Think that’s a harsh assessment? Then read this story in the New York Times today:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 — Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.
Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.
The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.
The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate.
I know I’ve already blogged about this issue numerous times, most recently in this post about Cheney getting prefabricated intel on Iran from a former official of the Office of Special Plans (Doug Feith’s prior outfit that at the Pentagon manufactured intelligence about Saddam’s WMD which we now know was false). We know Cheney wants intelligence that fits his policy for military action against Iran. Rather than rely on the CIA’s and DIA’s analysts, he’s gone off the ranch again, demanding that raw intelligence, no matter how “thin” or “suspect” be delivered to him just as long as it supports his predetermined view that Iran’s nuclear program is an imminent threat to the United States.
What’s especially troubling about this new report in the NY Times (and, as an aside it’s nice to see them finally catching up on this story which has been covered by Raw Story for some time) is that it isn’t just the White House trying to deceive the American people into believing we must bomb Iran. Now it is Republican members of Congress, fearful of their slide in the polls on Iraq, who are trying to distract us into pursuing another unneccessary and far more dangerous war:
(cont.)
The new report, from the House Intelligence Committee, led by Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, portrayed Iran as a growing threat and criticized American spy agencies for cautious assessments about Iran’s weapons programs. “Intelligence community managers and analysts must provide their best analytical judgments about Iranian W.M.D. programs and not shy away from provocative conclusions or bury disagreements in consensus assessments,” the report said, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction like nuclear arms.
Some policy makers also said they were displeased that American spy agencies were playing down intelligence reports — including some from the Israeli government — of extensive contacts recently between Hezbollah and members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. “The people in the community are unwilling to make judgment calls and don’t know how to link anything together,” one senior United States official said.
“We’re not in a court of law,” he said. “When they say there is ‘no evidence,’ you have to ask them what they mean, what is the meaning of the term ‘evidence’?”
I’ll tell you what the meaning of no evidence is, Mr. Senior US Official who refuses to allow his identity to be known. “No evidence” is what Hans Blix and David Kay found in Iraq after the bogus claims of Saddam’s WMD threat were presented by Colin Powell to the UN Security Council to justify the invasion of Iraq. The same crappy intel that Bush and Cheney relied upon to make their case to the American people. The same crap that ended up as 16 words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address about Iraq’s attempt to buy uranium from Niger. You know, just like the phony story somebody leaked to the press about Iran buying uranium from the Congo a few weeks ago, a story with little basis in reality, it now appears.
That’s the meaning of “no evidence.” Whatever you demagogues and reprobates, whatever you liars and smear merchants, want to believe is true so you can get your war on (or at a minimum your warmongering talk on) in time to save your slimy GOP seats in Congress in November’s elections. It’s frankly disgusting that the GOP now thinks the only way to win an election and retain power is to threaten a war that would engulf the entire Middle East.
I guess starting World War III is now the basis of the Republican Party’s election campaign. What a world we live in.
Bush’s constant bungling of foreign policy has empowed Iran, no doubt about it:
A report claims Iran’s influence in the Middle East has increased as a result of America’s war on terror.
The report is called Iran, Its Neighbours And Regional Crises and it is written by researchers at the Royal Institute for International Studies in London, known as Chatham House.
It says: “There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East.
“The United States, with Coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments – the Taleban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 – but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures.“
The report also says the recent conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza and between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon have increased the instability.
Bush/Republican blunders have brought us to where we are today. If there is no hope for a two state solution with Israel/Palistine, it’s because of Bush. If Iran has been strengthened in the area, it’s because of Bush. If we are on the brink of WWIII, it is because of Bush.
In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Scott Sagan argues that Iranian proliferation could be stopped should the US relinquish the goal of regime change. Their web site only offers a short preview of the essay, but it’s worth a read if you have access to the print version (or an online subscription).
this is a transparent repeat of 2002.
With one major exception: we can hopefully put enough pressure on elected Democrats this time to get them to oppose this nonsense publicly. Republicans have no credibility left in a war of words, all we have to do is give our side enough spine to fight. Iran is a significant threat (if only because we have so many troops next door), but that threat isn’t immediate enough to risk the huge potential downside of letting Bush address it.
Washington Times Insight online headline states “Bush, Cheney in funk after Israel war performance”. This says it all. If Bush or Cheney had served in Vietnam, they would have known that air power never quells an insurgency. But, they only seek and accept intelligence that fits their neo-con true believer world view. They have started two wars based on false premises. Their 4th and 5th war awaits a pretext.
Much of the reasoning behind use of air power over ground forces in Iraq (and elsewhere) is due to the having won the Bosnian war against Serbia with air power alone. The Serbians fronted a militia force that acted much like an insurgency, yet they were toppled without ground forces.
This logic ignores differing terrain, differing goals, and differing enemy politics. It appears possible to win a ground war without ground forces at all. That such a win could be planned and executed regularly, however, appears not to be the case.
By looking at reality through their ideological prism, Bush and Cheney always derive the wrong conclusions. A more realistic assessment of the success of the Serbian bombing campaign is that the Kosovo Liberation Army was the insurrection and the Serbian police and military were invaders of a Muslim province although the Serbs had been there since the 6th or 7th century. The bombing campaign, the threat of ground attack and the political lure of integration into Europe persuaded the Serbs that keeping control over Muslim Kosovo wasn’t worth the cost.
Israel as invaders faced a similar decision as the Serbs. Do they keep the Lebanon Invasion going while getting hit with 100 to 250 rockets a day or do they agree to a cease fire and withdrawal. One could conclude that rockets defeated Israel when instead it was a dug in militia that understood how to fight its enemy. To defeat an insurrection or pacify a sovereign country requires tremendous costs in money and lives; never on the cheap by air power alone. This is why the Iranian Bombing Campaign will play out as a tragic farce that can only end with a humiliated USA or a nuclear exchange.
I badly year to believe that a repeat peformance of the Iraq debacle could not possibly suceed in the face or all the PROOF of what an unmitigatd disaster it all has been
But I can’t even begin to, because all of any trust I have ever had in the goverment of this country has been blasted to bloody bits scattered from New Orleans to the Middle East and back again.
I KNOW it’s quite possible, more likely probable that this cannot be stopped this time around, either.
Which means that I actually am experiencing living in dictatorship, and worse, an “elected” one, without even having to leave home.
The America that is being presented to the world through the actions of the government, is NOT my country, Bush is NOT my “president”, and I am renouncing my citizenship in George Bushes America.
Which makes me an illegal alien from here on out.
they want another war now because they have this crazy idea that every time there is a war, citizens support the party in power whether they like them or not. This is ALL political, and no one should doubt that. This is about maintaining power because if they lose, the investigations will begin.
They KNOW THIS.
They looked at the way the US reacted after 911. And the way the US supported the afghanistan and iraq wars, and the way the Israelis showed strong support for the attack on Lebanon. And they believe that strong support will manifest itself in the up coming election/polls which happen to coincide with these overtures towards pre-emptive war.
What they fail to realize is that you can’t fool all the people all the time. They have no credibility with the American people, but I don’t think they understand that salient point. They believe that because they still have credibility among the media elite, that credibility must surely be believed by the consumer of said media.
Completely out of touch with reality. And they just don’t like the idea of reality finally biting them in the ass. The desire for another war is their way of avoiding the wrath of the American people.