The NIE’s Accuracy

The New York Times is reporting:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 —New York Times- A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

In reading between the lines on this thing, it would seem to be creating a bit of a headache for democrats who have been making lots of noise lately about the White House not doing anything about stabilizing the remainder of the region.  That, because the first thing that one gets out of the report, is that there’s been a lot going on in the background that nobody’s been telling us about.  Most notably, the press charged with the job.

Further, these same democrats who have been complaining for upwards of the year that the republicans who were stiff arming Iran were simply warmongers who are responding to a threat that didn’t exist for political purposes, I now faced with the evidence that Iran backed off of its nuclear program almost incidental to our invasion of Iraq.  If you’ll recall, they said this, too, would destabilize the region, only to world war three, Armageddon, body bags, following cakes, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

What they would be admitting to, was that it was, in fact, our military action in Iraq, that put Iran off of its nuclear program.  Thereby, that our foreign policy, under President Bush, wasn’t quite so ineffective, after all.

There is of course, the issue that the current national intelligence estimate directly contradicts the one previous to it.  Could this, I wonder, be caused by the similarities between the similarly all of base intelligence estimate as regards Iraq?

Let’s remember, where these intelligence agencies are largely getting their information from; each other, through the United Nations and through NATO.  All of this, rather than bolstering the case Monday by anti-war democrats, that President Bush lied about then current intelligence, suggest instead that Mr. Bush was acting on information that he was getting from people whose job it was to collect such information.  The dramatic turnaround between these two NIE’s suggests that whatever intelligence problems there were incidental to the Iraq report, remain.

Here’s a thought to take with you today; business intelligence estimate one we can trust? With that thought, I’m sympathetic to Beck’s argument…

If these appalling imbeciles say that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, then I say it’s time to go long on bomb shelters.

…. because that’s certainly the safe play. Dan Riehl’s point about the Syrian site Israel bombed a month or so back comes into play here, too. At the same time, they got it wrong the other direction with Iraq. Or did they?

Addendum: (Bit)

By way of Memeorandum,   Tom Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard asks five pertinent questions about all of this, and concludes:

We are left with a number of important questions. And without knowing the answers to these questions, the IC’s opinions are best viewed with a skeptical eye.

I suspect, that in the end a lot of this is simply how things are categorized within the halls of intelligence.  In showing us this, Joscelyn mentions one I neglected to:

Note that the IC argues that Iran supposedly gave up its covert uranium conversion and enrichment work. How does the IC know that? Are we to believe that the IC’s penetration of Iran’s intelligence services, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other parties controlled by the mullahs is so iron-clad that it can know this with certainty? Furthermore, is it possible that Iran did not need to do said work covertly because it has been openly enriching uranium?

Indeed, not only openly, but bragging about it.  And, probably overstating the case of how much uranium refining was going on… is this a case of ‘hiding in plain sight’?

Gina Cobb raises a great point, and one I’d not fully considered

Sometimes just the right words at just the right moment are world-changing.  “Why don’t you shut up?” was not remotely as eloquent as “I have a dream” or “Give me liberty or give me death!,” but at least it was spontaneous and heartfelt.  And it may just have helped Venezuelans avoid the terrible mistake of handing Chavez the power to entrench himself as Venezuela’s dictator for life.

It’s not as implausible as it seems.  Gina raises several indicators in her article, all of which when summed up, indicate that King Juan Carlos was the pebble that started the avalanche.

As Gina indicates, Crazy Uncle Hugo knew it, too.  That’s why Chavez was threatening to cut off ties with Spain for the remark.  God bless the King, he can apologized for that one.  Nor should he have.

But I wonder if even he knew the strength of that remark. Simply standing up for the right thing, with passion and with heartfelt words, was all that did it, really.

Which leads me to another thought;

Those downplaying the role that the democrats have had in creating a harder row for the United States to hoe in Iraq by virtue of their nonstop mouths,  should seriously consider the lessons taught here.  Because you see, avalanches roll down both sides of the hill.

AN NASIRIYAH SWAT CAPTURES HIGH-LEVEL IED FACILITATOR, FOUR OTHERS

Posted: 02 Dec 2007 08:51 AM CST

AN NASIRIYAH SWAT CAPTURES HIGH-LEVEL IED FACILITATOR, FOUR OTHERS

TIKRIT LAW SCHOOL AFFILIATES WITH BALTIMORE LAW SCHOOL

Posted: 02 Dec 2007 08:46 AM CST

TIKRIT LAW SCHOOL AFFILIATES WITH BALTIMORE LAW SCHOOL

SIRAJ HAQQANI SHARES NAME OF FATHER ONLY: DIFFERS IN PHILOSOPHY, TACTICS

Posted: 02 Dec 2007 08:41 AM CST

SIRAJ HAQQANI SHARES NAME OF FATHER ONLY: DIFFERS IN PHILOSOPHY, TACTICS

NEW YORK -(AP)- Take the V train _ back to 1937.

New York City Transit put a vintage 1930s-’40s subway train into service for one day on Sunday as a holiday treat for riders.

Called the Nostalgia Train, the subway train features wicker seats, ceiling fans and advertisements from when it was first put in service.

Neat when that happens. I’d have been interested in riding that one.

Pete Wehner over at The Corner:

It turns out, of course, that it was TNR‘s critics, and not TNR, who were vindicated, and all honor is due to them.

What The New Republic didn’t understand, and still seems unable to grasp, is that they and others saw this for what it was: an effort to use Beauchamp’s story to paint an ugly portrait of those serving in Iraq. The magazine had turned against the war, and this piece would help turn people against those serving in the war. What has happened instead is that the situation in Iraq is turning around — and the TNR piece has utterly collapsed.

Since mid-July this story was a torpedo aimed directly at the hull of TNR; the torpedo has now hit its mark. The damage is enormous and Franklin Foer’s explanation — which contains no apology to TNR‘s readers or, more significantly, to the people in Beauchamp’s unit — will only compound the damage. What Franklin Foer calls a “controversy” is really a scandal. And Scott Beauchamp will now take his place aside Stephen Glass in TNR‘s Hall of Shame.

His points are on the money, but frankly, I think the better comparison is with Jayson Blair. Allow me to illustrate:

Note to Franklin Foer: In your own best interests, have a word with Blair’s former Bosses, Howell Rains and Gerald Boyd.

Addendum: I note Saint Andrew the Incontinent playing defense. Still trying to maintain a little relevance, huh, Andrew?

There is all the difference in the world between turning on the war – which Wehner’s former bosses criminally bungled and he recklessly spun through years of failure – and turning on the soldiers.

No, there isn’t, Andrew. Particularly when they go with the utter crap that TNR did.  What they did was anti-troop, anti-American and arguably, treason. That’s even more true, when as even you admit, they’d already been told the guy was and is a liar.
Now go and change your armor.

Jonah wins this one going away:

  By now you’ve probably heard that CNN made such a laughingstock of itself at the recent YouTube debate in Florida that it could only have been worse if host Anderson Cooper conducted it in fluent Klingon.

In what was billed as a glorious exercise in democratic do-goodery and civic seriousness, CNN opened its gates to the American people and, to their surprise, the network’s relentlessly touted credibility ran out the door like a dog in heat. Nearly a third of the questioners in the debate proved to be if not outright plants of the Democratic Party or other liberal interests, then at least very far from the “ordinary Americans” this whole circus was supposed to be catering to.

It’s a great line….

What Jonah fails to reckon with is that those people are CNN’s vision of what is mainstream America.  That is their biggest credibility issue.

Jon Martin at the Politico:

Halperin has the big news: Mitt Romney will take to to the Bush Library in College Station, Texas, on Thursday to give a long-anticipated, much-debated speech about his Mormon faith and the role of religion in American public life.

Says a Romney adviser to The Page:

“The governor believes this is the right moment. He believes it is the right time to address the nation on the issue of religious liberty and how that principle is a fundamental part of our nation’s greatness.”

Asked why the decision was made, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail that “it’s an important topic, and Gov. Romney has decided that he wants to address it, and that now is the time to do it.”

The speech comes as Romney has slipped in Iowa to Mike Huckabee, a Baptist preacher who is drawing support in part because of his faith and that of Romney.

I’d guess this timing has something to do with all the negative phone calls I see coming from the Huckabee camp of late.

That said, it’s my take that Romney in his speech will make the case that we shouldn’t be holding his Mormonism against him, any more than we held JFK’s (rather loosely held) Catholicism against HIM.

In the doing, he’ll likely as not invoke the concept of religious liberty.  However, do not be confused… there’s a difference between religious liberty where the government is concerned, and the people not wanting to elect a Mormon to the presidency… these are two separate issues. The isues get confused when they get conflated. While it may (Or may not) serve Romney’s short term purposes to do so, it doesn’t serve the country, or the culture, in the longer term.

As for other things he might say, Stop the ACLU comments:

My major contentions with Romney have nothing to do with his religion. My apprehensions have to do with not knowing where he really stands on anything. A speech on his religion isn’t going to make a difference on what I think of him and I don’t think it will change many, if any, minds of other Americans. Most folks that hold his religion against him already know what Mormons believe. Even if they are confused by misconceptions on what Mormans believe, a speech won’t change their minds.

I tend to agree, which is why I think this speech is going to be directed at Huckabee’s attacks, and little more. This is something which wouldn’t come up at all, save for Preacher Huckabee going negative on the point. I’m non-plussed with Huckabee to begin with and his constant leftward tilt, and this nonsense isn’t helping.

As you might expect, Memeorandum has a few links up on this, already.

Well, what do you know… Ibrahim Hooper… the CAIR spokesman, and usually an Islamic Extremist Apologist, manages to surprise Uncle Bithead, this morning, as regards the TeddyBear case in the Sudan:

Even if Ms. Gibbons had the intent to cause insult, which does not seem to be the case, Islamic traditions include a number of instances in which the Prophet had the opportunity to retaliate against those who abused him, but refrained from doing so.

…

The complaint brought against Gillian Gibbons was an inappropriate use of Sudan’s legal system to deal with what was in essence a disagreement between parents and a teacher. Ms. Gibbons should never have been charged. She should be released immediately.

I wonder at the genesis of this. (Pardon the pun)

One thing which cannot be denied, however, is the concept that Islam is not the monolithic bloc we’ve seen of late. Still, the reasonable portion of that culture is all too small, and fearful.

That someone like Hooper is able to come off as being ‘reasonable’ strikes me as nothing more than proof of how radicalized the Sudan has become. It’s also proof that Islam is simply, as a culture, not doing well enough in managing it’s own and it’s place in the world.

Memeorandum has notes up that the teacher has been pardoned by the President of the Sudan. As Hooper suggests, things should not have gotten to this stage.  However, I’m not in a celebratory mood. Do we celebrate hitting someone unreasonably hitting us over the head with a 2*4, because it feels good when they stop?

Hooper says this was merely a disagreement between a teacher and a parent.

Uh-uh….Not when we see death threats, it’s not.  What we saw with this case, as with most things involving Islam of late, is not peace… but rather, FEAR.  Either fear inflicted on someone else… as in scaring the crap out of an elderly schoolteacher… or fear in the protesters, who reacted to that fear by calling for the death of that schoolteacher. Theirs clearly was a fear reaction. They’re afraid of the teddy bear… and what it represents.

It’s time we started dealing with it as such. Truly, a front in the war on terror.

James Taranto, the other day(Via mail) speaks about Murtha admitting there’s serious progress in Iraq, and that the surge IS working….

Murtha does make the obligatory complaint about lack of political progress in Iraq, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that he complains the White House is making invidious comparisons:

As a reminder of how contentious the war debate is in Washington, a White House spokeswoman yesterday chastised Congress for failing to provide billions of dollars in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year. 

“They only have six legislative days left in the session. Their focus should be on funding the troops, making sure the intelligence gap remains firmly closed, and by passing a budget, which is something that our country, our democracy, should be able to do,” Dana Perino said during a press briefing. 

“They complain about Iraq; the Iraqis were able to pass a budget. It’s almost completed. Ours is nowhere near completed.”

Mr. Murtha said such language is “the kind of stuff that makes it very difficult to come to an agreement because it just alienates people in our party.”

But the Seattle Times reports that Rep. Norm Dicks, a Democrat and fellow traveler of Murtha’s, made the same point on his recent trip to Iraq:

In Baghdad’s Green Zone, Dicks and his group, led by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, were briefed by U.S.  military leaders about their concerns that the Iraqi government is squandering the breathing room given it by the escalation of American troops. When his group sat down with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Dicks said, “we were very disappointed about the lack of reconciliation, and the lack of urgency.”  Maliki just nodded, Dicks said.

He reminded Maliki and his ministers that they need to pass legislation on sharing oil revenues and power among Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

“But I felt kinda embarrassed telling the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can’t do it back here,” he said.

America is the greatest country in the world, but one thing we do not have–for better as well as for worse–is an efficient national legislature. It seems odd to declare post-Saddam Iraq a failure merely because it has the same lack.

(Chuckle)

There is that,James. And here’s the thing…. and I’ve said this previously:

With all the progress that’s been happening in Iraq of late, the last refuge of the left is to complain that the Iraqi federal government there doesn’t have it’s act together.

While that’s true in large degree, it’s also beside the point. Change… real change… particularly the positive kind… cannot be imposed from above, it has to come from the people themselves. That’s exactly what is happening currently in Iraq.

There’s an interesting parallel, here between the Left’s view of the relationship between the Iraqi federal and provincial governments, and their American equivalents.

When Katrina was an issue, the left complained the federal government didn’t respond as they would have liked, but made no mention as to the actions of the state and local governments. . Invariably, they pointed at Louisiana as their example. Yet, they ignored similarly hard hit Mississippi’s recovery, which was driven at the state level.

As with Katrina, the left under-estimates and underplays the role of the local governments… those levels of government not federal in nature. In both cases… Iraq and Mississippi, what needs to be done is largely being dealt with at the provincial/state level. The provincial governments are agreeing on what the federal government could not, and things are getting done. This is an outcome that the left didn’t have on it’s radar simply because it doesn’t match their worldview of a huge centralized, all powerful government.

There’s a lesson there.

Indeed, I would say this list of recent successes is happening, not despite the absence of the Federal government, there, but BECAUSE of it.
That, of course, it is something that the Democrats dare not say.

In answer to feedback:

I’ll be honest; I considered trying for the open seat on the Watchers Council… but until my new job gets settled in, I can’t depend on having the time to give to the position.

Maybe next time.

As a railfan, I can’t pass this one up. The Pere Marquette, (AMTK 371) a couple days ago hit the back end of an NS freight in the Chicago area the other morning.  It took a bit for the details of the crash to start filtering through… and the investigation is apparently taking some interesting twists. 

CHICAGO —(AP/FOX)- An Amtrak train was going about 25 mph over the speed limit — despite a signal indicating another train was on the same track — moments before it hit a stationary freight train, injuring dozens of people, federal officials said Sunday.

The Amtrak train’s engineer told investigators he realized the speed limit was 15 mph in that stretch of track but accelerated to 40 mph anyway, National Transportation Safety Board Vice Chairman Robert Sumwalt told reporters.

The speed limit on that portion of track, which is usually 79 mph, had been reduced to 15 mph by a red and yellow “restricting signal,” indicating another train was on the track, the official said.

The pictures I’ve seen show the power of the Amtrak train up on the back end of the last car of a single level container freight. Darn good thing it was a single level train or the two Amtrak employees in the cab would be dead right now. As it is, Amtrak has lost one of it’s P42’s… (Roster number 8, looks like… hard to see.)

Now, I don’t know the signaling along that line very well, but I do know there are reasons why such a signal in might be ignored, or the rules bent in those situations, most of which would involve some communications with the line’s dispatcher. The NTSB seems to me to be focusing unusually on why the trains were on the same track, which raises the possibility that the Norfolk Southern dispatcher in the area didn’t know of the problem.

Another wrinkle…According to railfans in the area, the 20 car NS train itself waiting at a signal, and had just gotten a green and was preparing to move when it was hit.

CARACAS, Venezuela,Monday, Dec. 3 —(New York Times)- Voters in this country narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday.It was the first major electoral defeat in the nine years of his presidency. Voters rejected the 69 proposed amendments 51 to 49 percent.

There was a good deal of back and forth, last night, over whether or not the thing had passed.  Apparently, the loss came as something of a shock to the Chavez regime, who at the last minute started canceling “victory dance” press conferences .

Interestingly enough, Al Jazeera was announcing for Chavez, before anyone else even tried.  Now why would the radical Islam world be interested in propping up Chavez, we wonders, yes, we wonders….

So, the real story here, is that despite all the pressure that government can bring to bear, along with the sympathetic press, Chavez still lost. The investigations into the corruption incidental to this vote will be quite interesting indeed. Of course, we’ll have to wait till 2012 for that to happen…. that’s when Chavez’ current term ends.

Well, there’s another possibility; Chavez could simply decide to hold another vote on the issue.

Memeorandum has lots of reax.

Dale Franks finds enough blame to go all around on this Beuachamp thing.

The subtext(…In the Foer article…) is that the Army should have been more helpful, and that PVT Beauchamp should’ve been more helpful, and that conservative bloggers should’ve kept their pieholes closed.

In one sense, TNR is correct. The Army, once again, did its usual stellar job of incompetently handling relations with the press in general, and TNR in particular. Whatever the truth may have been, the Army utterly failed in handling this whole matter transparently, and providing a clear explanation of the methods and results of the investigation. But, that’s been SOP for the Army PIO for the last 40 years.

I’m less than sure I agree, here. I told him:

I have to wonder how much of the perception of lack of cooperation is actually the actions of TNR.

As someone who spent a good deal of time in end user support, I can tell you firsthand that there are a large number of people who will go to great lengths not to be cooperated with. Ask anyone on a help desk. Their one goal in life is to bitch loudly and blame the the other guy and prove them wrong, no matter the cost.

I have long suspected TNR to be one of these, where the military is concerned. In reading Foer’s bit, I am convinced of it.

Extending the thought in conversation with another commenter:

It seems quite clear to me, at least, that Beauchamp and TNR went into this thing looking for something negative to print about the army and its actions in Iraq. By definition, that is a hostile situation. Taken a step further, that relationship would result in to the smallest thing done by the army to be taken in exactly the wrong fashion; both Beauchamp and TNR were, like race hustlers, looking to be offended, and praying it happened, so as to further their agenda.

Its not the Army’s job to tie up all the lose ends for us. In a great deal of this case, its not even legal for them to do so.

That’s an important point, and should not be overlooked in all of this. There is much in the way of legal minefield surrounding these events, to say nothing of matters of intelligence during a time of war. All of that needed to be considered throughout, by the army. It’s a restriction, of course, that the mainstream media has demonstrated little respect for… and TNR, who was in effect fighting for it’s life, would have even less.

It’s a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.  Anything, and I mean anything, shy of the army admitting that everything Beauchamp said was true, would not satisfy TNR, because the agenda isn’t being satisfied.

Once that point is established, the complaints of TNR must be taken with a grain or three of salt… even when exclusive of the fact that Beauchamp fabricated the whole thing, and TNR printed it without fact checking, because it fit with the image they wanted to project of America’s military.

When those factors are added into the mix… well….

Michelle is reporting on more shoddy reporting… this time from NRO…

Ugh. This is bad on many levels. W. Thomas Smith, Jr., a former Marine and milblogger who writes at National Review Online’s The Tank (and whose work in Iraq I’ve praised and linked to here), posts a long-winded defense of bogus, shoddy reporting he published while he was in Lebanon earlier this fall.

Michelle also points out something rather crucial:

Kathryn Lopez, to her credit, immediately disclosed the controversy to readers. Contrary to the TNR editors, she thanked the reporter who first questioned Smith’s account, instead of trashing critics. Writes Lopez:

Bottom line: NRO strives to bring you reliable analysis and reporting — whether in presenting articles, essays, or blog posts. Smith did commendable work in Lebanon earlier this year, as he does from S.C. where he is based, as he has done from Iraq, where he has been twice. But rereading some of the posts (see “The Tank” for more detail) and after doing a thorough investigation of some of the points made in some of those posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall. And so I apologize to you, our readers.

I thank Smith for his good, brave work. He’s a smart, reliable reporter with a great patriotic spirit and sense of service. We owe him and our readers better — we should have gotten you more context and information before a post or two went live. It’s understandable how it happened — the nature of blogging being what it is — but given what an underreported tinderbox we’re talking about, especially, we owed you more. We weren’t blogging about Dancing with the Stars there.

So I’m grateful to the reporter who contacted Smith with questions. He brought them to my attention. We did due diligence. We’ve reported this back to him. And now we’re reporting back to you.

The problem is that “more context” and “caveats” aren’t what was needed. Just the facts would have sufficed. Smith’s work in those posts was not “good” or “brave.” And “the nature of blogging” doesn’t excuse the phenomenal errors. Given Smith’s admissions, “reliable” is not a word that should attach to his Lebanon reporting.

I don’t think so, either. But here’s the thing; Where was TNR’s equivalent of KJL, when Beauchamp was fabricating? More, where were the lefties when the Beauchamp fabrication story started coming out?

Maybe that’s why the response from the left side of the ‘sphere has been rather subdued… As fellow Swamp Stomper Sister Toldjah says:

It’s a study in contrast between two popular online opinion outlets when questioned about the credibility of their reporting. TNR decided to try and put their accusers on the defensive, while feigning shock that anyone could possibly dare question their reporting, while NRO understood and addressed the concerns, apologized, and didn’t lay the blame on the factcheckers.

Quite.

Addendum: Bluto, writing at Jawa, agrees:

Contrast NRO’s reaction to The New Republic’s months of stonewalling and complaints of conspiracies within the military before issuing a lugubrious pseudo-retraction. Note also that Lopez manages to make her point in four succinct paragraphs, while TNR’s Franklin Foer blathered on for 13 pages before coming to the point, sort of, on the fourteenth.

Heh… a firm grasp on the obvious, this boy… Always liked him. (grin)

David Freddoso at The Corner:

Look, we can blame CNN all we want. But there’s more to the sad fact that Democratic campaign and Party plants asked 11 of the questions in the last two debates, as though they were mere “undecided, concerned voters” from the “real world.”

CNN deserves much blame for it, but I doubt they actually colluded in letting this happen. They should have reacted, however, by castigating the Democrats for corrupting the process. Isn’t that what’s really going on here?

Yes, it IS what’s going on. But the fact that CNN did not react that way should be your first clue that the charge against CNN of collusion in the matter is accurate.  If CNN felt they were being wronged, they’d be screaming bloody murder, and going to wall to wall coverage mode about it.  Their silence tells us a different story altogether.

It’s like I told Ed Morrissey, yesterday; this is not a case of incompetence.  Incompetence, by definition, produces an inconsistent product.  CNN, I’m afraid, has been anything but inconsistent. They have been Clinton apologists for years and years, and have leaned left at every opportunity.  This is not a screw up on CNN’s part.  This is not a lapse of their selection process.  This is their operational policy, exposed to light of day.

In fact, were it not for the hostage situation developing in Rochester, New Hampshire a couple days ago this is a subject that we’d still be talking about, on every news network in the country, and the blogs would be all over it like water in a t-shirt.  As it is, the subject has all but disappeared.  Miraculous, isn’t it?