Wanted: Scarier Intelligence (also, Iranian badge story author is back)

[ProSense]

August 25, 2006
Editorial

Wanted: Scarier Intelligence

The last thing this country needs as it heads into this election season is another attempt to push the intelligence agencies to hype their conclusions about the threat from a Middle Eastern state.

That’s what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush’s policy. And history appeared to be repeating itself this week, when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, released a garishly illustrated and luridly written document that is ostensibly dedicated to “helping the American people understand” that Iran’s fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States.

It’s hard to imagine that Mr. Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. But the report obviously has different aims. It is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. It fits with the fearmongering we’ve heard lately — like President Bush’s attempt the other day to link the Iraq war to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. It was not the work of any intelligence agency, or the full intelligence panel, or even the subcommittee that ostensibly drafted it. The Washington Post reported that it was written primarily by a former C.I.A. official known for his view that the assessments on Iran are not sufficiently dire.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/opinion/25fri1.html?ex=1314158400&en=6d3723a23e259cf7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Amir Taheri is Back and the WSJ has Got Him

Surely you remember him.
He's the guy who floated the bogus Iranian badge story right before Prime Minister Olmert was to visit President Bush. The same story I blew out of the water, which the dogged reporter took even further, after I got the Simon Wiesenthal Center on the record as pushing Taheri's bunk.

In fact, Taheri was so thoroughly smacked around on the incident he felt compelled to release a clarification. However, that didn't stop Bush from inviting him to the White House to get advice on Iran. No wonder our foreign policy strategy is so screwed. With people like Taheri giving us advice we hardly need an enemy.

Now Mr. Taheri is back, with a featured editorial in the Wall Street Journal. What a perfect match. Neocons and wingnuts together in print. Priceless.

... Before he provoked the war, Mr. Nasrallah faced growing criticism not only from the Shiite community, but also from within Hezbollah. Some in the political wing expressed dissatisfaction with his overreliance (sic) on the movement's military and security apparatus. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they described Mr. Nasrallah's style as "Stalinist" and pointed to the fact that the party's leadership council (shura) has not held a full session in five years. Mr. Nasrallah took all the major decisions after clearing them with his Iranian and Syrian contacts, and made sure that, on official visits to Tehran, he alone would meet Iran's "Supreme Guide," Ali Khamenei.

Mr. Nasrallah justified his style by claiming that involving too many people in decision-making could allow "the Zionist enemy" to infiltrate the movement. Once he had received the Iranian green light to provoke the war, Mr. Nasrallah acted without informing even the two Hezbollah ministers in the Siniora cabinet or the 12 Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Parliament. ...

Hezbollah Didn't Win
Arab writers are beginning to lift the veil on what really happened in Lebanon.

Here's my advice to anyone new to Mr. Taheri's tales. Yes, even a broken clock can be right twice a day, but my advice? Don't believe a word he says.

Instead, read, take in and and take to heart what The New York Times says today. They called the neocons out.

[ProSense]

1. Larry C. Johnson: Republican Chutzpah on Iran

Larry C. Johnson: Republican Chutzpah on Iran

Larry C. Johnson
Fri Aug 25, 2:14 AM ET

Chutzpah is a Yiddish term that means "unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity". Got to love Yiddish. No other term captures what the Republican staff members of the House Intelligence Committee accomplished today with the release of a partisan report on Iran. According to the Washington Post account:

program, its intentions or even its ties to terrorism.

Snip...

So, the Republicans want to whine about inadequate intelligence on Iran's nuclear program while holding fund raisers for Scooter Libby, one of the men implicated in the leak of Valerie's classified identity? Excuse me? The leak did more than ruin Val's ability to continue working as an undercover CIA officer. The leak destroyed a U.S. intelligence program to collect information about Iran's efforts to get nuclear weapons material.

What is particularly galling about this is how Peter Hoekstra has played politics with intelligence all along. In a letter to the White House earlier this year complaining about the possible appointment of Stephen Kappes as the Deputy Director of the CIA, Hoekstra said:

I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets.
Instead of mounting an investigation to determine who exposed Mrs. Wilson and the intelligence operation she worked on, Hoekstra attacks CIA officers for being political hacks. Mr. Hoekstra, people who live in glass houses shouldn't chuck stones.

We now see a new effort by the Republicans to bully the intelligence community into identifying an imminent threat that does not exist. Iran has been a threat for 26 years. As reported in the Washington Post and New York Times, the intelligence community does not believe Iran is anywhere near to developing or deploying a nuclear weapon.

Peter Hoekstra wants to use his position as head of the Intelligence Committee to bully analysts and scare Americans. Meanwhile, he has sat idle as the Republican White House destroyed a viable intelligence operation to keep tabs on Iran's nuclear ambitions. That, my friends, is pure Chutzpah.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060825/cm_huffpost/027972