NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

The Weekly Standard's Thomas Joscelyn notes that the "intelligence community" was certain that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon FOUR MONTHS ago. That's quite a turn-around.

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)

So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?

Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?

Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?

Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)

You would think that this kind of a U-turn would spark some sharp questioning by the MSM, but you would be wrong. There are many questions being asked, but not by the people who edit newspapers like the Virginian Pilot.

U.S. spy agencies come in from the cold

THE SIMPLE FACT that the latest National Intelligence Estimate completely contradicts earlier analyses of Iran’s nuclear program is reason for some celebration.

To my mind, and apparently to the minds of a vast majority of Americans, a 180 degree U-turn by our spies is a reason to question their conclusions, both current and prior. But to the people who write for the Pilot, now that the NIE agrees with them, all is right with the world.

But as the rest of the editorial shows, the Pilot (and the drive-by-media's) unquestioning acceptance of the latest estimate is less about the actual threat and more about domestic politics. the NIE estimate is a club to use against President Bush:

The president’s version, expressed Tuesday, was slightly different, but just as dismissive of either reality or reason: “Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” he said. “What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”

That's what's wrong with the current hyper-partisan postures that the drive-by-media is engaged in. They really don't care about the fate of the nation, it's safety and whether it wins it's wars with its enemies. As long as they win a round in a political battle, that's all that counts. The press is still taking a holiday from history.