That explains why Bushco would classify and withhold the new NIE (which they said they were going to do with these new NIEs anyway) and then have it leaked out from under them to embarrass them and their sabre rattling.
But it doesn't explain why Bushco would intentionally release it. Especially after the Dyspeptic Duo's recent warmongering bluster, which makes them look especially foolish now.
Is it some sort of "message" to Iran? Did someone in Bushco say "you either release this or I resign over your lies"? A puzzle.
euzoius, From Kevin Drum:
All I've got is speculation... but here it is: it was congressional pressure. Democratic members of the various intelligence committees saw the NIE (or a summary or a verbal report or something) and went ballistic. Footnotes and dissents are one thing, but withholding a report whose primary conclusion is 180 degrees contrary to years of administration innuendo produced a rebellion. Somebody who got briefed must have threatened something pretty serious if the NIE didn't see the light of day.
Of course that's a stretch to expect this from our congress. But I can dream.
Then for your second question:
Did someone in Bushco say "you either release this or I resign over your lies"?
I hope it would have been the entire military hierarchy or intellgience community finally putting their foot down.
Posted by Seven of Six at December 4, 2007 05:38 AMImpeach!
Posted by Brian Bell at December 4, 2007 05:38 AMHadley says the threat is still valid because continues to enrich uranium and still could develop a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015.
Nuff said.
If I'm an Israeli, I don't think I'd have a great deal of confidence in Bush's ability to carry out a successful attack on Iran. As a matter of fact, I doubt many people do. His track record speaks for itself. One thing the Israeli's don't need is another failed war going on in their back yard. I might add, after their disaster last summer invading their neighbor, they probably don't have great confidence in their military command either. May be best to let things cool off a bit.
Posted by T2 at December 4, 2007 06:15 AMBrian Bell
Are you not aware that Princess Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table?
Well, it certainly opens a window of opportunity for diplomatic negotiations with Iran. However, butt boy doesn't know the word 'negotiations,' much less how to pronounce it.
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2007 06:41 AMObjections from Israel? Since when? Israel has always been number one in pushing for an attack on Iran.
Posted by Shirin at December 4, 2007 07:11 AMI heard part of the Bush press conf this morning. I was stunned to hear him say that he released the NIE because the admin had been very clear on the threat of Iran and nukes and he wanted the American people to know there had been a "re-evaluation." He also said this NIE was a result of overhauling the intelligence community after the "failure of intelligence" in Iraq. And that we should be confident in this report. Admitting a mistake, or at least a change in what they believe to be true??
But before that he said that he will use the NIE to continue pressure on Iran because this type of pressure worked before. Yeah, dumbass, it worked so well they stopped their program and it's still halted. What good would sanctions do now? And how do sanctions or bombing or anything else remove the knowledge they have that is such a threat?
Posted by CG at December 4, 2007 08:06 AMThanks CG. Bushco wildly misuses and abuses the Iraq intelligence and gets to describe it as a "failure of intelligence". Well, that'll teach the CIA.
This looks like yet more cumuppance for making the CIA the Iraq fall-guy. I sure hope so.
But as always, Bush continues to act like the CIA, not Cheney, dragged the US into invading Iraq. Like Bushco went into Iraq against their better judgement, misled by (erroneous!) WMD hype from CIA. That one burns me up.
Posted by euzoius at December 4, 2007 08:40 AMWatching the chimp during his "press conference" today go from "if you want to avoid WW III" to "if you want to avoid a really problematic situation" regarding Iran was hilarious.
The Fonz had an easier time of admitting he was wr, wrr, wrrr, wrrrr.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 4, 2007 08:50 AMJohnT, yup, I'm aware of Pelosi's promise. And I say, to heck with it! IMPEACH! Well, impeach Cheney at least.
Posted by Brian Bell at December 4, 2007 10:55 AMLooks like I called it last night, Bush said today that this is a warning because "what's to say they won't start a weapons program up again." Aren't they the predictable ones?
Posted by iamcoyote at December 4, 2007 12:40 PMWow - there is so much spin going on now that I think we should all feel permanently dizzy!
But look, the claim that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program because of international pressure is also spin. Look at the timing! What ELSE happened in 2003 that might have made the Iranian government decide it did not need to develop nuclear weapons, and that maybe the resources could be better used elsewhere?
Posted by Shirin at December 4, 2007 01:36 PMEvidently, in the New World Order, you cannot ask question such as how many Iraqis have died. Helen, be very careful or you may end up in Abu.
Crooks and Liars has video and transcript of a recent, heated exchange between White House press secretary Dana Perino and reporter Helen Thomas. Thomas asks questions about civilian deaths in Iraq; Perino tries to act like Thomas is being disrespectful. An excerpt:
Dana Perino: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position bestowed upon you by your colleagues to make such statements . . . It is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive.
Of course, the U.S. is killing civilians, as Perino eventually admits, however grudgingly.
And it's not as if this fact is a secret: remember Bush's off-the-cuff statement in December 2005 that so far we'd killed "30,000 [Iraqis], more or less"?
So, what's the current number? Like Thomas, we'd really like to know, but every article and blog post we've read on the subject offers wildly different numbers. The website IraqBodyCount.org offers the closest thing we can find to a direct, credible answer: today, it claims between 77,847 and 88,812 documented civilian deaths from violence since 2003. They've compiled those numbers from media reports, morgue records, NGOs and official figures.
It would be nice to get some confirmation or revision of these deeply troubling numbers from the administration. But if Helen Thomas can't get an answer from the White House, what hope is there for the rest of us?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/03/helen-thomas-stresses-out-dana-perino/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
1,125,128 estimated Iraqis killed since the war began.
http://antiwar.com/updates/
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2007 02:10 PM"IraqBodyCount.org offers the closest thing we can find to a direct, credible answer"
Sorry, but no. The methodology used by IraqBodyCount, while not without some merit and usefulness, is known to produce serious undercounts in conflict situations, for what should be obvious reasons, particularly when the ones doing so much of the killing have an expensive and well-thought-out program of "perception management".
The most reliable estimates of Iraqis killed as a result of the American colonial project in Iraq come from the few scientific studies that have been done, most notable of which are the two so-called "Lancet studies" which were designed and conducted by epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins and Al Mustansariya universities. The people who designed and conducted the studies are experienced in doing mortality studies in conflict situations, and they used state-of-the-art methodology.
The most recent study done by this team, which was published about a year ago, estimated the number of deaths that occurred as a result of the invasion and occupation at around 650,000. A more recent study done by a different group estimated the deaths cased by the invasion and occupation at around 1.2 million. That figure is very close to the number you would get if you extrapolate the 650,000 from a year ago to what it would likely be today.
The catastrophic nature of what Bush and his gang have done to Iraq simply cannot be underestimated.
Posted by Shirin at December 4, 2007 02:41 PMGood question, Mary. I have no freaking idea. Other than sensing that whatever the bomb Tehran plan was that it fell apart early in November and was dead by mid-November. That might also explain why Bush gave in to Condi and held a faux I/P peace gathering. Maybe what we're seeing is the revenge of the bureaucrats -- or a few of the halfway decent people remaining at the CIA, State and Pentagon.
Posted by Marie at December 4, 2007 02:53 PM"whatever the bomb Tehran plan was that it fell apart early in November and was dead by mid-November."
I think that is way overly optimistic.
Posted by Shirin at December 4, 2007 02:57 PMShirin - believe that is the first time anyone has accused me of being overly optimistic in any assessment I've made of Bu$hCo. Not saying the "bomb Tehran" gang is without hope but it's now limited to Iran (or a facsimile) attacking a US ship, facility etc.
Posted by Marie at December 4, 2007 03:24 PMbelieve that is the first time anyone has accused me of being overly optimistic
Nah, usually we accuse you of over-generalizing with little evidence.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 4, 2007 03:31 PMWhat ELSE happened in 2003 that might have made the Iranian government decide it did not need to develop nuclear weapons, and that maybe the resources could be better used elsewhere?
Now this has me curious...
Posted by iamcoyote at December 4, 2007 03:36 PMWell, Coyote, how about the demise of the only regime in the region that has ever really been a threat to Iran?
Posted by Shirin at December 4, 2007 03:51 PMI was going to comment on that aspect last night, but thought it was too obvious! We agree that the only real winner in the Iraq war crime is Iran.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 4, 2007 04:20 PM