The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz

Posted December 7, 2007 | 06:50 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz   digg: The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz   reddit: The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz   del.icio.us: The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz

Throughout most of the Cold War any challenge to the proposition that "the Russians are coming and they're 30 feet tall" was met with derision and outrage by the Right. As a veteran of both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, I saw repeated rejection of any intelligence estimate that questioned that mantra or placed Soviet military capabilities or intent to use them in any realistic light. The most notorious, but not the only, instance was the appointment of a "Team B" to challenge the view of intelligence experts that the Soviet economy was a mess and its military not much better.

Of course, as we now know, the intelligence community, especially the CIA, was right and the Right was wrong.

Now comes Professor Dershowitz, in a rant that is not only hysterical but almost catatonic, presuming to know more about what is, or is not, going on in Iran than the sum total of sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies combining hundreds of thousands of the nation's most expert intelligence collectors and analysts who annually consume forty or fifty billion American tax dollars.

One did not hear much from Professor Dershowitz when those same intelligence agencies held to the position that Iran was on track to develop nuclear weapons, or at least when President Bush made that claim while suppressing any questions to the contrary. So, by collecting new intelligence and placing it under more intense scrutiny, and, one hears, by threatening to release this report if the White House continued to suppress it, these same intelligence experts suddenly become incompetents and "nincompoops" pursuing, according to Professor Dershowitz, some nefarious agenda of their own. It is never clear what that agenda is supposed to be.

Sounds like the Cold War all over again. Intelligence is good when it tells you what you want to hear. Otherwise, it is dangerously flawed if not sinister.

Experience and common sense tells me that these sixteen agencies with hundreds of thousands of employees pursuing a secret agenda doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The real question is this: What is Professor Dershowitz's agenda here? Many bloggers automatically assumed is has to do with Israel. But Professor Dershowitz does not say so and, having known and respected him for many years, I presume if he is angry because the intelligence report undermines his broader purpose, he would have the courage to simply say so.
Until he does, one must shake one's head in sadness at a fine mind longing for the Cold War, or for a new villain to justify a wrong-headed empirial militancy in the Middle East, or who knows what.

What has undermined public support for the war in Iraq is the suspicion that other agendas, not least oil among them, were at work but not being disclosed by our leaders. It is a sure guarantee that the American people will turn against any foreign enterprise when they come to suspect that they are not being told the truth.

Perhaps now is the time for everyone to put their cards on the table.

Comments for this post are now closed


Comments
272
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (11 pages total)

It is precisly because we allowed neocon hawks to second guess the CIA, that we are in this utterly pointless war in Iraq.

The OSP, headed by Douglas Fieth, was set up to "rethink" the intel that was coming in on Iraq that said that Al qeada was not present there in any significant form, and that there was not any WMD program there. We all know what senseless damage these charlatons helped caused here and in Iraq. Whats even more shocking and enraging is that one of feiths underlings at the OSP, Larry franklin, was later stung by the FBI for giving classified intel on Iran to top members of AIPAC and the Israeli Embassy with the intent that they would use them to foment war between the US and Iran. franklin was sentenced to 12 years in federal Prison and the 2 AIPAC officials are awaiting trial on espionage agaisnt the US.
Now Alan Dershowitz wants to do the same with Iran, as though the US is populated by witless fools with a memory a half a day long.

Get over it, Alan, you can't have your war, and furthermore, there is a very good chance that the Settlements will be totally cleared out in just a few years. With any luck, this will be accomplished by the same kids in the IDF who have been forced to stand in a circle of human shields around those racist, ultra nationalist nutjobs whose values many of them do not share.

This will make Israel a safer place. It will make the US a safer place, and it will help bring to an end the needless suffering of millions of palestinians, giving the hope to this generation that has been stolen from those before them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 12/10/2007

Has it occurred to anyone else that the Bush Administration's reaction to this NIE seems to be so over-the-top moronic that a paranoid observer might conclude that Bush/Cheney (et al) are purposefully trying to tank the Republican's '08 hopes?

It might seem odd to some that this administration's extreme and public stupidity regarding the NIE came immediately on the heels of some apparently good news (in a very narrow context, but the American people have short memories and are endlessly forgiving) about the reduction in violence in Iraq and the launching of a renewed Palestinian/Israeli peace process. Theoretically, if the Republicans found themselves the beneficiaries of warm fuzzies about the war in Iraq sometime around the summer of '08, that would be a good thing for them, right? One might ask the question: Why would an incumbent (but terminal) administration be taking a dive and actively attempting to torpedo their own party's hopes for a follow-on White House administration and/or a return to a congressional majority?

Just curious if anyone else is smelling what might be coming down the pipe...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 PM on 12/09/2007

Gary,that'll never happen and you know why(kiss of death for any politician,journalist,public figure,etc.).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 12/09/2007

When Israel acknowledges to the world that it has the fifth largest nuclear weapon arsenal, and when it agrees to reduce or eliminate such weapons in its possession, then maybe, just maybe, Dersh and the rest of the Israel appeasers might have a point when it comes to Iran. But until that day comes (given the arrogant nature of Israel's political system, I'm not holding my breath), Dersh should stick to ambulance chasing.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 12/09/2007

OMG all must watch this about NIE:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fyiGTJqzWU

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 12/09/2007

Hart does not question that Iran is a threat. He wants to know why Alan Dershowitz calls the NIE perverse. Mr. Hart ends his comment with this question for Alan, "It is a sure guarantee that the American people will turn against any foreign enterprise when they come to suspect that they are not being told the truth." I agree with Mr. Hart, and cannot fathom why Mr. Dershowitz doesn't feel the same.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 12/09/2007

You cannot understand the NIE report in the context of Bush's Iran policy until you also understand that halting Iran's U235 enrichment was never and is not now this administration's primary objective. The primary objective was and continues to be regime change in Iran. Regime change in Iran as seen from Washington and Europe does not mean the removal of Ahmadinejad who may not be re-elected anyway and who is a convenient bogeyman for the Bush administration because of his risky public utterances. Regime change means the total destruction of Khomeini's revolution for two reasons. One is a firm control of Iran's oil and gas exports through a friendly client-regime. The other is revenge for the humiliating occupation of the U.S. embassy by a bunch of long-haired students. The Bush administration's Iran policy has clearly moved to "regime change preferably by non-violent means". For this the NIE report serves only as a convenient smoke screen. The NIE has not deterred an attack on Iran. The leadership of the US Armed Forces has done that.
Dershowitz may rant and rave as much as he wants, he has absolutely zero influence in Washington. Lastly, those who believe that Israel determines Bush's Middle East policies are probably wrong. Bush uses Israel as a proxy to bring about his desired regime changes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 12/09/2007

Hold on Mr. Hart! Surely you read the March '05 report on the "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which underscored several realities in it's conclusions, chiefly that "Our collection agencies are often unable to gather intelligence on the very things we care most about¦. Across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world most dangerous actors." When did this report come out? 2005?
One thing is certain, our intelligence situation is a mess. It started back in the 1970s when the Congress convened hearings The Church Committee included you). Things got worse under Carter who reduce human intelligence leaving it in shambles which caught us totally unawares when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and the Shah was toppled. Reagan tried to reverse some of those trends but problems continued. When the cold war ended, Clinton cut funding both for the CIA and for defense and showed little interest in the agency"s work; he did not hold a meeting with his CIA Director for more than two years after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and failed to act on intelligence time after time. The current Bush administration did not challenge the intelligence used to justify the toppling of Saddam and on several critical fronts our intelligence has been wrong and our decisions based on false assumptions and erroneous information.
So the problems, historically speaking, are twofold. First, agency insiders making questionable choices in the use of their power and second a quarter century of undermining and mismanaging our military and intelligence capabilities. In light of this history Professor Dershowitz's criticism is called for and valid; the rush to accept the current NIE is a dangerous misstep. You on the other hand defend this very same defense intelligence establishment in your attack on Dershowitz, in spite of it's legacy of failures. This is not atypical. Even the 9/11 Commission has been the target of political grandstanding, blaming the Bush administration for problems going back 30 years. Your comments underscore that politics still rule. Sniping doesn't make our nation safer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 12/09/2007

Mr. Hart writes, "It is a sure guarantee that the American people will turn against any foreign enterprise when they come to suspect that they are not being told the truth."

How do the American people "come to suspect"? A majority of congress was unable to recognize that Iraqi intelligence was flawed and that there was no need to attack that country. By the time Americans "suspect" anything - it is too late.

You know this.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 AM on 12/09/2007

The sad fact is that American intelligence agencies have become the world's laughing stock. Congressional oversight hasn't been much better.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 AM on 12/09/2007
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (11 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


 
 
Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Gary Hart›
 

 Site  Web ask.com