'High Confidence' NIE

There’s only one problem with the new State Department-generated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The people who wrote it don’t have enough confidence in it to claim that the 2005 NIE -- which this one diametrically opposes -- was wrong.

According to a House source who sat with the three primary authors in a two-hour briefing Wednesday, the three -- Thomas Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill -- refused to say the 2005 estimate was wrong though adamantly defending their “high confidence” conclusion that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003.

Thanks for posting this. Jed Babbin is a voice of reality.

“This NIE — primarily written by the State Department intelligence branch — is no better than the one it supposedly discredits, because it is the product of the same intelligence community that was as surprised that the Berlin Wall was torn down in 1989 as it was when it was built in 1961. The State Department part of that community has just as good a track record as the CIA. In February 2001 — seven months before 9-11 — the State Deparment’s intel chief, Thomas Fingar, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a hearing on current and projected national security threats to U.S.) that, “Happily, the severity of specific threats to our nation, our values, our system of government, and our way of life are low and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.” “

^^^^

I consider this attempt to undercut the authority of the Commander-in-Chief to be just another example of sedition against the lawful authority in our country by people with a vested interest in seeing the USA brought to its knees.

Every article commenting on this NIE should have to declaim “NIE requested by Harry Reid and primarily utilizing the Intelligence of the State Dept.”

Sidebar question: Are we acknowledging that the State Dept has a spy division?

It is not a spy divison per se.

The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), “drawing on all-source intelligence, provides value-added independent analysis of events to Department policymakers, ensures that intelligence activities support foreign policy and national security purposes; and serves as the focal point in the Department for ensuring policy review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities. INR’s primary mission is to harness intelligence to serve U.S. diplomacy. The bureau also analyzes geographical and international boundary issues. INR is a member of the U.S. intelligence community.”

Regarding just two points the NIE report makes; The NIE report, unfortunately, is saying IF THEY (NIE) ARE WRONG, there is a higher probabability Iran already has a nuclear bomb than the probability they stopped their developing of them....read them closely and shudder at how inept these state department people are:

• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

This NIE certainly has all the hallmarks of leftist propaganda, not intelligent analysis of intel. The “3 Stooges” who are credited (sic) with being the main force behind its preparation are Thomas Fingar, Vann Van Diepen and Kenneth Brill. The guys are referenced elsewhere as “hyper-partisan anti-Bush” officials who are part of the liberal mafia that has so poisoned our State Dept. and CIA.

They do not seem to care to account for all the contradictions with previous intel products, not even when (in the case of Fingar) they gave a contradictory assessment to Congress just 5 months ago. They do not seem to grasp how shaky their “evidence” is or how untrustworthy anything that they “believe” they know about Iran might be.

What we DO know about Iran is that they have lied numerous times about surreptitious nuclear programs in violation of their NPT obligations, over 18+ years, that their uranium enrichment program has NO PLAUSIBLE CIVILIAN PURPOSE, that they have obtained much technical info including warhead designs from the A.Q. Khan network, that they have tested and built IRBMs with a range estimated at 800+ miles and have more in the works with ranges of well over 1000 miles, and that their President has made numerous public remarks indicating an obsession with becoming the dominant regional power and having nuclear weapons to do so.

Now in the face of all that and much more, how would any rational person accept than any particular military nuclear program that might have stopped in 2003 (if this is not pure disinformation) is the be-all and end-all of Iran’s abandoning their nuclear weapons ambitions?? It all defies logic and common sense, not to mention a more developed smell test for Islamo-fascist disinformation.

IF they have paused anything since 2003 it’s because (1) they don’t need it because of new or more secretive directions; (2) they are waiting for the uranium program to reach a certain level of achievement; (3) they can rely upon enough outside assistance from North Korea, etc. to be able to make the warheads when needed; and/or (4) they already achieved enough in their warhead preparations that they know they can re-launch warhead production on relatively short notice, when needed.

I agree with every one of your points, except I have low to moderate confidence that it might be Iranian disinformation. (I don’t have much confidence that our intelligence-gathering agencies have any information out of Iran.)

I believe that it is seditious State Dept disinformation, meant to throw a snare over President Bush to totally incapacitate him regarding Iran.

This just reminds me too much of similar things I have seen congressmen say to their constituents, when said constituents complain that the “progressive” congressmen are not stopping Bush/Cheney quickly or thoroughly enough. David Obey is one example. They have been scheming all year to pass legislation that would cripple the Administration.

This NIE is just a lateral approach to the same end.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.