49 Comments

• 1. Retired Spook  |  December 26th, 2007 at 10:00 am

  Henry Kissinger wrote an interesting oped for the WAPO a couple weeks ago. I saved a copy, but I no longer have the link, and I don’t feel like reregistering with the WAPO under my new email address just to get a link to the article. I appologize in advance for cutting and pasting the whole thing, but it’s pretty short.

  December 13, 2007
  Pg. 35
  Misreading The Iran Report
  Why Spying and Policymaking Don’t Mix
  By Henry Kissinger

  The extraordinary spectacle of the president’s national security adviser obliged to defend the president’s Iran policy against a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) raises two core issues: How are we now to judge the nuclear threat posed by Iran? How are we to judge the intelligence community’s relationship with the White House and the rest of the government?

  The “Key Judgments” released by the intelligence community last week begin with a dramatic assertion: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” This sentence was widely interpreted as a challenge to the Bush administration policy of mobilizing international pressure against alleged Iranian nuclear programs. It was, in fact, qualified by a footnote whose complex phraseology obfuscated that the suspension really applied to only one aspect of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and not even the most significant one): the construction of warheads. That qualification was not restated in the rest of the document, which continued to refer to the “halt of the weapons program” repeatedly and without qualification.

  The reality is that the concern about Iranian nuclear weapons has had three components: the production of fissile material, the development of missiles and the building of warheads. Heretofore, production of fissile material has been treated as by far the greatest danger, and the pace of Iranian production of fissile material has accelerated since 2006. So has the development of missiles of increasing range. What appears to have been suspended is the engineering aimed at the production of warheads.

  The NIE holds that Iran may be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009 and, with increasing confidence, more warheads by the period 2010 to 2015. That is virtually the same timeline as was suggested in the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate. The new estimate does not assess how long it would take to build a warhead, though it treats the availability of fissile material as the principal limiting factor. If there is a significant gap between these two processes, it would be important to be told what it is. Nor are we told how close to developing a warhead Tehran was when it suspended its program or how confident the intelligence community is in its ability to learn when work on warheads has resumed. On the latter point, the new estimate expresses only “moderate” confidence that the suspension has not been lifted already.

  It is therefore doubtful that the evidence supports the dramatic language of the summary and, even less so, the broad conclusions drawn in much of the public commentary. For the past three years, the international debate has concentrated on the Iranian effort to enrich uranium by centrifuges, some 3,000 of which are now in operation. The administration has asserted that this represents a decisive step toward Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and has urged a policy of maximum pressure. Every permanent member of the U.N. Security Council has supported the request that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program; the various countries differ on the urgency with which their recommendations should be pressed and in their willingness to impose penalties.

  The NIE then highlights, without altering, the underlying issue: At what point would the nations that have described an Iranian military nuclear program as “unacceptable” agree to act on that conviction? Do they wait until Iran starts producing nuclear warheads? Does our intelligence assume that we will know this threshold? Is there then enough time for meaningful countermeasures? What happens to the growing stock of fissile material that, according to the estimate, will have been accumulated? Do we run the risk of finding ourselves with an adversary that, in the end, agrees to stop further production of fissile material but insists on retaining the existing stockpile as a potential threat?

  By stating a conclusion in such categorical terms — considered excessive even by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the Key Judgments blur the line between estimates and conjecture. For example, the document says: “We judge with high confidence that the halt . . . was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.” It extrapolates from that judgment that Iran “is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005″ and that it “may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.”

  It is to be hoped that the full estimate provides more comprehensive evidence for these conclusions. A more plausible alternative explanation would assign greater significance to the regional context and American actions. When Iran halted its weapons program and suspended efforts at enriching uranium in February 2003, America had already occupied Afghanistan and was on the verge of invading Iraq, both of which border Iran. The United States justified its Iraq policy by the need to remove weapons of mass destruction from the region. By the fall of 2003, when Iran voluntarily joined the Additional Protocol for Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Saddam Hussein had just been overthrown. Is it unreasonable to assume that the ayatollahs concluded that restraint had become imperative? By the fall of 2005, the American effort in Iraq showed signs of bogging down; the prospects for extending the enterprise into Iran were diminishing. Iranian leaders could have felt free to return to their policy of building up a military nuclear capability — perhaps reinforced by the desire to create a deterrent to American regional aspirations. They might also have concluded, because the secret effort had leaked, that it would be too dangerous to undertake another covert program. Hence the emphasis on renewing the enrichment program in the guise of a civilian energy program. In short, if my analysis is correct, we could be witnessing not a halt of the Iranian weapons program — as the NIE asserts — but a subtle, ultimately more dangerous, version of it that will phase in the warhead when fissile material production has matured.

  The NIE does not so much reject this theory; it does not even examine it. It concludes that “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon.” But a cost-benefit analysis does not exclude a rush to weapons on a systematic basis. It depends on the criteria by which costs and benefits are determined. Similarly, in pursuing the cost-benefit rationale, the estimate concludes that a combination of international scrutiny along with security guarantees might “prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.” That is a policy, not an intelligence, judgment.

  A coherent strategy toward Iran is not a partisan issue, for it will have to be implemented well after the present administration has left office. I have long argued that America owes it to itself to explore fully the possibility of normalizing relations with Iran. We do not need to tranquilize ourselves to the danger in order to pursue a more peaceful world. What is required is a specific vision linking assurances for Iran’s security and respect for its identity with an Iranian foreign policy compatible with the existing order in the Middle East. But it must also generate an analysis of the strategy to be pursued should Iran, in the end, choose ideology over reconciliation.

  The intelligence community has a major role in helping to design such a vision. But it must recognize that the more it ventures into policy conjecture, the less authoritative its judgments become. There was some merit in the way President Richard Nixon conducted National Security Council discussions at the beginning of his first term. He invited the CIA director to brief on the capabilities and intentions of the countries under discussion but required him to leave the room during policy deliberations. Because so many decisions require an intelligence input, this procedure proved unworkable.

  I have often defended the dedicated members of the intelligence community. This is why I am extremely concerned about the tendency of the intelligence community to turn itself into a kind of check on, instead of a part of, the executive branch. When intelligence personnel expect their work to become the subject of public debate, they are tempted into the roles of surrogate policymakers and advocates. Thus the deputy director for intelligence estimates explained the release of the NIE as follows: Publication was chosen because the estimate conflicted with public statements by top U.S. officials about Iran, and “we felt it was important to release this information to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.” That may explain releasing the facts but not the sources and methods that have been flooding the media. The paradoxical result of the trend toward public advocacy is to draw intelligence personnel more deeply than ever into the public maelstrom.

  The executive branch and the intelligence community have gone through a rough period. The White House has been accused of politicizing intelligence; the intelligence community has been charged with promoting institutional policy biases. The Key Judgments document accelerates that controversy, dismaying friends and confusing adversaries.

  Intelligence personnel need to return to their traditional anonymity. Policymakers and Congress should once again assume responsibility for their judgments without involving intelligence in their public justifications. To define the proper balance between the user and producer of intelligence is a task that cannot be accomplished at the end of an administration. It is, however, one of the most urgent challenges a newly elected president will face.

• 2. liberalT  |  December 26th, 2007 at 11:51 am

  hmm - the same agency that the right was praising as saving us from disaster when they gave you the answers that you wanted to hear huh..

  Sure - the CIA like every government agency could use an overhaul. However, I also know that once the new intelligence agency isn’t reporting what you want to hear you will want to abolish it as well. Its not the CIA’s fault the world isn’t how you want it to be. You would just be shooting the messenger…

• 3. Web Smith  |  December 26th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

  This sounds like a rumor that the administration would start in order to control the intelligence coming out of the CIA. When your existaence is threatened, you are inlined to interpret the data a little differently.

  Do you really think that the CIA are the only ones lying to you and telling you what they want you to know in order to control public opinion?

  This story may make you pay more attention to the prisons being built around the country by the Secret Service supposedly to support the front lines of the War on Terror where ever they might be.

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071224/ap_on_go_ot/hoover_mass_arrests

• 4. Brian Gregory  |  December 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm

  Maybe this is a better idea?

  Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. Restructure the CIA to include NSA and DIA. We don’t have the money for all four.

  This is not to say the we don’t need all four. I simply think that consolidation saves money and allows for more sharing of resources and intel.

  Take it from me. I work for DoD.

• 5. Sam  |  December 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

  who cares, all that matters is that iran is getting what it wants under the nose of the United States…..one for the good guys.

• 6. NeoClown  |  December 26th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  Mark,
  I’ve been saying we need to abolish the CIA since shock and awe. Welcome to the winning team. George Tennant needs to return his medal of freedom and apologize to the American people for the Iraq debacle.

• 7. steveGA  |  December 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

  I agree, we should abolish the CIA and hunt down those traitors. Lets start with all former heads of the CIA, including the President’s father, George HW Bush. We should take them to Guantanamo and torture, oops, I mean practice enhanced interrogation on them until they talk. A little waterboarding never hurt anybody, right?

• 8. plainjane  |  December 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  Robert Novak notes a growing dismay - partially bi-partisan - over the way the CIA is behaving December 26th, 2007 at 09:34am Mark Noonan

  Let see we need to discredit the NIE report, can someone get me that God damn lap dog of ours, Bob Novak on the phone?

  Sorry Mark at 29% approval no one is buying the neocon cry of wolf anymore. 1/20/09

• 9. phnx  |  December 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

  Thanks Spook.

  Our leftist friends have either chosen not to read Dr. Kissinger’s Op Ed or have chosen to ignore the analysis of the most brilliant mind the US has ever had in international diplomacy, opting instead for the typical BDS rant.

• 10. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

  Right plainjane. When the news is bad for the administration lets get rid of the messenger. That will change reality. Might explain why the VP ran his own intellegence operation and filtered the results before they reached the decidenator. Who never bothered to question anything. Unless of course, the information was contrary to his pre-concieved notions. Then he questioned the veracity of what he was being told.
  29%? I congradulate you on your generosity!
  BTW. Ever notice the combination of words in the reCaptcah? Very telling. Stop spam. Read books. What the heck does that mean??

• 11. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pm

  phnx:
  Leftist friends? Seems Henry is a leftist himself, employing detente and all in regards to Vietnam.
  Read away my enlightened right wing syncopant!
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

• 12. phil  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:20 pm

  Nice post mark, but might I suggest one simple edit? Instead of suggesting that we need “good” intelligence for the executive branch, I would instead suggest that, when it comes to the Bush White House, ANY intelligence will do. Given the fact that Bush presides over the most intellectually and morally handicapped presidential administration sine the days of US Grant perhaps we can add some intelligence for the foul bastards to our list of holiday wishes. Just a thought.

• 13. Rana Quijotesca  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

  Wouldn’t the inclusion of new facts alter policy? Isn’t the inclusion of new facts, based on observation, what the CIA is about?

• 14. phnx  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  JHL,

  Wikipedia??

  Bwwahahahahaha!!!

• 15. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  The entire puropse of the CIA or any other intellegence gathering entity is suppose to aid our country. It should not become a focal point of an administration that reviles in what that agency says. But they do it because the CIA doesn’t say what Cheney et al wants to hear. George Tenent indeed!
  What needs to be gotten rid of is the authoritarian mindset of those few whom are (currently) in power. With their signing statements, ideology about torture, creation of the concept of the “unilatteral exexcutive” (thanks to John Woo and David Addington.) not to mention the religious convictions of the christianists.

• 16. Kahn  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

  phil,

  I wonder how he managed to disarm North Korea, Libya, and Iran?

  As to the CIA. The FBI has had spies, so has DIA, the State Department, and the Navy. I used to periodically work in the room where that bastard Walker worked.

  The CIA is one agency. But it is in no way the only intelligence agency.

  Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

  Secretary of Defense, through the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA)

  Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AF ISR or AIA)

  Army Military Intelligence

  Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

  Marine Corps Intelligence Activity

  National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)

  National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

  National Security Agency (NSA)

  Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)

  United States Department of Energy
  - Office of Intelligence

  United States Department of Homeland Security
  - Coast Guard Intelligence

  United States Department of Justice
  - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  - Directorate of Intelligence (FBI DI)
  - Drug Enforcement Administration Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA)

  United States Department of State
  - Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)

  United States Department of the Treasury
  - Office of Intelligence and Analysis

  And ATF, INS, and more.

  _____________________________________

  Whose responsibility was it to know if Sadaam Husein was working on nukes? The CIA’s? What about customs, DOE, & DIA?

  Why did our troops have to wear that crazy NBC protection gear? Whose responsibility was it to know if Iraq had deployed chemical weapons? CIA, DIA, the various military intelligence agencies?

  Actually I don’t think primary responsibility for either was CIA’s. But it’s arguable. The problem is that there are so many fuzzy lines and so many ways they can point fingers at each other that no-one is responsible.

• 17. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

  phnx on crack:
  (Or Hello I’m a Mac. And I’m a P.C.)

  “LIES LIES. IT”S ALL LIES I TELL YOU!!!!
  “IS YOU IS OR IS YOU AIN”T MY CONSTITUANCY???”

• 18. phnx  |  December 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

  JHL

  Time to take your meds and return to your padded cell.

• 19. Magnum Serpentine  |  December 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  Interesting.

  When the CIA walked lock-step with george, no Republican said a thing about it. But when the CIA exposed george as a liar over Iran then wham Republicans want to abolish it.

  Magnum Serpentine

  Remember to vote Independent in 2008.

• 20. Ricorun  |  December 26th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

  It seems to me that Kissinger has a point when he said: “Similarly, in pursuing the cost-benefit rationale, the estimate concludes that a combination of international scrutiny along with security guarantees might “prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.” That is a policy, not an intelligence, judgment.

  So I guess by definition one could say that the NIE was “politicized”. However, it’s another step to conclude that it was perpetrated by an anti-Bush cabal in order to make Bush look bad. There is a number of points of evidence to suggest there may be something more to it than that — not the least of which is the fact that both Bush and Cheney have publically indicated they’re fine with the NIE. Maybe you could explain away Bush. But Cheney too? Thus, it seems more consistent to suggest that to the extent that the NIE was politicized, the Bush administration was more likely complicit in it than sabotaged by it.

• 21. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

  Enough said about Henry, intellegance, the CIA and GWB.
  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E0DA143DF935A2575BC0A9649C8B63

• 22. Uncommon  |  December 26th, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  I have one question for all of you Iran fear-fanatics - Who controls Iran’s military? If you say the President of Iran then you are WRONG! Ahmadinejad is crazy, he is eccentric, and he is obsessed over the desruction of Isreal- AND HE HAS NO POWER. Iran as a whole and especially the military is controlled by the Shah not Ahmadinejad. People’s fears about Iran’s nuclear ambitions are based on the fact that their President is a nut. No country in their right mind is going to launch a nuke at another country knowing that doing so would amount to them being wiped off the face of the Earth. “BUt they ar’ them darn neo islamo jihadist facists over dar and they don’t just car if they die” would say the people who know nothing of Iran. I don’t want them to have nukes - I don’t want anyone to have nukes. But to be assnine and hypocritical and wave Anti-Nuclear Proliferation around (being the we are the largest violators of said treaty) and say Iran CAN’T have nuclear power/weapons is bullshit. Then to use FEAR on top of the bullshit and say our lives are at risk if they have a nuke is just downright criminal. And my point is…

  The CIA said something you didn’t like Mark and now you want it abolished. Had they said Iran is without a doubt creating nuclear weapons you would have been ecstatic because you could now feel justified in killing more innocent people. Iran is not, has never been, and will never be a threat to us. I would be more worried about China and their economic stranglehold on us then a third world country half a world away. Are they sponsoring fighters in Iraq that are killing our soldiers- possibly. If Russia invaded Mexico would we be sponsoring fighters their for the purpose of killing Russians - DEFINITELY. Will they wipe Israel off the map given the chance - probably not but I don’t think we really care seeing as our closest allies in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, and others) are members of the Arab League who essentially want the country of Israel dismantled anyways. Oh and India is also an observing member of the Arab League. Anyways, your wanting to abolish the CIA is based on the fact that we can’t bomb Iran right now - something that should be a mute issue but we have to keep the FEAR running in this country so keep up the good work.

• 23. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

  Mark is a loon in the same sense as the charcacter Christopher Lloyd played in Roger Rabbit.
  Only “the dip” won’t erase Marks mentality.
  What to do. What to do…

• 24. phnx  |  December 26th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

  Uncommon,

  I am not so sure that the CIA should be abolished, but Kissinger does raise some important questions.

  You apparently haven’t read B4N or this site for long. If you had, you would know that almost everyone here is aware that Ahamadinejad is controlled by the Mullah’s who are really in control.

  The fallacy in your post is contained in the statement: “No country in their right mind is going to launch a nuke at another country knowing that doing so would amount to them being wiped off the face of the Earth.” The operative words being: “in their right mind”.

  A country has no mind, but its leader’s do. Ahamadinejad is the spokesperson for the Mullahs who happen to subscribe to the Islamic eschatological belief in the hidden Mahdi who according to the Shiite sect has disappeared and will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice on earth. Ahamadinejad and the religious leaders of Iran beleive they have been assigned to pave the way for the reappearance of the Imam.

  According to the most recent Iranian interpretation of the legend, before the Imam’s appearance, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up both Baghdad and Kufa. People’s blood will cover their destroyed houses. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they will have no rest–a reason for the Iran’s nuclear programme to blow in jets of fire and plumes of smoke.

  so excuse me if I don’t share your confidence in the sanity of the Iranian leadership.

• 25. liberalT  |  December 26th, 2007 at 7:01 pm

  i will remind you neocon - the only country to ever drop an atomic weapon anybody was the USA. The country with the most nuclear weapons in the world is the USA. The country that currently has attacked the most countries in so called preventative wars is the USA. So if trends are anything…

• 26. Christian Wright  |  December 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pm

  Why would anybody listen to Kissinger?

  http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0611-03.htm

• 27. JHL  |  December 26th, 2007 at 8:26 pm

  phnx:

  Sounds like you are describing Bush’s point of view when it comes to “the end times”.
  Thank goodness for the rest of the planet that we don’t share in this eschatological fantasy.
  Iran is not a threat to the United States. GWB and Cheney are much more dangerous to our way of life. As is any religious fanatic. Cheney excluded. He is merely crazy.

• 28. Uncommon  |  December 26th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

  Thanks LiberalT for making the point because many of those here would like to wish history away. Phnx, by all accounts the Supreme Leader (I miss labeled him as Shah earlier) not the Mullah’s, is in control of Iran. The Supreme Leader (while a strict Islamist) and a large portion of the population are also moderates. Here are a couple of quotes/actions by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei :

  After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khamenei condemned the act and the attackers and called for a condemnation of terrorist activities all over the world, whether in the United States, Palestine, the Balkans, or elsewhere. He is quoted as saying, “Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be”. Candlelight vigils in Iran for the victims of the 9/11 attacks were commonplace during the next several nights.

  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

  In 2005 Khamenei responded to President Ahmadinejad’s alleged remark that Israel should be “wiped off the map” by saying that “the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country.” Moreover Khamenei’s main advisor in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in a Holocaust denial conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad’s remarks, Velayati said that the Holocaust was a genocide and is historical reality.

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei and since I know Phnx will cackle at the use of wikipedia all of the sources are listed.

  My point being that “legend” aside, these are not the actions of a mad man bent on destroying the U.S. Sure you can say talk is cheap and that what they really intend to do is… blah, blah, blah. The fact is that talk is cheap and that you really can’t believe one man’s gut feelings over anothers interpretaion of their religion. And it’s perposterous to hold the American people hostage with fear in an attempt to convince us that we have to bomb this evil country bent on nuclear domination. I choose not to live in fear and will judge everything said with a grain of salt.

• 29. Jeremiah  |  December 26th, 2007 at 8:52 pm

  If history teaches us anything, it teaches–simple-minded appeasement and wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly–it means that betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

  Anyone who would put the State in a position of authority is not to be trusted. Thus, when Ahmadinejad calls us the “Great Satan”, it’s nothing to be taken lightly, but with firm and swift action.

  So, a Nuclear Freeze is in order.

  All in favor, Yay.

  All opposed, Nay.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 30. Casper  |  December 26th, 2007 at 9:04 pm

  Jeremiah,
  How has Ahmadinejad been appeased?

• 31. Jeremiah  |  December 26th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

  Casper,

  Ah, don’t you remember?

  Not only was he invited to come here, but got a big round of applause from Columbia University.

  Three months later, they’re still roiling mad at the head of the University for his Truthful remarks about Ahmadinejad.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 32. Psycheout  |  December 26th, 2007 at 9:52 pm

  At first I thought I’d gone to the wrong site or was reading a Ron Paul guest post!

  Abolishing the CIA would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps an overhaul and a review of personnel is long overdue, but this is too dangerous a time to scrap the CIA without having its replacement up and running first.

  It seems to me that the right answer is to fix it rather than throwing it away.

• 33. sam  |  December 26th, 2007 at 10:33 pm

  Jeremiah,

  Iran will get its nuclear technology and eventually weapons. Every country has the right to pursue any technologies it deems appropriate. If you disagree, explain why, don’t bring in religion into the argument, thats just lame.

  As far as the CIA goes, when Tenet said “slam dunk”, the right wing neocons praised him. Now that the CIA does not agree with the administration, you say ban it. hahahahahhahahaha…so much hypocracy i have not seen.

  Bottom line, the CIA is doing the best it can, and Iran will get its nuclear weapons and reactors for electricity. deal with it.

• 34. Jeremiah  |  December 27th, 2007 at 12:23 am

  sam,

  The consequences of a mad-man such as Ahmadinejad obtaining Nuclear power would be devastating. To allow such an injustice to occur an irreversable mistake for the good people of America.

  It’s just a matter of common sense to see where such a decision would lead.

  You’re right however, that religion plays little part. It plays every part.

  Their religion teaches violence, enough of this “religion of peace” rhetoric.

  However, there was given to man a better way, The Way, that teaches generosity and kindness to our fellow man, watching over those that are less fortunate, by defying those who would hold us in contempt for our God-Given abilities and resources.

  When a Nation loses sight of this, then is when they’ve lost all hope.

  It’s no skin off my nose. Yes, Iran will get nuclear weapons, but only after the United States has lost all sense of responsibility to their fellow man, and cowar to the evil desires of those who despise us.

  ~ Jeremiah

• 35. Mark Noonan  |  December 27th, 2007 at 1:40 am

  sam,

  Indeed, any coutry has such a right - but in America, we hold that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed…any government out there which doesn’t derive their powers thusly is illegitimate, and doesn’t have the right to issue a parking ticket, let alone build nuclear weapons. As soon as the mullahs step down and allow genuinely free and fair elections, then Iran can build all the nukes it wants…of course, if it does that, there won’t be any Iranian nukes, because Iran doesn’t need any.

• 36. Sam  |  December 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am

  ummmm…MARK, last I checked, the Iranian revolution was brought on by the PEOPLE!!!!! The people of Iran got rid of the Shah and welcomed Khomeini. How can you sit there and say that iran’s government is not derived by the people??

  They have a parliament, judiciary, and a whole slew of other government institutions like we have in the US.

  Off course, you mean, because Iran’s government is not a surrogate state to the US like Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, that it should not do what it wants because its not decided by the people……..but then again, the counries mentioned are supported by the people???

  For a man who claims he knows history, you sure sound ignorant, or you just conveniently ignore parts of history hoping people don’t catch you on it.

• 37. phnx  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:03 am

  Uncommon,

  Since you are so confident of the peaceful intentions of the Supreme Leader, and his promise not to stockpile nukes, can you explain to me the purpose of the Iranian development of ICBMs?

• 38. Kahn  |  December 27th, 2007 at 9:38 am

  Magnum Serpentine - of course you do realize that you’re arguing that Bush’s strategy worked and that he disarmed North Korea, Iran, and Libya?

  You do realize that, right?

• 39. libarbarian  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am

  I’m sick of phony-patriots slandering the Intelligence Services of the US just because they refuse to tell you what you want to hear.

  Go fuck yourself!

• 40. Sam  |  December 27th, 2007 at 10:04 am

  Kahn,

  You must be the total and complete retard. ALL you say is that the Bush administration disarmed those countries………ummm..WHO CARES.

  Libya and N. Korea have the bite of an ANT. don’t you realize that the greatest foreign policy blunder of the 20th and 21st century was going into iraq. This president has done NOTHING for the Israeli-arab peace process. it has done NOTHING for global warming, it has done NOTHING for middle income families, it has done NOTHING for the world and you sit here and list those three countries and claim success.

  First off, Iran is not disarmed, it didn’t have the weapons to begin with. It doesn’t want nuclear weapons, just the reactors. If it WANTS them at a later date, it can get them because they have the know how.

  So please spare us the BS about what this administration has done. Lets talk about what it HASN’T done.

• 41. Consul-At-Arms  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

  It’s a point of view. You reads your own histories and you makes up your own mind about it. Personally I think you’re considerably exaggerating the degree of actual infiltration (by moles, &tc.), but infiltration there clearly has been, since the very founding of the Agency. If you shift your definitions a little bit, to ideological infiltration, I suspect you’ll get a little closer to the mark (Infiltration might be the wrong word to use here, since it implies a degree of direction and control that may not in fact be present).

  Abolishing the nation’s premier intelligence collection and analysis agency on the basis of a single NIE with which one disagrees is not a direction I would be in any hurry to take the United States. There’s an adage about babies and bathwater to bear in mind.

  I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-abolish-cia.html

• 42. phnx  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

  “It doesn’t want nuclear weapons, just the reactors.” Sam

  I pose the same question to you that Uncommon chose to ignore. Since as you (and he) say they don’t want a nuclear weapon can you explain to me the purpose of the Iranian development of ICBMs?

• 43. Casper  |  December 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

  phnx,

  Maybe because they want to launch a satellite into space.

  http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/Iran/IranianSat.html

• 44. Almiranta  |  December 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

  Spook, the rantings of the Usual Suspects shows us why it is nearly impossible to accomplish anything in this country. Forget about bureaucracy being the speed bump in the road to progress—-it’s partisan lunacy that will take us down.

  Note how none of the Loony Lefties here have bothered to address the ISSUE, which is whether or not the CIA is really just an objective intelligence-gathering agency (which it should be) or is in fact a means to an end for a partisan agenda.

  I propose that the “arguments” put forth by the radical Lefties who posted here be kept as a perfect indication of the absolute inability of the Lemming Left to see ANYTHING for what it is, and their total dependence on veiwing everything through the filter of political partisanship. It really is insane.

  Whatever you do, DON’T just look at the CIA objectively, analyze its strengths and weaknesses, evaluate its successes and failures, try to isolate its defects to see if they can be corrected, and then proceed based on fact and reason.

  Not when you can go on and on and on and on, ad nauseum, about George H.W. Bush having been a director, or can whine and whimper about someone wanting to get rid of it because it does not ‘agree’ with him, or any of their other abject silliness.

  The same lemmings who excoriated the CIA for its intelligence gathering about Iraq and WMD are now simpering “…the CIA is doing the best it can…”

  Hey, if this is the best it can do, get rid of it. It’s one thing to pass illiterate students from one grade to another because they “…are doing the best they can…” but when our national security depends on the abilities of an agency, merely limping along “… doing the best it can…” is not good enough.

  But to have one of our resident trolls actually make the claim is enough to illustrate the lunacy and separation from reality illustrated daily, in thread after thread, as the Lemming Left struts its stuff.

  The TFHB was out in force on this one……

• 45. phnx  |  December 28th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

  Casper, and maybe they are just planning a giant fireworks dispaly for the next “Death to America” celebration, which commemorates the taking of the American Embassy in Tehran.

• 46. phnx  |  December 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

  BTW if they just wanted to launch a satelite, they could easily contract the services of the French, Russians, or Chinese at a fraction of the cost of their own ICBM development program.

• 47. Tractatus  |  December 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

  it’s partisan lunacy that will take us down.

  Said the partisan loon.

• 48. Almiranta  |  December 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pm

  Consul, I don’t believe there was anything which could possibly be interpreted to mean that anyone would want to “Abolish(ing) the nation’s premier intelligence collection and analysis agency on the basis of a single NIE with which one disagrees ….”

  I found the article to be informative about just who made up the bulk of the original CIA, their politics and philosophies, and how that may not be effective or desirable in today’s worldwide political climate.

  It might be possible to just clean out the CIA, but that is dicey, involving a lot of picking and choosing which could center too much on political affiliation.

  But it has been made very clear in the past six or seven years that national security has too often played second fiddle to political agendas within the Agency, as highly sensitive material has been given to newspapers in obvious efforts to injure, undermine, or embarrass the current Adminstration.

  For an agency charged with the protection of national security, this is simply unacceptable.

  Sometimes it is just easier to start over. A few years ago I tore half a house down to the foundation and completely rebuilt it, after extensive water damage, because my evaluation of the circumstances told me that efforts to fix a little here and replace a little there would eventually cost more than a clean start, and give me an inferior end result. The temptation is to “fix” but sometimes it really is better to start over.

  We do need a CIA—just not this CIA. I’d like to see a serious plan to incorporate some of the agencies into each other, and to establish a checks and balances system in which agencies would share information but also act as watchdogs to keep each other in line. I didn’t phrase that well, but it is late—I just mean to not give all the power and authority to any one agency, but at the same time to streamline the ponderous and ineffective system we have now.

  But no, such a decision would hardly be based on disagreement with one single report. Go back and look at the recent “leaks” if you really think the NIE report is all that is being taken into consideration here.

• 49. Bookmarks Tagged Dispassi&hellip  |  December 30th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

  [...] bookmarks tagged dispassionate Abolish the CIA saved by 1 others     MixtaLeo bookmarked on 12/30/07 | [...]