More on Iran

This will make Joe Lieberman very sad. Lieberman very much wants more war.

I'd still like to hear what Hoekstra says. We all know he's your main source for House intel. Pick up the phone and find out what he thinks.

HI Florida. You are right. What will Holy Joe do? After all, endless war in the Middle East is his fave.

1) This IS wonderful news.
2) This doesn't change the desire the neocons have for regime change.
3) It SHOULD allow the DoD to refuse an Iran operation.
4) I hope that Joe's narrative ("Bush's foreign policy approach empty-headed stupidity") beats Jay's narrative "Finally some good news for the president on the foreign policy front."
5) It's going to be very interesting watching the wingnuts rooting for bad news on this score.

Of course, Mr Hoekstra firmly believes all of that diplomatic engagement was meaningless without the threat of imminent attack, no? Perhaps you ought to ask him.

Seriously, Joe, you've got to tell us what Hoekstra thinks. Not kidding.

Kevin Drum:

WHY WAS THE NIE RELEASED?....A couple of random thoughts on the newly released NIE concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003:

This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA — all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless.

WHY WAS THE NIE RELEASED?...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012623.php

Next time you ring up your source, I'm sure your readers would be interested in the question above (that Kevin addresses only with speculation.)

Since the NIE represents a broad consensus, wouldn't the individual data points that comprise have been pretty much available to interested parties well before today?

Is this a case of the intelligence agencies finally getting a word in edgewise past OSP spin?

our "collection" capability within Iran has improved considerably over the past few years.

Good for our professional intelligence people. They've definitely done everyone a huge favor here.

Actually, Joe TomT is right. While the previous Hoekstra snark was just that, the views of the ranking minority member would be be worth hearing.

This is especially true if this NIE was written nearly a year ago, as Kevin Drum reports at the Washington Monthly. Hoekstra had to know that his sabre rattling had no basis, according to this NIE.

Nice post Paul. I forgot to link.

This is an interesting question. Joe needs to update his intelligence connections if this report is really a year old.

So... the White House (and Cheney) have known this for a year.

What about Congress? The gang of eight? The intel committees? Slippers McCain when he did his "bomb Iran" skit?

Howard Kurtz says that maybe this intelligence is wrong, so we can all still get our war on anyways. Heckuva job, liberal media!

Just think, if the nasty facts had not presented themselves, Joe Lieberman, other members of the Centrist Cult, and the Wingnuts, would have made their second big mistake.

The only difference this time is instead of not finding any WMD, they wouldn't be able to find any targets to bomb.

empty wheel in her new blogging digs has an interesting timeline.

November 2006: NIE "completed."

January 5, 2007: John Negroponte resigns as DNI, reportedly because of fight over NIE.

February 2007: NIE completed; Cheney objecting to content.

April 26, 2007: Thomas Fingar announces NIE will be delayed due to Ahmadinejad's demagoguery.

June (?) 2007: Information collected that supports claim Iran's nuclear program remains suspended.

Early October 2007: BushCo considers spiking the NIE.

October 27, 2007: David Shedd reveals Mike McConnell has made it harder to declassify NIE judgments--leading most observers to believe the Iran NIE would not be released.

Early November 2007: Administration decides to release NIE, but not publish judgments.

November 22, 2007: Mohammed el Baradei states Iran is cooperating, though IAEA still has questions about its nuclear program.

December 1, 2007: Mohammed el Baradei states that bombing Iran would ensure it gets the bomb more quickly.

December 3, 2007: NIE key judgments released.

"I just spoke with a senior U.S. intelligence official "

Give us a name so we can vet your source, since you're lack of judgment precludes you from doing so.

Iran is just confirmation of what the Iraq War already showed: it matters what the world thinks. It wasn't the lack of desire for WMD that caused Hussein to scrap his programs. Which is why we should remove our troops and return to the containment policy that has worked so well for us.

I blame the stupid and tone-deaf Democrats for stumbling on this chance at another war.

Joe

Senator Feingold just called you a liar.

Will you respond

WFD?

Can you provide a link?

Jay:
It's at the Chicago Trib site, via C&L. I can't post the link for some reason.

Contrary to Klein's claims, Democrats want to require individualized warrants only when the government targets Americans, not foreigners overseas. Klein is also flat out wrong to suggest there is "broad, bipartisan agreement" on new surveillance powers. In fact, the administration and its allies adamantly oppose even modest proposals to protect law-abiding Americans who are swept up in this new, essentially warrantless surveillance. Only after the president's illegal wiretapping program was publicly revealed was the administration forced to comply with the law. Now the administration is demanding broad new powers that could allow it to collect countless communications. Congress must make sure that the new law requires independent court oversight and protects innocent Americans' privacy. That's not "stupid"; that's our sworn and solemn duty.

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold
(D-Wis.)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-1203letters3_briefs0dec03,0,5383461.story?track=rss

C&L Link

Let's try that again. And THIS time, preview.

"I just spoke with a senior U.S. intelligence official"

Was this Hoekstra, Chutzpah Joe? Or maybe one of Stephen Hadley's crack operatives? Why would such people have any credibility after what Bush has done to the "intelligence" gathering process? Why are you even pretending that anything they say through YOU can be taken seriously.

Just go away.

One of the things that was most striking during the Libby trial was the discovery, or rather, confirmation, that the default mode in Washington journalism is off the record.

What is there in the stuff Joe got from his anonymous source that required anonymity? If the guy won't go on the record with these praiseworthy and otherwise anodyne observations about the intelligence communities confidence in the guts of the NIE, then why run them?

with the possible exception of the second point, you'd have no trouble finding someone who would speak for attribution. Matt Cooper made fun of Karl Rove's super duper double secret background, but this kind of thing reminds me of the bane of my family Thanksgivings--my uncle the spy.

He claims all kinds of special unconfirmable knowledge that should cause me to lose sleep at night, and thank the lord that the TSA took away my penknife, and, in a separate incident, prevented my sneaking a blueberry muffin onto the LGA bound plane in Kansas City.

In the past, my complaint with all this unsourced stuff is that Rove's duplicitous spin gets turned into "The New York Times has learned..." That is, if we knew the source, we would discount it--but that if Matt Cooper was gonna get Rove to take his calls, he had to do so on background. So Cooper granted anonymity to preserve access to the source, and then discounted obvious lies and vendettas, like Rove's attacks on Plame.

But I only now am getting the other side of this. It's WAY better for Joe to claim super duper access to real spy stuff than it is for him to quote someone like Hoekstra by name, even if he is the source. Joe looks more important that way, and his reporting looks more reliable.

And it's impossible for us civilians to distinguish Joe's anonymous sources from, say, Seymour Hersh's, who does things like track retirement announcements in departmental newsletters in order to line up exit interviews.

You can't even rely on accuracy, because Hersh has been wrong, as far as we can tell anyway, on the impending attack on Iran.

It'd be way easier, Joe, if you could find some people to go on the record on this stuff.

What is there in the stuff Joe got from his anonymous source that required anonymity?

If I were an intelligence guy, I wouldn't want to broadcast that I talk to the press. Think of Suskind's sources in *The One Percent Doctrine*.

You can't even rely on accuracy, because Hersh has been wrong, as far as we can tell anyway, on the impending attack on Iran.

Talking to the press could have been that it could have gone either way. After all, the NIE could have remained held up indefinitely. Or the intel people could have been successfully pressured to change their findings, relegate things to footnotes, etc. It could have been part of the pressure brought to bear to broadcast that the administration was dead set on attacking Iran, as factions probably were (and probably still are).

Meant to say: "It could have been that it could have gone either way... Talking to the press... could have been part of the pressure brought to bear..."

You get the idea anyway...

"I just spoke with a senior U.S. intelligence official ..."

Joe, you're kidding, right? You have *sub-zero* credibility -- in the wake of the Pete Hoekstra fiasco, how on earth can you expect anyone to take your claims about your "sources" at face value?

And what's the point? If this "senior U.S. intelligence official" really exists and isn't a total buffoon (Pete Hoekstra!) -- just name him.

What is there in the stuff Joe got from his anonymous source that required anonymity?

If I were an intelligence guy, I wouldn't want to broadcast that I talk to the press. Think of Suskind's sources in *The One Percent Doctrine*.

It depends on the source and the source's motivations, as far as they can be determined. But the Hoekstra thing: a partisan hitjob from a partisan nutjob masked as an anonymous source? That shouldn't even have been close.

Joe Klein criticizes the Democrats on Iraq, even though we are acting on the demands of the American people that we bring the Iraq war to a close ("What others are saying," Editorial, Nov. 28).

And Klein calls the Democrats' position on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "well beyond stupid" but without getting his facts straight.

Contrary to Klein's claims, Democrats want to require individualized warrants only when the government targets Americans, not foreigners overseas. Klein is also flat out wrong to suggest there is "broad, bipartisan agreement" on new surveillance powers. In fact, the administration and its allies adamantly oppose even modest proposals to protect law-abiding Americans who are swept up in this new, essentially warrantless surveillance. Only after the president's illegal wiretapping program was publicly revealed was the administration forced to comply with the law. Now the administration is demanding broad new powers that could allow it to collect countless communications. Congress must make sure that the new law requires independent court oversight and protects innocent Americans' privacy. That's not "stupid"; that's our sworn and solemn duty.

-Russ Feingold

But the Hoekstra thing: a partisan hitjob from a partisan nutjob masked as an anonymous source?

I'm definitely with you there.

3. that Iran once did actually have a nuclear weapons program but...
4. It was international attention and disapproval that caused the Iranians to quit the program, which means that diplomacy, the UN sanctions regime--all the things the Bush administration has disdained--actually matter. They certainly worked in this case, which is just wonderful news.

oh, I get it. We're supposed to believe Joe and his sources THIS time...

the fact is that there was never any real evidence that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program -- merely that it was hiding its civilian enrichment program from the bomb-happy Israelis...

The UN said exactly the opposite last week, so by all means the press will have to roll with the semi-Americans on this one.

CNN party keggers rule!

And a HAPPY iCbmHANUKKAH to you too!

I get what this guy is saying, although he omits a ton of factors. But I sympathize. (I sometimes also sympathize with people who make it personal--like Greenwald says, there's a lot that's gone down over the past six years.) But I try not to assign motives, really I do. I think it's usually that someone honestly (but perhaps ignorantly) doesn't connect a set of dots that should be connected. Or maybe it's professionally inconvenient to connect the dots for a number of reasons. Or it could be your editor has something to do with it.

But then I read something like this. Now what's up with that? Did the headline writer go here or something?

"I just spoke with a senior U.S. intelligence official". OK This isn't going to wash at all. The last "Intelligence Official" you spoke to was Pete Hoekstra. If you have an Intelligence community source, which I doubt, please at least cite the Agency they are part of as you seem to have no idea what the Intelligence community actually means, if there is any doubt to your confusion please refer to the earlier Pete Hoekstra line.

"The NIE was made with a "high" degree of certainty, which means there was more than one information stream confirming it." -- Please stick to Journalism, Intelligence isn't your trade. The fact that the NIE was made with a "High" degree of certainty means there was strong concensus among the member agencies.

"our "collection" capability within Iran has improved considerably over the past few years." -- If you have an Intelligence community source who is discussing the collection capability of our intelligence service with you, which I doubt as it would be skirting legality. You source is a Political type, who has no specific information and a great deal of conjecture. Please feel free to debunk this ascertion put citing a source. I dare you.

Stick to your beat. You aren't good at this game.

Lastly: There is a real high degree of liklihood that the IC pushed to have this NIE made public before it could be spun badly by Bush and company and damage the efforts of the IC again.

If that is the case, it is a power play. Ascerting they will not be played the sucker by the political system again. Not by this administration or the next...but I am sure your 'source' has the skinny on this too...

It's so cute to have an imaginary friend.

I'm sure this will be bad for Democrats, good for Republicans.

Come on, Joe, I can't wait for you to tell us how!

A few Friedmans ago:

"Klein: And, by the way, we're very much well liked among the young, educated Iranians. But this is not Iraq we're dealing with here. This is an ancient country, a very strong country, and a very proud country. And so, yeah, by all means, we should talk to them, but, on the other hand, we should not take any option, including the use of nuclea-....tactical nuclear weapons off the table.

Stephanopoulos: Keep that on the table?

Klein: It's absolutely stupid not to.

Stephanopoulos: That's insane."

Then a retrospective through crazy town:

"If the Iranians persist in crazy talk about wiping Israel, or New York, off the face of the earth, it isn't a bad idea if we hint that we can get crazy, too. One can easily imagine the unthinkable: a suitcase nuclear weapon, acquired from the former Soviet Union by Iranian agents, detonated in New York, London or Tel Aviv. A nuclear response certainly would have to be on the table then — and the military would be negligent if it weren't studying all possible nuclear scenarios."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1188610,00.html

Given that your credibility is less than zero these days, commenting on Iran should not be part of your fourth act.

Given that your credibility is less than zero these days, commenting on Iran should not be part of your fourth act.

at this point, Klein should just do a society column --- telling us who is throwing parties, who is attending them, and what they are wearing.

Of course, he'd probably report various sightings of BatBoy on the DC cocktail circuit (BATBOY THE TOAST OF GEORGETOWN! HOSTESSES LOVE HIM!!!)....

"A senior intelligence official," huh?

I would really like to believe Mr. Klein's story here, but the fact is that he lied to us regarding his source on FISA. And for all I know, he's lying again.

Mr. Klein, please write an explanation to us of why we should trust you.

Being pro-Bush and pro-rationalization are obviously very different things, so please don't confuse the two when I ask this, but does anyone know why Iran has not spoken up about this program having ended 4 years ago until after this current report was released?

Sabrina, this is the usualy MO for the Iranians. They will wait it out to see how the story plays in the US and Europe, find where they can get th emost leverage and then announce an official position.

Sabrina, they've been saying all along they don't have a weapons programme. Are you really asking why they didn't say "oh yeah, we had one of those, but we quit in 2003?" I mean, that question sorta answers itself, doesn't it?

Our collection ability in Iran has improved over the past few years? Like since August 2003 or so when Valerie Wilson and Brewster Jennings were torn down?

I'd also like to add:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/04/time/index.html

Sabrina, when asked "when did you stop beating your wife?" it's not a great answer to say "uh, about 2003."

To the editors of TIME Magazine

Joe Klein recently criticized the RESTORE Act ("The Tone Deaf Democrats," Nov. 21, 2007), claiming that it "would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court." This is incorrect. The RESTORE Act creates "basket" authorizations to allow widespread surveillance of foreign powers (such as Al Qaeda) and their agents. To prevent a repeat of the Bush Administration's extra-legal warrantless wiretapping program, the court must approve the parameters of the group surveillance to ensure that warrants are still obtained for Americans' communications. But no court orders are required for surveillance of foreigners reasonably believed to be outside of the country. The bill simply will not make our intelligence agencies get thousands of warrants for foreign terrorists.

The RESTORE Act's blend of executive branch flexibility, court approval, and congressional oversight is calibrated to ensure that the fight against terrorism is conducted in an efficient and constitutional manner. We would hope that Mr. Klein, having studied the RESTORE Act further, is no longer so confused as to continue to characterize our system of constitutional checks and balances as "well beyond stupid."

John Conyers, Jr. and Silvestre Reyes

TheDVD Ripper for Mac is a professional program， Mac DVD copy，Video converter for Mac，Mac iPod converter，DVD to iPOD for Mac，Mac APPLE TV converter，MP4 converter for Mac，DVD to MP4 for Mac，iPOD to Mac transfer，DVD creator for Mac ，DVD to APPLE TV for Mac
All the above，enjoy now！！！

فله

دردشة فله

صور فله

شات فله

العاب فله

مركز تحميل فله

بلوتوث فله

دردشة فله

دردشة

منتديات فله

منتدى فله

منتديات

المنتديات العامه

منتدى التهاني والترحيب

منتدى الصور

اللغة الإنجليزية English Language

منتدى الرياضة والسيارات

منتدى الألعاب

استراحة الاقلاع والفرفشه

المنتدى الاسلامي

منتدى القصص والروايات

مكتبة فله الاسلاميه

منتدى عالم المرأة

منتدى الطب والاسرة

منتدى الديكور والأثاث

منتدى الطبخ

منتدى همس القوافي

منتدى عذب الكلام

منتدى القضايا الساخنة

منتدى الكمبيوتر و الأنترنت

عالم الماسنجر

قسم الفيديو كليب والبلوتوث

منتدى الأتصالات و الجوال

منتدى التصاميم والدروس

السعوديه

دردشة كتابيه

شات كتابي

شات

شات مصري

شات خليجي

شات سوري

دردشه سوريه

دردشة مغربيه

دردشه سعوديه

دردشة كتابيه

دردشة

دردشه

العاب

سعوديات

بنات سعوديات

بنت السعوديه

غرام

برق

الود

 فله

مطابخ

صور

مركز تحميل

دردشة كويتيه

دردشة سعوديه

دردشة خليجيه

دردشه فله

فله

دردشة عمانيه

دردشة اماراتيه