John Bolton on the Iran NIE
December 6th, 2007 at 09:44pm Matt Margolis
This is absolutely worth reading.
Rarely has a document from the supposedly hidden world of intelligence had such an impact as the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. Rarely has an administration been so unprepared for such an event. And rarely have vehement critics of the “intelligence community” on issues such as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.
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.
He goes on to explain five key flaws in the report, which you should read carefully.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs
61 Comments
1. Casper | December 6th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Ok, so I”m picking between the opinion of John Bolton, a diplomat, and the opinions of the heads of all of the intelligence agencies and their staffs (including several Bush appointees).
I think I’ll go with the NIE.
2. sleepygene | December 6th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Casper, a diplomat who thinks the best diplomacy is done with the barrrel of gun or strategically placed warhead. I would tend to agree with the 16 agencies as well.
3. sleepygene | December 6th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Also, isn’t Bolton calling these intelligence professionals traitors by questioning their integrity in producing this report? Let us have the senate led by Liebrman have a resolution condeming such behavior of John “The Walrus” Bolton.
4. Ricorun | December 6th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Isn’t it fair to ask if there has ever been an intelligence assessment that Bolton rejected even though it agreed with his ideological views? Likewise, isn’t it fair to ask if there has ever been an intelligence assessment that Bolton has accepted even though it disagreed with his ideological views? If the answer to both questions is no, well… maybe he is too driven by his own ideology.
5. KCJ | December 6th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Sounds like none of you bothered to read the article.
And let’s not be too dense here, all sides accept or reject assessments based on ideology. So far, no one here has made any attempt to debate Bolton’s points… typical “attack the messenger” crap liberals have made a habit of.
6. liberalT | December 6th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
i read the article - not very impressive at all Matt. Basically comes down to - well they could be wrong - plus the usual bs about how the other side of the political spectrum (hawk or dove, liberal or conservative, etc) is only doing things for political purposes. Worse of all it offers no substantive analysis or actual information.
As for the attacking the messenger point - certainly liberals are not the only people to do this. How many vitriolic things about Al Gore have you read on this very blog.
But the simple fact of the matter is that John Bolton is notorious for spinning intelligence reports for his own agenda as well - yellow uranium cakes from Niger, the 2004 report on Iran, and indeed as ambassador of the UN
So all in all pretty week. No actual evidence - just vague accusations of supposed “political agendas” plus a solid record of spinning reports himself.
not interesting at all
7. js | December 7th, 2007 at 12:36 am
wasnt it Nostradamus who predicted a nuclear strike from a middle eastern/eastern power against rome and paris?
ahh, the smell of politics and trechery, laying the footpath of destruction!! you can see it in the air!!!
8. Ricorun | December 7th, 2007 at 12:41 am
KJC: Sounds like none of you bothered to read the article.
Assuming I’m counted in that number, here goes…
Bolton: And rarely have vehement critics of the “intelligence community” on issues such as Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction reversed themselves so quickly.
Iraq? Did he really mean to say that??
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…
Perhaps he’s assuming things he didn’t say, but nothing he DID say implies the conclusion he makes, much less compels it.
…and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it.
Even if it’s true, what difference does it make on a perfectly rational basis? It seems to me that only if you’re driven by ideology would you feel compelled to make such a statement.
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.
According to my count, he makes three assumptions in that one sentence — and he doesn’t provide any evidence for any of them.
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.
What a pregnant statement. Assuming he does not know what the classified analysis is, I would say his analysis of the unclassified report amounts to a late-term abortion.
In fact, there is little substantive difference between the conclusions of the 2005 NIE on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the 2007 NIE.
In some ways that’s true. In some ways it’s not. Either way, I can read. And Bolton isn’t telling me anything that I can’t read for myself.
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.”
Really? No kidding?
The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in the psychological assessment of the mullahs’ motives and objectives.
Go figure. More to the point, does he really think any of the arguments he makes are lost on those that actually make the decisions? I suspect not. I HOPE not. That would be stupid. Rather, I suspect they get to read the classified version. Moreover, I suspect they’ll get the classifiedopinions of the other international players. Therefore, I suspect that Bolton’s comments are intended to impact the psychological assessment of us common folks. And I suspect that he thinks we’re dolts.
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.
I find this a totally unacceptable account. In fact, for reasons I explained on this thread, I would call it a bold-faced lie.
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.
Nor do you. Why not?
The very public rollout in the NIE of a diplomatic strategy exposes the biases at work behind the Potemkin village of “intelligence.”
Or the biases behind some other Potemkin village. But again, Mr. Bolton makes no attempt to explain himself.
The sudden appearance of new sources should be taken with more than a little skepticism.
From what I’ve heard, it was taken with more than a little skepticism.
In a background briefing, intelligence officials said they had concluded it was “possible” but not “likely” that the new information they were relying on was deception. These are hardly hard scientific conclusions.
A background briefing to whom? If this is true it would change everything. In fact, it wouldn’t just change everything it would be downright AWFUL!! This is something I think we all need to know more about. Because if Bolton is right, we’ve been bamboozled, and there REALLY IS a wide conspiracy to discredit Bush. But if he’s wrong, Bolton needs to be called on it — and thrown onto the ash heap of history. I think this is a very critical point.
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.”
I guess the problem here is… these refugees were right, and Bolton wasn’t.
9. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 12:53 am
OK - so as I said. If it is over, then you’re welcome. A hat trick. Agreed?
10. Ricorun | December 7th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Kahn: OK - so as I said. If it is over, then you’re welcome. A hat trick. Agreed?
Who are you addressing?
11. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Rico - Anyone who claims that it’s over in Iran. Your posts are long, but well what is the point?
Did Bush successfully disarm 3 enemies or not?
If Iran did (as claimed) stop their WMD program AFTER we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (effectively surrounding them) and BEFORE any sanctions - doesn’t it seem likely that that was the reason? Even a little?
Is it the liberal contention that Bush is lying about this success because he just wants to go to war? It couldn’t be the continued uranium enrichment at all? That could not, absolutely not be what he’s concerned about?
You may note that I’m at odds with many conservative posters who think the whole report is a load of crap. I disagree -I think it’s OK as far as it goes. But even if 100% true there is still room for concern, just as the report itself says.
It calls for continued pressure and sanctions - something it has, itself probably rendered impossible.
But if liberals think it’s 100% over and done with, why isn’t THAT the focus of their posts? Why not a “job-well-done” nod to Bush for the hat trick? With this kind of success, you’d think his ongoing concern should be respected. But even if it’s not - isn’t getting rid of nukes in three countries that would be targeted at us good? Don’t forget that one of those countries is technically at war with us.
It’s hard to believ that liberals are at peace when they refuse to acknowledge the accomplishment of removing these THREE threats.
12. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 2:10 am
should have read:
It’s hard to believe that liberals are concerned about peace when they refuse to acknowledge the accomplishment of removing these THREE threats.
13. Eric T | December 7th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I have always been a John Bolton fan
14. plainjane | December 7th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Nothing here, Mr. Bolton had his five minutes of fame. Why would anyone believe him on Iran after all of his Iraq lies and half truths?
I was amused when I saw him on one of the Sunday morning talking head shows and he was questioned about the Neocon’s policies. He shot back that he was not a Neocon, like it was some kind of dirty word. He is the very definition of a Neocon.
15. Retired Spook | December 7th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Rico, I read your analysis 3 times, and I’m still not sure what you said, but I am curious why your detailed fisking of a very short article included just about everything except what, IMO, was the real money quote:
I agree with Kahn in the respect that, either you disagree with the NIE (which I do, based more on personal experience/background than anything else) or you have to admit that Bush just completed the TRIFECTA (or hat trick, whichever you prefer). My gut feeling, from having written Top Secret, Codeword intel reports, is that, if each of us were to be able to read the remaining 140 highly classified pages, we’d all reach a different conclusion (well, maybe not LiberalT).
In the interest of full disclosure, I put myself in the John Bolton fan club with Eric T, which puts me at odds with plainjane, Casper, Sleepygene, LiberalT, and most of the other clueless Leftists on this blog.
16. Casper | December 7th, 2007 at 9:28 am
KCJ,
“Sounds like none of you bothered to read the article.”
I don’t comment on articles I haven’t read.
“typical “attack the messenger” crap liberals have made a habit of.”
“Considering Bolton was attacking the writers of the NIE, that would be somewhat ironic don’t you think?
And let’s not be too dense here, all sides accept or reject assessments based on ideology.”
That I agree with.
17. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Thanks Retired.
18. SteaM | December 7th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071206.html
Dick Cheney on the NIE:
Q Sir, did you believe the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Did I believe it?
Q Yes, do you believe the new one that’s out — or is there a reason to question those conclusions?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t have any reason to question the — what the community has produced, with respect to the NIE on Iran. Now, there are things they don’t know. There are always — there’s always the possibility that the circumstances will change. But I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available to give us their best judgment on those issues.
19. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
SteaM - thank you for arguing that Bush and Cheney have in fact removed weapons from the hands of three of our enemies.
Pretty good, isn’t it?
Now - Korea still needs to finish dismantling and disclosing. And Iran still is a concern because of the uranium enrichment. But if as you argue, Iran has abandoned nukes thhen clearly this is good.
Do liberals hate so much that they can’t acknowledge this simple fact? YOU are arguing it’s true - so? Where are the thanks and congratulations?
20. searp | December 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Bush and Cheney have had some foreign policy success and an incredibly huge failure. I didn’t think this thread was dedicated to general assessments of administration foreign policy.
The post was about an op-ed by John Bolton on the recent NIE. That op-ed suggested the NIE may be incorrect, based on a host of unsupported suppositions about the abilities and biases of the people who wrote it. No value whatsoever, in my opinion - suppositions of this sort aren’t facts.
Moreover, there are good reasons to suppose he knows nothing at all about the specifics of this NIE - he is out of government and therefore has no clearance and no access. Nothing but suppositions woven from prejudice.
21. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
searp - “some foreign policy success”???
Getting three enemies to stop working on atomic bombs is “some” success?
The “thanks” is just sticking in your throat, isn’t it?
22. SteaM | December 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Kahn,
Ok, well then, let’s get the hell out of the middle east since we’ve got a green light on the mission accomplished…
or wait, why are we still there?
23. John Ryan | December 7th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
SOROS !!!
Soros has taken control of our whole country including all of the people who wrote this report
EVERYONE MUST FLEE !!!
24. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Steam - well? No thanks?
Iran is still enriching uranium and Iraq is almost stable.
But, I’m just reflecting YOUR arguments. I can’t believe that you people won’t thank Bush for this. It’s actually unprecedented. TWO nations acually joined the nuclear club while Clinton was in office. All three of the nations I talk about were working on atomic weapons under Clinton. Clinton actually gave aid to the North Koreans with their program!
And they stopped working on atomic bombs to kill us by combinations of intelligence, law enforcement, sanctions, and the threat of military force under Bush. THIS IS ACCORDING TO YOU!
So - I think a Peace prize might be warranted? This isn’t just a victory. It’s a major and unprecedented victory.
But your hatred is so thick and ingrained that you won’t admit it.
Hatred, it fills those awful knowledge gaps so nicely. But here, you HAVE the knowledge. I guess it’s hopeless.
25. Kahn | December 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for that nonsense post John Ryan.
26. Bloodthirsty Warmonger | December 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I read the article, and know that John Bolton served as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, so I’m willing to accept his conclusions as being credible and informed.
27. searp | December 8th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Iraq is almost stable? Have any of the whackos on this site actually been to Iraq this year?
Kahn: your ignorance is showing. Why don’t you comment on something you actually know?
28. drunk porn&hellip | December 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am
drunk porn
drunk women stripping drunk flash drunk orgies
29. teenage lesbian&hellip | December 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
teenage lesbian
incest daughter free bald vaginas relatos de incesto
30. gay boys in briefs&hellip | December 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
gay boys in briefs
fugitive slave act hairless twinks bondagescape
31. vasto landoo&hellip | December 29th, 2007 at 3:03 am
vasto landoo
vasto landoo MFMTQQ
32. ran sim&hellip | December 29th, 2007 at 4:03 am
ran sim
ran sim TEMHOJWJNS
33. tyla parkere&hellip | December 29th, 2007 at 5:44 am
tyla parkere
tyla parkere DRCLNTKM
34. buir de&hellip | January 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
buir de
buir de LXZ
35. qef tagratt&hellip | January 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
qef tagratt
qef tagratt EVKMNXD
36. kovani ganymede&hellip | January 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
kovani ganymede
kovani ganymede ZLIZTN
37. siot wile&hellip | January 14th, 2008 at 2:46 am
siot wile
siot wile PNMIEIZQZ
38. fias pamaf&hellip | January 14th, 2008 at 4:29 am
fias pamaf
fias pamaf OCSKLH
39. halos namevrain&hellip | January 14th, 2008 at 6:25 am
halos namevrain
halos namevrain LRZADH
40. wendin herron&hellip | January 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
wendin herron
wendin herron VMSTJ
41. nicabre lacer&hellip | January 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
nicabre lacer
nicabre lacer BNNBTUDRN
42. vasto wendin&hellip | January 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
vasto wendin
vasto wendin MCPUJDHZJ
43. evas sadow&hellip | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
evas sadow
evas sadow EGKGWRRBC
44. lasena van&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 12:39 am
lasena van
lasena van DHMMFCP
45. kinwan zae&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 1:49 am
kinwan zae
kinwan zae NCZR
46. pele straden&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 2:55 am
pele straden
pele straden HTMGDMNBVT
47. anna ken&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am
anna ken
anna ken MLSX
48. shandala joruic&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
shandala joruic
shandala joruic LXVYYBOLYA
49. gisellisandra namevrain&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
gisellisandra namevrain
gisellisandra namevrain SZBEGMXC
50. tel xen&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
tel xen
tel xen BAZSVQPCT
51. lokar retzloff&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
lokar retzloff
lokar retzloff QKBLHRWXTV
52. genovin dexen&hellip | January 30th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
genovin dexen
genovin dexen OMUS
53. poker tables&hellip | February 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
poker tables
poker tables lexapro online life insurance free online auto insurance quotes of your medication focus or tingling of sensitive will probably be of certain medications to build tricyclic antidepressants disorders such TO One such pharmacy pregnancy cate…
54. montileu renn&hellip | February 14th, 2008 at 3:01 am
montileu renn
montileu renn YAV
55. basai revia&hellip | February 14th, 2008 at 3:23 am
basai revia
basai revia NDB
56. ulon strilath&hellip | February 14th, 2008 at 4:06 am
ulon strilath
ulon strilath AMERVF
57. jaren eline&hellip | February 14th, 2008 at 6:18 am
jaren eline
jaren eline DJNZER
58. kodo malogaan&hellip | February 14th, 2008 at 7:41 am
kodo malogaan
kodo malogaan MYSYEOKNTZ
59. Danish Artist | May 13th, 2008 at 6:23 am
drunk porn….teenage lesbian…..gay boys in briefs……toilet humiliation…..incesttaboo….milfrider….
Hmmm, I see more contributions from the daily pitchfork have occurred.
Libs will never acknowledge any success in Iraq nor Afghanistan for that matter. They continuously use the same talking points that have been debunked. They are still obsessed with the “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner.
Their role is attack, attack, attack. Now if they focused their attacks on the terrorists, this all would have been over by now. Many terrorists have just quit and have seen their efforts as futile. But there are those that watch MSNBC and CNN and have seen the libs in their attacks have seen the biased polls and those actions have given them encouragement. Like it or not is is true.
Disarming three potential nuclear powers is seen a a “little success” or no acknowledgment. I remember a White House in the 90s that touted success as simply holding a press conference about the issue.
Amazing what levels libs will stoop to WHILE CONTRIBUTING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE PROPAGANDA AND BEING A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE TERRORISTS!!!
60. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 13th, 2008 at 6:39 am
I run a professional journalistic/opinion site my friend and I have no time for porn spamming. I would not dream of doing such a thing to Mark Noonan or anyone else on the Internet because that sort of violation is akin to hitting someone in a home that is not yours. I understand that you are vehement in your political ideology Danish Artist but that does not give you the right to accuse me or any of my staff of such a crime. Yes we do show adult images, video and art on our site but as diverstissments from the dour nature of Terra’s news not as the meat and potatoes of what we intend to be informative and though provoking wengagement on politics, science, metaphysics, the Arts, sex and sexuality, sport, business and the environment.
None of the links to that spam has anything to do with us or has ever linked to The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork. I will take your libelous comments up with the site owner today.
That said as a journalist it is a bit humorous that when the CIA and other agencies were in lock step in providing intelligence that correlated with the Bush White House plans to go to war in Iraq they could not be questioned by anyone that didn’t want to be labelled a traitor and now that the CIA has taken off the blinders and seeks to gain its credibility back they cannot be trusted and a loyal neocon must come forward to herd the sheep back into their corrals. Awful! John Bolton, horrid!
61. Danish Artist | May 13th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“I run a professional journalistic/opinion site my friend and I have no time for porn spamming.”
Well, I guess you do not read the postings of your “staff” on this blog. While in most cases it is not porn, your so-called “staff” does insult and dengirate other posters on this blog with huge assumptions of trailer park trash, bible thumping zealots, Nascar morons, inbreeding, Wal-mart greeters, etc etc etc.
One man’s “art” is another man’s porn. Some of your “staff” impose their sexual and “religious” (where is hell again?) morality on this blog as normal and I don’t appreciate anything forcibly pushed on me. While I enjoy art myself, I have been to your site and “professional” is not a word that comes to mind in describing it.
Wow, what a real professional “staff” you have there Cav, so don’t give me this “holier than thou” bullshit.
Funny you mention the CIA and you are confused. While libs have always distrusted the organization, they did believe what was said by them before the war since they disagreed with Bush (remember the claim Bush had to cook the intelligence). Now that they disgree with Bush (as you claim trying to restore credibility), they are spot on. Interesting how libs change their opinions - if FOX attacked Bush, they would be behind them 100%.
Talk about cherry-picking, sheesh. Today’s journalists are nothing more than mouth pieces and talking heads for the opposition. There hasn’t been a true unbiased journalist in the MSM since the 40s. Proudly stand among them Cav, you and your “staff” fits in with those useful idiots anyday.