"A Pack of Lies..." Gitaldi

 "...the ongoing National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which has been languishing for more than two years, caught between the Bush and Obama Administrations’ desire to have a "strong" document justifying the use of force and the insistence of intelligence analysts that the information pass the smell test and not lead to something similar to the 2002 NIE on Iraq, which was a pack of lies."  Giraldi

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Clapper said one of several true things in his testimony on Tuesday.  He said that the Iraq NIE of 2002 was a disgrace.  That was certainly true.  He also said that the outcome in that document was not "politicized."  Hah!  Anyone who wants to know more about that process should see my article "Drinking the Koolaid" in MEP, Summer, 2004.  pl 

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/07/21/the-national-security-product/

Comments

[clifford kiracofe]

1. I remember Senator Feinstein in Fall 2002 clearly stating her suspicion that the so-called "intelligence" was cooked. She was not the only one.

Meanwhile, so-called Republicans tried to block a Senate inquiry into the cuisine. From 2006:

" The Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry into whether the U.S. intelligence community "cooked" pre-war Iraq intelligence now appears likely to be concluded soon, and a spokesman for the Committee's chairman says he's ready to get onto more "pressing matters" like Iran."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/
Prewar_intelligence_probe_grinds_to_end_0411.html

2. And how do we explain this:

"Eliza Manningham-Buller, director-general of MI5 from October 2002 until April 2007, certainly had her moment this week. Testifying at the Chilcot inquiry, she offered blunt and withering criticism of the Blair government's decision to go to war in Iraq. During the run-up to the invasion, it turns out, this highly experienced expert on counter-terrorism held views not at all different to those held by the rank amateurs of the British public.

Manningham-Buller believed, for example, that another war against a Muslim country, and one not implicated in the September 2001 attacks on the US, would assist in radicalising young British Muslims, persuading them even to become involved in mounting terrorist attacks in their home country. Some had, after all, made the extraordinary decision to go off to fight in Afghanistan already." See the rest.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/22/manningham-buller-iraq-war-blair

The political class quite obviously, and demonstrably, has no need of authentic intelligence product if that product differs from the policy agenda the political class
has already decided upon.

Thus we have various sorts of cuisine...and will the Iran assessments be laced with pomegranite seeds and what not? Maybe a kosher treatment from Israel is good enough? Glatt kosher even washed down with Kool-Aid?

[William R. Cumming]

I think that motivations are often complex just as INTEL is often asked to resolve improperly that complexity. What is of interest to me is that POST-Korean war many President's have chosen armed force as a solution to their problems when only more problems resulted. As some wit once suggested it takes two sides to conduct a war. Why is the US INTEL community so willing to indulge its inept political leadership? Is the need to be needed and wanted so great in this population that they cannot let the chips fall as they may see them? What profiles do both the INTEL community and Political leadership have in common? Amazing how winning elections make some think that it was not a point in time decision by often badly informed voters not ratification of goodness or capability or even skill or competence. We (US) are not immune from human fraility including ego and hubris. I have been witness in my lifetime to elitism destroying many of the elite. For some reason I like Clapper but clearly he is a product of a long career in INTEL and wondering is that good or bad in this instance?

[clifford kiracofe]

"Use of force" and American Foreign policy?...well, now.

I teach a 200 level course in American Foreign Relations from time to time. One of the books I found useful for the second semester (about 1900 to present) is:

Frederick S. Calhoun, Uses of Force and Wilsonian Foreign Policy ((Kent, Ohio: Kent State U Press, 1993). This is a concise version of a longer important work.

Prof. Calhoun lays out the various uses of force by Wilson hither thither and yon. It is instructive to note cases where the military advised against using force but Wilson could have cared less...he was on a "crusade." On the other hand, there were cases of military and State Dept. crusaders joining in...

One might think the Neocons got their hands on a copy of this little paperback and found inspiration and useful methods. Neocons have always said they stand for "muscular Wilsonianism (Wilsonism)."

The very Fabian "Colonel" House [honorary colonel title by Gov. of Texas NOT AUS!] was pleased with his boytoy Wilson for a time. No doubt same for the Neocons and their ilk are pleased with their boytoys (and girltoys) in politics and the military.

The little book is popular with students, perhaps because it is short, but also because they can see parallels with the use force in Iraq and Afghanistan...

[PS]

Why wait for an NIE when you can just get Congress to give the green light to Israel: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-abdi/resolution-green-lighting_b_657608.html.

[Comment]

Pipes advice to Bibi on how to pressure America:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/25/pipes-to-get-obama-to-act-netanyahu-should-threaten-to-nuke-iran/