Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Brits say CIA full of beans about Iran
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 10, 2007

Frankly, given the past performance of the CIA, I have little trust in their abilities. And the Brits are of a similar mind:
The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. "We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.

"It's not as if the American intelligence agencies are regarded as brilliant performers in that region. They got badly burned over Iraq."
In fact, it is entirely possible, given the basis for the NIE conclusion, that the CIA has indeed been the victim (and some would say "willing victim") of a disinformation plot.

Another point being made by critics of the finding is this is policy disguised as intelligence.
Bruce Reidel, who spent 25 years on the Middle East desks at the CIA and the National Security Council, said: "By going public they have embarrassed our friends, particularly the British and the Israelis. They have given our foes insights into our most secret intelligence and taken most of the options off the table."
Of course politically, much of the left has wanted particular options to be taken off the table, and to this point, have been pretty unsuccessful in making that case. So, timing on this NIE couldn't have been better, could it?

We discuss this a bit in our podcast, and our conclusion is, if we had our druthers, the CIA would be disbanded as it is and rebuilt from the ground up. I don't think we could do any worse, that's for sure.

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If I thought the CIA were this smart or competent, I’d believe this was all a brilliant form of intelligence judo. After their mistakes about Iraq, who’s gonna believe them about Iran? So they take the opposite view on Iran and the rest of the international community takes the hawk position. Brilliant, if I thought for a second it was done on purpose.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Bad intel is worse than no intel. Manipulated intel is even worse than bad intel.

Broom the whole lot. Ban them from re-employment and begin rebuilding.

Those in Europe who object to US actions probably prefer that the US do the dirty work and get the negative press for it. They don’t really want us to not do it. However, the want us to look like the badguys to the rest of the world because it helps them have more influence in other areas. And they want us to feel bad about it so we’ll try to suck up to them for approval. Unfortunately the Democrats fall for it.

So when it looks like we aren’t going to act, they come out of the woodwork in support. We need to call Europe’s bluff more often.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
It would seem from reports I have read that two of the three main authors of the NIE have had ideological differences in the past with the Bush Administration. That in itself, if true, makes the report suspect. As a retired manager of multi-million dollar projects, if I know someone has slanted data/facts in the past, I would have difficultly accepting their reports on any controversial subject. The administration’s problem is that they could see the handwriting on the wall that the report would be leaked regardless of what the President wanted. They could only delay its release so long.

This situation has finally convinced me that the CIA needed to be reconstituted from the top down and the State Department needs to be stripped of those who work against the policies of this or any other administration. We have civilians who were recently excellent military personnel from the upper enlisted and lower officer ranks who could do the jobs very well and have the necessary integrity with a self disciplined behavior record. The present personnel in the bureaucracy of these institutions appear to have little to recommend them other than their advanced educations and political infighting skills.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
It would seem from reports I have read that two of the three main authors of the NIE have had ideological differences in the past with the Bush Administration.

I sure am reading a lot of stuff like this. Who’s writing it? Dishonest hacks trying to walk back the conclusions. I mean, seriously, you have to look at this stuff and laugh. You’ve had *six years* to see what George Bush does to people who have "ideological differences" with him. The CIA was purged just a few years ago. Can anyone explain how these people with differences are supposed to have survived until now?

Not that anyone tossing this c*ap out in piles can quote any sources. You know, from people in government or anything. Where’s the integrity-in-media brigade now, when anonymous sourcing serves their purposes?

The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation

I mean, this is the kind of quote you give to the media and the viewing public because you think both audiences are as dumb as rocks. Hoo boy, no one at the CIA thought of a *disinformation campaign*! Think maybe they haven’t seen a few of those before?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It’s not "the brits" calling this into question. It’s a right-wing newspaper article with a grand total of .... One.... anonymous... british source trashing the plan. This is right where, if this article was publishing something he didn’t like, Q would trash the article up, down, and sideways for being a media-engendered, politically motivated, dishonest campaign, and point out how we have no idea what the British intel agencies, as a whole and in agglomeration, *really* think.

Of course, that’s a hard kind of rule to live by. All kinds of juicy misinformation, rumors and hit jobs would have to be left by the wayside to use that kind of rule regularly.

Caveat Emptor, eh?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It’s not "the brits" calling this into question.
Actually it is. Read the first three paragraphs. Lots of plurals in there.

Funny, you have no problem accepting "single source" nonsense when it is put out by the NYT or WaPo and damages the administration, but you’re suddenly cautious when it may go the other way, huh?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I thought about this the other day when McQ was talking about the degradation of the intelligence services and especially the CIA and their lessened reliance on HUMINT and greater reliance on technology.
My background is in SIGINT (20 years Air Force)and they (NSA) pretty much have the technology end covered. But I’ve been gone sine 1980 so that may have changed. HUMINT is key to the CIA’s collection effort. But in order to maximize HUMINT it would require that field officers be overseas in sensitive areas to seek out HUMINT resources. I wondered if the CIA isn’t suffering from the same malaise that is eating away at the State Department.
Does anyone think the same dynamic might be a portion of the problems at the CIA?
Glasnost, a few top level CIA operatives were replaced. I hardly think there was a purge of the CIA.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
And I gather that the Israeli attempt to change the JCS view of the legitmacy of the NIE report is also crap eh glazzy?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Speaking of which, some new otchkies might be needed for them thar glazzies, real horrorshow!
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
This will let you sleep better at night.

It seems the structure that was attacked and destroyed [by the Israelis] was not a nuclear reactor .. but rather a plutonium separation facility for NoKo.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Actually it is. Read the first three paragraphs. Lots of plurals in there.

One source, for one claim, about an alledged bunch of people.. in plurals.

Funny, you have no problem accepting "single source" nonsense when it is put out by the NYT or WaPo and damages the administration, but you’re suddenly cautious when it may go the other way, huh?

Gee, that’s just what I was accusing you of - but in reverse! Uh oh! How shall we possibly decide who’s morally superior in this case?

You’re right: I have been willing to consider single source and anonymous reporting in the past. And I probably will again. And so will you, just like you’re doing right now. Either we’re fools in the same boat, or even single-source, anonymous reporting is right sometimes. I’m pretty skeptical of this time.

Here’s an even more interesting parallel, while we’re dealing in comparatives, Q. When liberals questioned the motives of General Petraeus - even though there were serious, legimitate, unanswered questions about the statistics at the time - the howls of outrage rose from every conservative street corner, including this one.

But when an intelligence estimate is put out - that conservatives don’t like - what is on every street corner now? Accusations that somehow the intel community put this out as a deliberate, political act to sabotage some kind of grand plan the administration supposedly had. Of course, there’s no evidence of those kinds of motives or anything. And the howls of outrage that someone is casting malicious, insulting accusations against security professionals???

Where’d those howls of outrage go?

The truth is, it’s okay to knock generals - and all other kinds of professionals - and accuse them of all kinds of ignoble motivations without evidence- unless they’re generals leading an offensive at the time. Those generals, of course, are always the honest ones!

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
When liberals questioned the motives of General Petraeus - even though there were serious, legimitate, unanswered questions about the statistics at the time - the howls of outrage rose from every conservative street corner, including this one.
Uh no. It wasn’t what they questioned ... as you point out, numbers are fair game.

It was HOW the questioned them.

Questioning stats is one thing. To then take their assumptions to the next step, without proof, and question a man’s honesty and patriotism (and yeah, "General Betrayus" questions his patriotism so don’t even try) is the height of despicable partisanship - especially when the stats were proven to be pretty darn spot on.

And btw, I haven’t heard a single one of you lefties apologize for questioning his honor since.
The truth is, it’s okay to knock generals - and all other kinds of professionals - and accuse them of all kinds of ignoble motivations without evidence- unless they’re generals leading an offensive at the time. Those generals, of course, are always the honest ones!
See above and try some context with your generalist rant. I was very specific in my criticism of those generals and it had to do with "betting their stars" on active duty if they saw something they thought was wrong vs. waiting until they were safely retired to begin their sniping.

BTW - talked to MG Batiste lately?

No?

Might want to check in.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
was it the cia’s mistake on iraq or did the bush admin force them to say iraq had WMD for bush and cheny’s personal war against saddam? is this a move shift blame from bush to the CIA?
 
Written By: SLNTAX
URL: http://
Oh, glazzie, and where were those brave dissenters on Iraq when the CIA was reporting that Iraq had WMD (which we found, BTW) all thru the 90’s? No one was leaking to the NYT then. Wouldn’t happen to be because of that (D) after the title?

Face it, we know you, Copperhead. And now that you and your scaly kin at CIA have guaranteed appeasement and war, when the Iranian nuke claims a US city, the rest of the country will know you too. And will be wanting snakeskin boots.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
but you’re suddenly cautious when it may go the other way, huh?
When it questions the narrative, that’s when. Liberals are always cautious about how the "truth" needs interpretation.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
And what do you think of the very popular view by a leading Israeli analyst Obadiah Shoher? He argues (here, for example, www. samsonblinded.org/blog/america-arranges-a-peace-deal-with-iran.htm ) that the Bush Administration made a deal with Iran: nuclear program in exchange for curtailing the Iranian support for Iraqi terrorists. His story seems plausible, isn’t it?
 
Written By: Alex
URL: http://
was it the cia’s mistake on iraq or did the bush admin force them to say iraq had WMD for bush and cheny’s personal war against saddam? is this a move shift blame from bush to the CIA?

The unanimous bipartisan SSCI report says:
"The Committee found no evidence that the IC’s mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure.
The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so."
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider