Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.

 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.

I am considering the srouce, ITS THE NY TIMES....

and no we wont go to war with iran....your a fool if you think we will
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Deptacon
I am considering the srouce, ITS THE NY TIMES....
Then we know the information is pretty much dead-on.

and no we wont go to war with iran....your a fool if you think we will
Probably not. China will have a thing or two to say about it. But, as Hersh said the other night, if he wrote his recent article properly, he would be wrong and we wouldn't go to war. I think people are beginning to realize the emperor has no clothes.
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Deptacon
I am considering the srouce, ITS THE NY TIMES....
Then we know the information is pretty much dead-on.

and no we wont go to war with iran....your a fool if you think we will
Probably not. China will have a thing or two to say about it. But, as Hersh said the other night, if he wrote his recent article properly, he would be wrong and we wouldn't go to war. I think people are beginning to realize the emperor has no clothes.


see many articles i have read out of the NY Times have this off the wall underwritten bias in them....so why i agree it prolly is fact, i just dont like reading it or using them as a source...too mnay opinions over there maike it into the pages....
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Oh yeah. How could I have forgotten. If it's not from the mouth of Hannity or Limbaugh, it's biased propaganda.


Gotcha.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Plans to Withdraw from Iraq

Bwahaha...

Originally posted by: Deptacon
see many articles i have read out of the NY Times have this off the wall underwritten bias in them....so why i agree it prolly is fact, i just dont like reading it or using them as a source...too mnay opinions over there maike it into the pages....

Can you give us some examples?

The article I posted is a fairly straight forward piece on a report which the Bush administration, as it has done with so many reports in the past, will redact heavily prior to public consumption in our *free* society.

This is the most secretive adminsitration in my memory, and I remember them back to FDR.

What is Bush hiding this time?

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Topic Title: Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
Topic Summary: Panel characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous"
===================================================
So Bush will have to come up with a different excuse to invade Iran other than WMD or Nuclear threat this time???
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Topic Title: Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
Topic Summary: Panel characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous"
===================================================
So Bush will have to come up with a different excuse to invade Iran other than WMD or Nuclear threat this time???

Well, he could still do just what he did in Iraq. Fudge the intelligence, go on one of his now infamous "sell the invasion" campaign tours and simply invade Iran on a pack of lies anyway.

The majority of Americans don't seem to mind.

:roll:

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
More shoddy intel from our useless intelligence agency.

But Bush reformed the American intelligence structure!

In other words, he filled it with his personal partisan yes men hacks. Porter Goss for example.

The commission report in the Times article sets the record straight on Iran's WMD. Let's see if Bush ignores their findings the same way he ignored all intel that didn't fit his agenda in 2002.

 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

I had to look this up because I didn't know about this. It seems the situation is too similiar to Iraq. Lack of intelligence, information from Iranian exiles, WMD fears, terrorism concerns, CIA mistakes.



From an article I found:
As many as 50 Iranian citizens on the CIA's payroll were "rolled up" in the failed operation, according to the former officials, who discussed the episode after aspects of the exposure were disclosed during a recent congressional hearing.

The officials described the events as a major setback in spying on a regime that is one of the toughest targets for US intelligence.

The disclosures underscore the stakes confronting the CIA and its informers at a time when the US is under pressure to produce better intelligence on Iran and especially its nuclear activities. The Bush Administration has indicated that preventing Iran from obtaining an atomic weapon would be a priority of the President's second term.
Text
 

Deptacon

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2004
2,282
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Oh yeah. How could I have forgotten. If it's not from the mouth of Hannity or Limbaugh, it's biased propaganda.


Gotcha.


both of them are too right to me, i don't listen to limbaugh...and don't alwasy agree with hannity, though i do enjoy watching and listening to his liberla bashing sometimes...but i only garee about 50% of the time...both of them are WAYYYYYY to right for my tastes....

I like oreilly, but he tends to be very religously motivated, but i choose to ignore his opinions realted to religion..and he links religion to family values too much

but also we know thier side, we know they are conservtives and the push thier side. NY Times is suppose to be an unbiased media source, and its not.

but..im a conserative because I want:
strong military
no nationwide healthcare
less taxes
less uselss wlefare programs (i mean by this the wasted dollars on programs that dont work, cause some welfare programs are important, some are a waste)

one subject i will alwast stand with liberals on: EDUCATION

with education, many of the poor and welfare problems will be self corrected
so dump all the money and efforts you want on education, im with you guys all the way

also, im with taking religion out of anything govt related, it crazy how the wacko far right pushes the christian colalition crap all over america.

 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.
Worst case scenerio in my world, Bush is wrong.

Worst case scenerio in your world, Bush is right.

Not that hard to take choose the right side, Bobnd.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Ozoned...haven't seen you around here in a long time...good to see you are still kicking :)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.
Worst case scenerio in my world, Bush is wrong.

Worst case scenerio in your world, Bush is right.

Not that hard to take choose the right side, Bobnd.

There is no side to choose though. The only thing that matters is what is in fact true.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.
Worst case scenerio in my world, Bush is wrong.

Worst case scenerio in your world, Bush is right.

Not that hard to take choose the right side, Bobnd.

There is no side to choose though. The only thing that matters is what is in fact true.

The only thing that matters to you is what you think is true.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.
Worst case scenerio in my world, Bush is wrong.

Worst case scenerio in your world, Bush is right.

Not that hard to take choose the right side, Bobnd.

There is no side to choose though. The only thing that matters is what is in fact true.

The only thing that matters to you is what you think is true.

Well, certainly my perspective is different than others. Somewhere out there is the truth. When it's found, then rational and appropriate action can be considered. Isn't that what you would want too?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned


The only thing that matters to you is what you think is true.


Read the article and you'll find the truth.

Bush's claims about Iran's WMD are as specious as Bush's claims about Iraq's WMD. And that's from his own commission.

 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: BBond
I post this NY Times article regarding a report *which Bush requested* on Iran's nuclear/chem/bio weapons so that there is no "misunderstanding" later in Iran, as in Iraq. So that in a few months time when Bush is trying once again to use non-existent WMD as an excuse for unprovoked aggression, and Americans are once again lining up to be fooled, no one can make any lame excuses after the fact that "Bush used the best intelligence available -- he didn't lie -- he thought he was telling the truth." :roll:

This commission had UNRESTRICTED ACCESS to information and came up with VASTLY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAN. So no arguments later that there was "double top-secret information that only Bush was aware of." They had unrestricted access. Period.

Please America, just look at Bush's track record. Even if you refuse to believe that Bush, as well as several of his top officials, flat out lied about Iraq's weapons to justify an unprovoked attack, consider the other lies the Bush administration continues to perpetrate.

Medicare reform. Press payola. Social Security reform. Valerie Plame scandal. AIDS funding. No child left behind.

The man is a serial liar.

And in a quote from the article attributed to Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official, they are already attempting to lower the bar from Iran's actual possesson of nuclear weapons to Iran simply convincing the world they have nuclear weapons.

Wake up. No excuses *next time* if these people are again insane enough to ignore their own intelligence and fabricate reasons for their unprovoked aggression.

Consider the source people.

Data Is Lacking on Iran's Arms, U.S. Panel Says
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: March 9, 2005

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.


The nine-member bipartisan presidential panel, led by Laurence Silberman, a retired federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, a former governor and senator from Virginia, had unrestricted access to the most senior people and the most sensitive documents of the intelligence agencies.

In its report, the panel is also expected to be sharply critical of American intelligence on North Korea. But in interviews, people who have been briefed on the commission's deliberations and conclusions said they regarded the record on Iran as particularly worrisome.

One person who described the panel's deliberations and conclusions characterized American intelligence on Iran as "scandalous," given the importance and relative openness of the country, compared with such an extreme case as North Korea.

That person and others who have been briefed on the panel's work would not be more specific in describing the inadequacies. But former government officials who are experts on Iran say that while American intelligence agencies have devoted enormous resources to Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979, they have had little success in the kinds of human spying necessary to understand Iranian decision-making.

Among the major setbacks, former intelligence officials have said, was the successful penetration in the late 1980's by Iranian authorities of the principal American spy network inside the country, which was being run from a C.I.A. station in Frankfurt. The arrests of reported American spies was known at the time, but the impact on American intelligence reverberated as late as the mid-1990's.

A spokesman for the commission, Carl Kropf, declined to comment about any conclusions reached.

The last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was completed in 2001 and is now being reassessed, according to American intelligence officials. As a first step, the National Intelligence Council, which produces the estimates and reports to Mr. Goss, is expected this spring to circulate a classified update that will focus on Iran and its weapons.

In Congress, the Senate Intelligence Committee has recently begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran, in what the Republican and Democratic leaders of the panel have described as an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken. But Congressional officials say the language of some recent intelligence reports on Iran has included more caveats and qualifications than in the past, in what they described as the agencies' own response to the Iraq experience.

In testimony last month, intelligence officials from several agencies told Congress that they were convinced that Tehran wanted nuclear weapons, but also said the uncertainty played to Iran's advantage.

"The Iranians don't necessarily have to have a successful nuclear program in order to have the deterrent value," said Carol A. Rodley, the State Department's second-ranking top intelligence official. "They merely have to convince us, others and their neighbors that they do."

The commission's findings will also include recommendations for further structural changes among intelligence agencies, to build on the legislation Mr. Bush signed in December that sets up a new director of national intelligence. Among the proposals discussed but apparently rejected was the idea of consolidating the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency into a single Defense Department operation that would integrate what are now divided responsibilities for satellite reconnaissance and eavesdropping operations.

The panel is to send a classified report to Mr. Bush by March 31. The panel is expected to issue an unclassified version at about the same time, but it is not clear whether the criticism of intelligence on Iran will be included in that public document, the people familiar with the panel's deliberations said.

In a television interview in February on Fox News, Vice President Dick Cheney described the work of the commission as "one of the most important things that's going forward today."

In the case of Iraq, a National Intelligence Estimate completed in October 2002 was among the assessments that expressed certainty that Baghdad possessed chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear program. Those assessments were wrong, and a report last year by the chief American weapons inspector found that Iraq had destroyed what remained of its illicit arsenal nearly a decade before the United States invasion.

A report last summer by the Senate committee concluded that the certainty of prewar assessments on Iraq had not been supported by the intelligence available at the time.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, senior officials have defended the assessments, but they have also imposed new guidelines intended to reduce the prospect for failures.

Among those guidelines, an intelligence official said Tuesday, is a requirement that in producing future National Intelligence Estimates, the National Intelligence Council state more explicitly how much confidence it places on each judgment it makes. Those guidelines are being enforced in the updates on the Iranian nuclear program and in the revised National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which will address issues like political stability as well.
Worst case scenerio in my world, Bush is wrong.

Worst case scenerio in your world, Bush is right.

Not that hard to take choose the right side, Bobnd.

There is no side to choose though. The only thing that matters is what is in fact true.

The only thing that matters to you is what you think is true.

Well, certainly my perspective is different than others. Somewhere out there is the truth. When it's found, then rational and appropriate action can be considered. Isn't that what you would want too?
Sure, but I pay the man in the oval office to discover the truth with a conservative perspective. That being,,,, with the benefit of doubt being in my favor. I guess I am just a greedy old bastard, huh?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
he says he has a conservative perspective...
i'd say there is no doubt he is socially conservative...
but debatable on the rest of the ideology :p
 

dababus

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,555
0
0
I hate to say this but so many people on this forum who have never read Orwell's 1984.