they've now 'reformed' the intelligence community -- will dress up the pig that will be intelligence estimates if they're seen as just one more tool to be used as an axe against one's domestic political enemies. So the Dhimmicrats have, without realizing it, painted themselves into a corner. Either the current NIE is honest, which means Iran can be moved not by negotiation but by strategic power applied in a blunt way, or the current NIE is dishonest, which means that future NIEs, and future intelligence in general, is pretty much useless for planning our foreign affairs. Not a position I'd want to be in if I were a Dhimmicratic candidate for president. |