SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CIA Screws Bush Again

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CIA needs to be dismantled along with most of our other intelligence services. Something I have been saying for years.

The pentagon as well. Relic of the cold war. Turn it into a museum.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shawa
CNO


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A "Potemkin village" indeed!!
John Bolton has a great article today. He experienced first-hand the treachery of the VIP's and the damage they are doing to our country.

Quote:
(Excerpt)
All this shows that we not only have a problem interpreting what the mullahs in Tehran are up to, but also a more fundamental problem: Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than "intelligence" analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it. President Bush may not be able to repair his Iran policy (which was not rigorous enough to begin with) in his last year, but he would leave a lasting legacy by returning the intelligence world to its proper function.

Consider these flaws in the NIE's "key judgments," which were made public even though approximately 140 pages of analysis, and reams of underlying intelligence, remain classified.

First, the headline finding -- that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- is written in a way that guarantees the totality of the conclusions will be misread. In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran's nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE. Moreover, the distinction between "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Indeed, it has always been Iran's "civilian" program that posed the main risk of a nuclear "breakout."

The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives. The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause.

Second, the NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, not exactly a diplomatic pas de deux. As undersecretary of state for arms control in 2003, I know we were nowhere near exerting any significant diplomatic pressure on Iran. Nowhere does the NIE explain its logic on this critical point. Moreover, the risks and returns of pursuing a diplomatic strategy are policy calculations, not intelligence judgments. The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of "intelligence."

~SNIP~

Fifth, many involved in drafting and approving the NIE were not intelligence professionals but refugees from the State Department, brought into the new central bureaucracy of the director of national intelligence. These officials had relatively benign views of Iran's nuclear intentions five and six years ago; now they are writing those views as if they were received wisdom from on high. In fact, these are precisely the policy biases they had before, recycled as "intelligence judgments."

Cont'd Washington Post

_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if this is the "out" Bush wanted in order to ignore Iran in his final year and leave it to others to solve. I hope this is not the case.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shawa
CNO


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr. Fingar, one of the 3 authors of this new NIE has done an about face in just a matter of months. He now contradicts his testimony before Congress in July. Given his anti-Bush political bent, I tend to believe his congessional testimony (since he could be charged with lying to the Committee) over what he now writes in the new NIE.
Quote:
NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

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."

The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, [b]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 Fingar’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. (Don’t hold your breath.)


http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shawa
CNO


Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenrXr said:
Quote:
What if this is the "out" Bush wanted in order to ignore Iran in his final year and leave it to others to solve. I hope this is not the case.

I don't think that President Bush is looking for an "out' on Iran.
Michelle Malkin blogged his press conference:
Quote:
10:05am Eastern. First question on NIE. Are you convinced that Iran is still trying to build a nuclear bomb?

GWB: Here’s what we know. We know that they are still trying to learn how to enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is an important step…we know they had a program, we know they halted it…I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program…and they could restart it…rally the international community to keep up pressure…the NIE said that pressure was effective…

Second question: “Are you concerned that the US has lost credibility in the world?” Sounds like a former CAIR intern/YouTuber.

10:10am Eastern. David Gregory accuses Bush of knowing about the NIE months ago. DG: “Can’t you be accused of hyping this threat?”

GWB: “I hate to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of this NIE last week…Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

10:15am Eastern. “The NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn’t changed.” Material, knowledge, know-how, delivery system. “This is a nation that is testing ballistic missiles. It is a nation that is trying to enrich uranium. The NIE says this is a country that had a covert nuke weapons program that they have failed to disclose. Never admitted it existed in the first place.”

IMO Bush continues to see Iran as a REAL threat and will not ignore the that threat. I think he will put much more reliance on Israeli intelligence than what the boobs and traitors in our own IC tell him.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This gets the blood boiling.


Quote:
The sabotage was so intense, for example, that CIA officers actually stood by and watched as a key moderate Iraqi cleric was hacked to death in front of their eyes on the steps of a Shiite shrine in Najaf by the pro-Iranian radical, Muqtada al-Sadr, in April 2003. The death of Majid al-Khoie, who was brought back to Iraq by the Bush administration just after the overthrow of Saddam, was a tremendous setback to our efforts to help the Iraqi Shiite community to distance itself from Iran and organize itself around moderate, pro-Western leaders.


Quote:
Porter Goss was the president’s pick to replace George Tenet, who most famously predicted that building a case against Saddam’s WMD programs was a “slam dunk” and failed to inform the FBI of information the CIA had gathered about the future 9/11 hijackers that could have allowed them to foil the terrorist attacks.

As he was leaving CIA, Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin, stacked the decks against Goss, naming Steve Kappes to head the Operations Directorate, making him America’s top spy. Normally, an outgoing director would leave that type of major personnel decision to his successor. This was a key move, because Kappes had been under investigation by Goss’s staff at the House intelligence committee for serious security breaches while at a previous job.

Once Goss came in, as I reveal in Shadow Warriors, Kappes and an Old Boys’ network at CIA fought tooth and nail against Goss, even providing him with false intelligence to take to the White House that subsequently had to be called back. (That particular black op was symptomatic of the type of thing Kappes and his rogue weasels did to undermine Goss, hoping to discredit him with the president and force his removal).

Ultimately, Goss called Kappes’ bluff, and Kappes resigned in November 2004 –but never gave up. In the end, Kappes won, and his allies, who included Judge Lawrence Silberman and the incoming director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, urged the president to get rid of Goss and bring Kappes back.

It was a tremendous victory for the shadow warriors, and a story that has never been told until now.

While the CIA will deny this, Kappes has always been big on “liason” rather than developing unilateral American sources. This willingness to rely on agents controlled by foreign intelligence services can get you in a lot of trouble, especially when “friends” do not always behave as “allies.”

_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Deuce
Senior Chief Petty Officer


Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 589
Location: FL

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...an august reporter such as yourself...

Very Reaganesque! Gotta love our CIC!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group