A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
Unintelligence on Iran and Iraq.
Published on December 5, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In Current Events
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said a couple of weeks ago at a press conference with Putin, "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you (Russia) ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.

(avoid WWIII, NAAAAH. Bring it on BABY! We've already got 2 countries going at it...)

"...facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." President Bush, October 7, 2002.

(Shitake mushrooms? mmmmmm.....)

Both quotes give the impression that Iraq and Iran, respectively, are on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons -- or, at the very least, that these countries could have the bomb soon and we wouldn't know it until a mushroom cloud blossomed above our heads. THE SKY IS FALLING.

The problem: both quotes also came after National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the collective judgement of all US intelligence agencies, issued reports to the contrary. In the case of Iraq in 2002, the (top secret) NIE report, published days before the quote above, suggested Iraq "with moderate confidence does not have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one, but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 - 2009". Digging a little further, no one agency could point to evidence that warrants the assertion that Iraq could have developed a nuclear weapon at all. Except, perhaps, the now debuked aluminum tubes. Later, Slam-dunk Tenet suggested that language was inserted in the NIE as a result of political pressure.

So here we go again, this time with Iran. The Bush scare tactic du jour: World War III. The NIE problem: Iran halted it's nuclear program four years ago.

What's scarier, a mushroom cloud or World War III? Hmmmm. The mushroom cloud helped make the case for the invasion of Iraq, despite the statement's clear conflicts with reality. Was Bush trying to do the same with the Iran statement? Most people think the idea of invading Iran is ludicrous given we are already in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bombing, perhaps, possible. Still, behind the scenes info suggests again and again an invasion is viewed as a viable option by the Bush Administration. Typically, I'd discount such "unsubstantiated rumors". But, with this Administration, that might be a costly mistake.

Whether Bush has taken an invasion of Iran off the table is not material. What is scary is this administration has chosen, at least twice now, to twist benign intelligence, data that is GOOD NEWS for the world, into scary news. Mushroom Cloud, WWIII is coming tomorrow news. Why twist the data? To fit Bush's own preconceived notion and agenda. That's exactly why scientists use double blind technique when gathering facts and data. Bush utilizes a different double blind: See no evil, hear no evil, shout "MUSHROOM CLOUD" as loud as you can. Once everyone is scared crapless say, "well, not really, isn't that good news?" (Insert V for victory fingers here)



Do we ever learn?"

Comments
on Dec 05, 2007

People yell that we never connect the dots.  But when given a pencil, paper, and the dots, refuse to connect the dots themselves.

Iran did not STOP their nuclear weapons program in 03.  They suspended it.  It might be wise to note the year and what happened that year. The whole todo is about an effective policy.  One that the Iranians hope to (and probably will) outlast and then crank it up again.

So instead of saying "see?  Another red herring", it can just as easily be said "See?  The Big stick worked".

on Dec 05, 2007
So instead of saying "see? Another red herring", it can just as easily be said "See? The Big stick worked".


Ok. Assuming that the Iraqi invasion was the action that prompted both:

A- Iran to try to have warmer relations with Washingtown
B- Iran suspending its nuclear program

The Hawkish attitude of the White House blew A to smitterens.

In the meantime, if Iran definetly suspended its nuclear program (as reported), then the President & Israel should stop trying to push for any military actions, until we gain proof (this time, real proof) that they are developping a nuclear weapon.

Bush and Israel's attitudes toward the recent NIE report is worrying me a lot. If they won't lisen to their top intelligence reports, what do they listen to? On what do they base their decision? Are they acting with our interest in head, or their own political agenda?
on Dec 05, 2007
the President & Israel should stop trying to push for any military actions, until we gain proof (this time, real proof) that they are developping a nuclear weapon.


Um, not sure about Israel (as they are more secretive than the Lotto Drawing), but Bush is not pushing for any military action. Other than some puffed up pundits, no one has even talked about it.

And as for A, that was never Iran's intentions. Then or now. Just a delaying tactic with no meat behind the words. So there is nothing blown there - unless you really think Amadenijad is not full of the old BS (which some do).
on Dec 05, 2007
Iran did not STOP their nuclear weapons program in 03. They suspended it.


The problem is, Dr. Guy, that we've been being told Iran is CURRENTLY working on nukes. We were told wrong. It's just not as effective for Bush to say "WE MUST ACT NOW AGAINST IRAQ BECAUSE THEY'VE SUSPENDED THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM BUT COULD RESTART IT".

Bush and Israel's attitudes toward the recent NIE report is worrying me a lot. If they won't lisen to their top intelligence reports, what do they listen to? On what do they base their decision? Are they acting with our interest in head, or their own political agenda?


THAT is to me the problem. Once again, facts aren't facts. Now, I know you'll say the NIE isn't a factual document: it's based on our best guess. But it is known to be a CONSERVATIVE assessment. It's meant to put forth what the different intelligence agencies agree on. Anything in dispute (such as yellow cake in 2002) is left out of the report. Maybe I'm a pacifist without realizing it. But if a program has been suspended, and has been supsended for years, then what have we been blustering about? The possibility it restarts? But that's not what Bush has been saying. He's been saying, it is a current and growing threat. It's not, according to this NIE.
on Dec 05, 2007

The problem is, Dr. Guy, that we've been being told Iran is CURRENTLY working on nukes

They may be.  All we know is that they suspended it in 03. The report does not address when, how or if they have resumed it.  WHile I know we can argue this (since neither of us is privy to the actual facts - if anyone outside of Iran even is), the truth is they have been working on it, and right now, the only thing that appears to have made them pause is a big stick.  Are we to now lay down that stick and tell them here is a flower?

on Dec 05, 2007
Yes.
Maybe a dozen roses will do it. That prez of Iran looks like he could use a nice flower or two to brighten his day. What a sour puss.

"They may be. All we know is that they suspended it in 03. The report does not address when, how or if they have resumed it."

You are parcing words. If Iran had resumed their nuclear program, that would have been spelled out in the report.

Here is what this NIE leaves the President for his next fireside chat:

"My fellow Americans. We must act against Iran now to curb their Nuclear program that they have already suspended for the past 3 1/2 years. Don't let the final proof of their nuclear program be a mushroom cloud over our heads when there are already so many other clouds over my judgement. God bless and good night."

Clearly a big stick is needed in dealing with sniveling little leaders like Iran and North Korea. Fear certainly curtailed Seria's activities. But that doesn't mean the President needs to fear monger. Spell out LEGITIMATE reasons why we should stand up to these maniacs, not reasons that just make good sound bites.
on Dec 05, 2007

You are parcing words. If Iran had resumed their nuclear program, that would have been spelled out in the report.

Am I?  It took them this long to finally divulge they had suspended it.  In a year, they may divulge they have started it again.  I am not parsing words, but have a different take on it with the meager information provided.  I do not deny that your scenario is plausible, nor is mine.  That is why we really cant debate it as we do not have the facts to. But given the particulars in this matter, I prefer to believe the Iranians and Amadenijad are playing the world for fools - at least the gullible ones.

As for fear mongering, that again is in the eye of the beholder.  9-11 made people yell that there was not enough warning.  Yet when warned and nothing happens, then it is fear mongering.

Every time a warning goes unfulfilled, it will be called fear mongering.  And every time a warning is missed and disaster strikes, the opposite.  No administration can be right 100% of the time, and the only difference between this one, and the next one with a democrat is who is going to be yelling fear mongering and who is going to be yelling about lack of warning.

on Dec 05, 2007
Am I? It took them this long to finally divulge they had suspended it.


My guess is they had political pressure not to spill the beans

In a year, they may divulge they have started it again


Again, political pressure from WH will probably "encourage them" to reveal the facts quicker.

9-11 made people yell that there was not enough warning. Yet when warned and nothing happens, then it is fear mongering.


9-11 was not a product of a national policy by a foreign country, but the action of a terrorist organisation, which is something totally different from the actual situation.
on Dec 05, 2007
My guess is they had political pressure not to spill the beans


Yes, you can look at it all in that light, and given the paucity of facts, there is no way to say you are wrong. nor to say you are right. Yours is a very cynical outlook - and one that I normally share when it comes to politics. However, Iran has shown that there is just not enough idiocy in this life to compete with theirs.

9-11 was not a product of a national policy by a foreign country, but the action of a terrorist organisation, which is something totally different from the actual situation.


The example was not about national or non-national policy - but fearmongering. And in that context, the comparison is valid.

on Dec 05, 2007
Sigh. This administration ramps up the fear rhetoric to a whole new level. COLOR CODE ORANGE! RED ALERT. MR. SULU, HOW LONG BEFORE THE KLINGONS ATTACK? I stick with my original thoughts on this. As someone who experiences Capitol Hill security on a near daily basis, I have a distaste in my mouth. I see fat-assed Capitol Hill cops with machine guns, looking as though they are about to shoot off their foot at any moment. The last time the Capitol was evacuated, I asked a police officer what was happening.

"Run." He said, "Run for your life." It was hot out. I didn't run. Should I have? Nope. Next time, will I? Probably not. Am I brave? Nope. Stupid? Nope. Just tired of living in fear.

Fear is a funny thing. If your afraid long enough, you aren't afraid any more. By saying a crisis is eminent, when the evidence suggests otherwise, we create a climate of --
fear. Then, when there is something to ACTUALLY be afraid of we are caught with our AK 47 pointing at the wrong enemy.

I was at the Blair House covering a holiday party last year. The former head of homeland security , Tom Ridge, spent most of his time complaining he had to take his shoes off to get through airport security. Are we really any safer by taking our shoes off? Or does it just create a climate of fear? Has a plane ever been brought down or seized by a shoe bomb? Or was it just one crazy punk who now has us pratically stripping in front of government employees before we travel. (this from a republican party who believes government should stay out of our private lives.) All in the name of safety. All to rest our fears.

The next attack won't come with shoe bombs or box cutters or 3 oz cans of eye solution. The next attack will hit with another sick method we've not considered. And all the fear mongering in the world can't prepare us for that. Maybe I just travel too much, but let me tell you: I feel no safer now than I did before 9/11. And I doubt we are any more prepared. I digress, I know. But it's a pet peeve of mine.
M


on Dec 05, 2007
My guess is they had political pressure not to spill the beans


This, according to Slam Dunk Tenet, was the case for Iraq. I have enjoyed the white house spin on this today.
on Dec 24, 2007
Merry Christms, Joe-Pro!  Glad you joined us here this year.