digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

CIA analysts willing to 'go to jail' to ensure NIE release

thinkprogress.org — Retired Col. W. Patrick Lang, a former official in the Defense Intelligence Agency, reports that "'intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary' if the document ’s gist were not given to the public. Translation? Someone in that group would have gone to the media 'on the record' to disclose its contents."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hawkeye17, on 12/08/2007, -4/+134If true, those men are hero's.
    • Fragowell, on 12/08/2007, -25/+9They're hero's what? Heroe's what???
      • Charlotte_Web, on 12/08/2007, -6/+2From a New York Times Op-Ed piece 12/6/07, "In Iran We Trust?":

        "During the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.

        Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them? "

        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/opinion/06milhol ...

        Also, the article mentions the 3,000 gas centrifuges that Iran has, which has little use in nuclear energy production... Iran's president has stated publicly that Iran intends to build 50,000 centrifuges.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -2/+6Wow, so now they admit that Israel has a nuclear weapons program (aside from the weapons we secretly gave them in the early 70's)?? They should go right up there on the list, that axis of evil list. We must invade soon, they are a threat.

          As for the "why do they need nuclear energy when sitting on an enormous pool of oil" misdirection, that sentence expects the reader to have no capacity to connect disparate thoughts and link outside ideas together. Let's see, why do they want to get away from oil? Hmmmm....

          First, they have no refining capability and have to re-import their gasoline.

          Second, global warming, that is real right? (it's BS, but since it is the political consensus, this cannot be denied at their earliest convenience.)

          Third, the "Peak Oil" Myth. That *****'s going to run out soon enough.

          Fourth, how logical would it be for Iran to produce just one bomb, and then, as the conventional wisdom of the doomsday cult neocons goes, give it to some terrorists to blow up a small portion of an American city? We are DECOMMISSIONING old bombs faster than they can ever hope to build more than a half dozen. We can wipe them out 20 times over. The only purpose of possessing a single bomb is to put the fear in a military planner than his invading force could get that only nuke, doing extraordinary damage to capability and morale.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 12/08/2007, -2/+21) What's the cost per barrel of oil for Iran?

            Barack Obama likes to point out that 30% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to increasing risk in the volatile Middle East. Plus, you have the normal markup for profit; I have no idea what that is, but since oil is sold through a cartel, and the purpose of a cartel is to constrain supply and artificially inflate the price of a product, I imagine it's substantial.

            Iran already owns the oil at cost, so they only need to lease refinery capacity. The most recent price per gallon of gas in Iran that I could find was from 2006; drivers in Iran were paying $0.32/gal (that's not a typo); how much were YOU paying for gas in 2006?

            2) Iran ratified Kyoto Protocol, but since they aren't an Annex I country, there are no greenhouse gas emissions restrictions on them. It took them a few years to decide to ratify the treaty, however. How important Global Warming to them is probably anybody's guess, but they didn't exactly rush into participating in the Kyoto Protocol.

            3) Again, how concerned they are about this, or even if they believe in it, is anybody's guess.

            4) I dunno... How logical was it for Iran to take 63 US diplomats hostage? How logical was it for Iran to sponsor terrorism against the US? How logical is it for Iran to sponsor Palestianian violence? How logical is it for Iran to support terrorist fighters in Iraq, killing US soldiers? How logical is it for Iran to limit the role of women in society, to limit freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and to call for the destruction of the Jews? How logical was it for Iran to allow Al Qaida and Taliban leaders fleeing the Afghanistan War to find sanctuary in their country?

            Iran's motivations have a lot to do with their Islamic theology, and the state sponsorship of terrorist acts aligns with their core beliefs.


            Regardless, all of that only addresses one minor point of what I posted. The larger issue in my quote is, Why is Iran pursuing nuclear technology that has little to no bearing on energy generation, and a lot to do with bomb-making?
          • PhilLesh69, on 12/09/2007, -0/+21) What's the cost per barrel of oil for Iran?


            I believe, but have no data, that it costs about $15 to 20 a barrel to locate, drill and extract a barrel of oil. But it doesn't matter how cheap it is for Iran compared to what the open market is paying for it. That is like trying to compare the cost of a bushel of corn on the commodities market to the price it costs Cargill to produce processed foods using its own bushel of corn, and then using that as an argument that since it is so cheap for them already to make that processed food, they shouldn't seek their own in house source for any other ingredient they can think of.

            The documentary I saw that talked about the price of gasoline in Iran noted that it was extremely subsidized by the government, as opposed to heavily taxed by ours. I'm sure there would still be a difference in prices, between here and there, once adjusted, but it would not be that extreme. Maybe a dollar, maybe two??

            Having to export your own oil to a third party(s) in order to have it refined, and re-importing it (especially via the Gulf which is bristling with American warships) makes for a lack of energy independence. It doesn't matter how many barrels you can pump out in a year if you can't get it refined and into the cars of your citizens.





            2) Iran ratified Kyoto Protocol, but since they aren't an Annex I country, there are no greenhouse gas emissions restrictions on them. It took them a few years to decide to ratify the treaty, however. How important Global Warming to them is probably anybody's guess, but they didn't exactly rush into participating in the Kyoto Protocol.


            Sooner or later, they are going to need to replace oil with some new form of energy production. While I really find the "peak oil" myth hilarious, it is going to run out for many individual producers. Until we all wake up and realize that Global Warming(tm) is a natural cyclical alongside global cooling, they face the prospect of eventually being forced to reduce carbon emissions. Since that is currently one of the biggest bipartisan consensuses in American politics today, it is a break from the politically correct to say, in this case, "yeah, but see, it really doesn't matter" because you can't break the consensus, lest you expose the falsity.




            3) Again, how concerned they are about this, or even if they believe in it, is anybody's guess.


            I don't know how to answer the same question twice. Just see my above response.



            4) I dunno... How logical was it for Iran to take 63 US diplomats hostage? How logical was it for Iran to sponsor terrorism against the US? How logical is it for Iran to sponsor Palestianian violence? How logical is it for Iran to support terrorist fighters in Iraq, killing US soldiers? How logical is it for Iran to limit the role of women in society, to limit freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and to call for the destruction of the Jews? How logical was it for Iran to allow Al Qaida and Taliban leaders fleeing the Afghanistan War to find sanctuary in their country?


            We've had embassy officials taken hostage, even killed in many nations that we are now close allies with or at least not seeking a state of belligerence with. Pakistan, November 21, 1979. Lebanon, April 18, 1983. Kuwait, Dec. 12, 1983. Numerous attacks and killings and kidnappings of diplomats occur all over the world, especially in places like Colombia.


            Was it logical for Iran to take over our embassy and hold hostages? For them, actually, yes. Several of the hostages were, in fact, covert, NOC CIA agents.

            Iran has never supported terrorism against the US. Ill-informed or dishonest pundits may claim such, but most terrorist attacks against US interests were sponsored by the PLO or Libya. The other one, the berlin disco, was a German anarchist supported by some palestinians.

            As far as Iran sponsoring Palestinian violence, that was true in the first intifada, and in the years in between the second intifada. I'm not sure it is still true today, and I don't see how that is any of our business, anyway.

            Iran cannot support "terrorist fighters" because that is a newly coined term to build up fervorous support for our "war on terror". To be a terrorist means you are not a fighter attacking other fighters, you are a killer of defenseless civilians. A fighter is someone, either in uniform or not, who engages an enemy on a battlefield. Whether Iran is supporting terrorists is still not even proven. It is merely conjecture and yet another propoganda piece in the march up to attacking Iran. And looking at this purely as an emotionally detached geopolitical question, yes, it is logical for Iran to do whatever it takes to prevent a cohesive Iraq from emerging that is loyal to a nation that is making active threats towards it.


            Iran is free to limit women's role in society, if it so chooses, that is not America's role in the world, to run around invading nations that offend our sensibilities. Besides, we tolerate this same activity in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (the WORST OFFENDER) and many other countries where our strategic interest is to ignore it, not use it as just another "see how evil they are" reason to attack. Restricting freedom of speech? From what I've heard, as long as you don't say bad things about Islam or Allah or Muhammed, you are free to say whatever you want. Probably freer than here, anymore. In Saudi Arabia, you can be executed for sneaking a christian bible into the country. That's pretty drastic, but otherwise, I don't see any problem with a religiously founded nation wanting to limit the ability for other religions to come in and preach and attempt to convert people. Iran does have a small Jewish community, by the way. About 35,000. Had the neocon propoganda been accurate and not hyperbolic, they would all be in camps heading to the ovens by now, don't you think?

            Ahmadenijad did not call for the destruction of Israel. He said "History would be much better if Israel had never existed". Some ideological nut at the official news agency (maybe he's the Iranian equivalent of a neocon) mistranslated that to "History would be well served if Israel was wiped off the face of the earth". But since that is yet another good reason to hate and kill for anyone who, for some reason, is an Israel loyalist in this country, let's just go with that translation so we can attack them sooner.

            Iran did not ALLOW anyone to find sanctuary in their country. In fact, it was recently acknowledged that Iran was very cooperative in closing off the afghan border during the invasion. Pakistan didn't. Yet since we want to attack Iran, and not Pakistan (who has nukes), we focus on one country and distort the facts, and ignore the other and deny the facts. Sure, some al qaeda figures did move through Iran, but think about how many illegal immigrants don't stop in America, but move on to Canada. Is that our fault, or Canada's for not securing THEIR borders?




            Iran's motivations have a lot to do with their Islamic theology, and the state sponsorship of terrorist acts aligns with their core beliefs.


            I'm sure the people who watch the state run TV in Iran believe the same thing about us. Our motivations have a lot to do with our Christian Theology, and state controlled violence against foriegn countries aligns with our core beliefs. Could you, at least for a little while, consider that no nation is ever a monolithic and homogeneous ideological society void of any difference in opinion, political views and religious beliefs? I worked on the same floor with El Alam, an Iranian satellite TV station, they rented space in our DC building. These guys were quite moderate, actually fairly westernized and very politically open and curious. They did not fit the stereotype we've all been fed, of a bunch of medieval crazy bearded women haters.




            Regardless, all of that only addresses one minor point of what I posted. The larger issue in my quote is, Why is Iran pursuing nuclear technology that has little to no bearing on energy generation, and a lot to do with bomb-making?



            The head of the IAEA inspections has repeated over and over again that Iran is producing enriched uranium that is well below weapons grade. You are taking on faith, from the very people champing at the bit to attack, that if they say they are pursuing a bomb, then therefore they must be.

            Don't you remember the same play, with the same number of acts in the run up to invading Iraq?? "They have WMDs" and that got shot down. "They're trying to build them, they bought yellow cake!" and that got disproven. "But look at how they treat their women!" which turned out to be exaggerated. "They support terrorism" which turned out to be a $50,000 payment of condolence to families of palestinian suicide bombers.

            They threw out as many arguments as they could, knowing that even when they are all debunked, at least each new lie will be believed by yet another subset of people and hopefully enough can get fooled to prevent a majority from saying fervently, "NO WAY!!"

            As George Bush himself once said: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

            He also said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time. I plan on focusing on those people."
        • williamdyer, on 12/08/2007, -2/+5Let's send Israel the bill for the Iraq war. If they don't pay up, we start bombing.
        • gernblansted, on 12/08/2007, -3/+0Obviously, a couple news hack's op ed article is far more reliable than the CIA's multi billion dollar intelligence network. I have no doubt that Iran is in some way seeking nuclear weapons, but the "Decider" has shown he has absolutely no capacity to handle real world problems. This has to be addressed by the next president, hopefully one who has contact with reality and doesn't believe that god tells him personally what actions to take. An all out bombing campaign against Iran could lead to World War III, especially since Bush has led the world (even the 'West') to view the United States as the most dangerous nation on earth.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 12/08/2007, -3/+2Please substantiate your claim that the authors are "news hacks". What's your evidence?

            Everything they wrote in the editorial, however, I've read in other places; every point they made is common knowledge, of things gathered by the said Multi-Billion Dollar Intelligence Network.

            The Iranian NIE is an unmitigated disaster. It makes the distinction between "military" and "civilian" nuclear pursuits, and notes in a footnote that it doesn't speak to "civilian" nuclear activity (which may include government activity as well). And the report asserts that the US should continue to maintain diplomatic pressure, but it has essentially let all of the air out of the bag; the UN wil now ease the pressure on Iran because of this NIE.

            I would probably agree with you that George W. Bush should not be the president to lead us into war against Iran; but by keeping that constant pressure on them, Bush was making it easier for the next president to either come to the bargaining table with Iran or to continue maintaining pressure on them. Most of that impetus is gone now, however.
        • ryanisnotsuper, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4"And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value?"

          It is skyrocketing in value and you think they should burn it?
          • Charlotte_Web, on 12/08/2007, -3/+2A minor point in the quote, and a suggestion at that.

            It still doesn't address the fact that Iran is pursuing nuclear technologies that are more suited to weapons than energy generation, and out latest NIE just gave them a pass.
      • ryanisnotsuper, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1I like corn.
    • empraptor, on 12/08/2007, -11/+3You know who's a real hero? Hiro, from Heroes. That's a real hero. Also Bono.
      • scubasteve377, on 12/08/2007, -3/+3Ever wonder how Bono can do so many great things but still seem like such a huge piece of crap?
    • sotopheavy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1No good deed goes unpunished.
    • ngmdotcom, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1No heroes there, just politics as usual. They figured that winds are changing and if Ron Paul comes to power they for sure going to jail for not disclosure in 2009.
  • kkss, on 12/08/2007, -4/+107Yes. Thank goodness there are true patriots in the intelligence agencies.
    • joshua5, on 12/08/2007, -2/+15Before the Bush Administration the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, had a democratic leaning fighting for the 'greater good.' This is one of the reasons the Bush Admin have sought to break it up. Its another way they use the War on Terror to reshape the system according to their agenda.
    • p0s3r, on 12/08/2007, -22/+2Wasn't it you in 2005 calling these very same people traitors and war-mongers?
      • goffy59, on 12/08/2007, -1/+7huh? oh no.. block.
        • p0s3r, on 12/08/2007, -17/+3Why do you think anyone cares who you block and why?
          • yutt, on 12/08/2007, -0/+13Don't worry, I won't block you.

            Someone has to be around to digg down every comment you make.
          • p0s3r, on 12/08/2007, -19/+2I hear on the "jungle telegraph" of digg that they're going to start banning on diggerals and libtards. It must be true, its the same source as this submission.
          • yutt, on 12/08/2007, -0/+14Do you actually think calling someone a "libtard" is insulting?

            I just feel sorry for you. You're entire existence is based around trying to get attention by calling people names.
  • Napoleone, on 12/08/2007, -8/+70That's the trouble with the C.I.A. As an institution it is absolutely corrupt, but every once in a while a decent individual from within will do the right thing, and suddenly we forget the terror this agency is a part of. So I guess that's the trouble with us.

    Isn't that how battered woman's syndrome works? Hurt, hurt, hurt... act of kindness. Hurt, hurt, hurt, act of kindness. This agency deserves no gratitude from this nation. They're purveyors of lies, death, and corruption. They're a bunch of drug runners, too.

    I thank these few individuals, whomever they are, but the C.I.A. needs to be dismantled.
    • kkss, on 12/08/2007, -5/+22I agree with you about the last sentiment. But we have to recognize that there are a lot of people like Valerie Plame who got into it thinking they would serve their country. Nothing is black and white. We know they destroyed those interrogation tapes. But there are good people everywhere, and we have to be glad of that.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -1/+7Unfortunately, there also bad people everywhere. And evil always has the upper hand in the struggle between good and evil, because evil will do whatever it takes to succeed.

        These whistleblowers remembered that they are human beings working for an institution, not part of the institution.
        • kkss, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8Right -- if it's true it's an example of goodness, showing that even an overall quite corrupt institution under an exceedingly immoral administration leaves cracks for goodness and justice to seep through. Those cracks are about all we have right now!
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Oh yeah, I forgot to add, not only does evil have the upper hand because it will resort to anything, but also because many good people will deny that there even is an evil force at work.
          • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3That is why they win - mass naivity. People love to make fun of conspiracy theorists, but being paranoid - even when wrong - is still preferable to being naive and ignorant.
            If the founding fathers had to summarize all their wisdom into one statement, it would be "Don't trust government".
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/08/2007, -8/+3There will be no dismantling of the CIA but fortunately, none is necessary. All such corruption eventually brings an end to itself.
      • WallyAnti, on 12/08/2007, -0/+6lol, that's a good one. Corruption never comes to an end, it just finds new facilitators.
      • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5Dude... I love Star Wars, too, but in the real world, evil persists unless Good Men take action.
        • CrazedLeper, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Good men are always infiltrated with bad. The process takes time but the bad are always shaken out by their own actions.
  • DeadElephantORG, on 12/08/2007, -3/+80This is the final unwinding of our real "commander in chief", Dick Cheney. Once his boot is forced off of the neck of the intelligence professionals, it won't be put back on. The Iran NIE revelation is a bombshell is because it perfectly parallels the criminal fraud about Sadaam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, which Cheney masterminded and managed. It's his MO, his signature. Those CIA men literally put their LIVES on the line to block the inevitable attack on Iran. What do you guess Cheney would be willing to do to stop someone from forcing his hand? The attack would likely have included the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and would have been CATASTROPHIC for our country, for millions of innocent Iranians, and for the world. Those CIA men are patriots of the highest order, and they are heroes.
    • wheresjim, on 12/08/2007, -1/+14Wait until the investigations into KBR and Halliburton's activities under various contracts including LOGCAP are allowed to really begin, once this administration is out, and no longer able to hamper them.
      • MacEnvy, on 12/08/2007, -1/+11Depends who is elected in their place. Do you honestly think a Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or Clinton White House would allow such investigations to bear fruit? I don't.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -1/+6How quickly you forget about how quickly we all seem to forget. Think back to the scandals of dyncorp in Bosnia. Prostitution, kidnapping, over billing, etc. It maybe got a total of 30 minutes media attention across all media outlets combined. Sadly, this was the early example of why outsourcing military support services, especially in a war zone, was a bad idea, leading to corruption, abuses and a negative impact on military readiness, and it was all but ignored.

        It's like the evidence destruction that just came out. The Director of Central Intelligence at the time is now twice removed, Goss and now Hayden have replaced him. Nobody is going to go after Tenet, since he's no longer in the position, it's easier to just forget about it.
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/08/2007, -1/+5You are correct on all counts, however, the evil beasts who have determined to destroy Iran will not be deterred by a little thing like law or patriots. The will obviate the entire US government with their next false-flag attack. All branches of the armed forces are with the bush conspiracy and these few honest CIA agents alone will not be able to stop them.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8Perhaps the chiefs of the military branches might be with Bush, but I doubt the majority of those serving are. Just look at what happened when they tried to transfer nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Someone blew the whistle, and they had to come up with this grand story about how 60 year old procedures and protections were amazingly ignored (which is a seriously long chain of errors that seems statistically impossible, but hey, what do we know, we're just dumb citizens)

      • nicholai, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5"All branches of the armed forces are with the bush conspiracy"
        Why is Ron Paul getting so much support from the military? I think at least 30 percent of our military is sick of the pointless wars.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+6It is actually something like 60%. You've got guys starting 5th and 6th tours, and if any of them were in Afghanistan prior to that, this could be their 6th, 7th, or 8th combat tour. That's 16 gold bars filling up their forearm. They're running out of space on their uniforms.

          No American has ever served that many back-to-back or continuous combat deployments, until now.

          You can bet money that the majority are sick of it. The ones that are the most pissed are the ones who really want to make a 20+ year career of military service, but are forced to eventually resign or not re-enlist because of the strain they've been through.
  • principle, on 12/08/2007, -3/+25So far so good! Just as the military rebelled over plans to nuke Iran, so did the intelligence community over the bogus intelligence on Iran. What is encouraging is that in both instances the decisions were made at the highest levels. I see why Buchanan said yesterday that Iran war is a no go. The question is what the wannabe-emperor George is going to do now?
    • MacEnvy, on 12/08/2007, -0/+7I suspect he'll order an ice cream sundae and sit down with a nice "Family Circus" coloring book. Why, what did you think he'd do? He's not the criminal mastermind behind all of this.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+9Bush has always been a bystander. Perhaps he actively went along with Iraq, but it was never his brainchild. It has always been Cheney, at the head of the Neoconservative cabal (Project For a New American Century members.)

      I haven't figured out yet how to read all of this "Attacking Iran is now no longer an option" talk. It is encouraging, and it seems plausible. Bush could see his legacy all but dashed. He could have appointed Gates as a blocking force where Rumsfeld was always on the same team as Cheney. Cheney could be practically sidelined now.

      BUT, this could all be misinfo. It could be a way to convince us all that there is no plan to attack Iran anymore, that they all came to their senses. So, when those sneaky Iranians somehow attack us when it is most convenient for us to attack Iran, they can say "See? We weren't going to attack them, but they forced us to!"
      • principle, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Those who know Bush personally say that he is incurious but a very intelligent man. It is not like someone else started all the misadventures and Bush is stuck having to support them. No, he is the one who’s been pushing hard for every single misadventure from the beginning.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4I don't know. My mother used to volunteer at the white house, and I have a friend whose parents and brother were big enough contributors to be invited to watch a movie in the white house theater with George and Laura. Bush is not, like you said, curious enough to even know where Iraq is or why we should attack them. Unless his entire intellectual reasoning really was "Because he tried to kill my daddy".

          The aw-shucks dummy cowboy act is definitely an act, from what I've been told by people who have met him. But he is not an ideological radical or doomsday fear monger. That goes all to Cheney. Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were called "the crazies" in the 1970s and even during George Sr's administration. I don't know if Powell knew of thier past history and nicknames, or whether he just hit the nail on the head when he called them "***** crazies".

          I don't doubt that Bush was gung ho for attacking Iraq once they had convinced him it was necessary, especially dangling the "war presidents are always the highest ranking presidents in history" or something like that.
      • williamdyer, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2You are right. NOt until Bush and Cheney are out, and every neocon has been hounded out of every position of influence will we be safe, and, even then, Israel will not stop at killing as many Americans as it takes to give us a new "terrorist threat" to fight. We must eradicate the neocons and put Israel in its place (inside the Green Line, and without our money).
  • JlmAWP, on 12/08/2007, -3/+44It seems there is a real shift going on here. I'm actually impressed with the amount of patriotism displayed lately by some of these guys. You know, increased from none.
    • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -4/+6I want to give Ron Paul and his movement some of the credit for starting or increasing this momentum of truth and justice, but I'm afraid I'll be laughed down or crucified. :)
  • 01l0, on 12/08/2007, -4/+41This is blowback for the Bush regime throwing the CIA under the bus with regards to Iraq WMD intelligence.
    • superkendall, on 12/08/2007, -14/+5Dude, the CIA were the ones that produced that WMD intelligence! Is this a ***** high school, or intelligence agency here? You can't just make up things to hurt sitting presidents because they were mean to you.
      • 01l0, on 12/08/2007, -1/+9Thats exactly the spin I'm talking about - The regime publicly demonized DCI Tenet for handing them faulty intelligence, when in fact the White House had been pushing the CIA to find an excuse to invade Iraq since 2001, and when the CIA came up with nothing concrete, the White House "fixed the facts to fit the policy."
      • bugsy187, on 12/08/2007, -0/+6Didn't you read the Bush administrations plan to invade a series of countries to establish dominance? It was drafted before Bush was even elected. It's called the Grand Imperial Strategy and was written by Cheney and Wolfowitz. WMDs were a pretext. I mean, how many times did Bush change his story as the reason for invading? Remember when it was about fighting terrorism, then to get Osama bin Laden, then WMDs, and finally because we love Democracy and can't let this Dictator rule?

        It's amazing that the CIA released a report that invading Iraq would increase terrorism (by destabilizing the region) and would likely disperse WMDs (because of a dissolved government) if they actually existed before the invasion. It's also amazing that everyone in the media seems to have forgotten that and that the public seems unaware.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -1/+8It was actually called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the Project for a New American Century. William Kristol, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney are all members of this "think tank".

          This was written in September 2000. The most shocking statement in this "study" is:

          Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/Rebui ...
    • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1The CIA is composed of a bunch of people. You say "but the CIA!" as if a contradiction in CIA output proves everything is nonsensical. You have to separate the agenda of the head of the CIA (corrupt) from the facts produced by some of the people with honesty and integrity *within* the CIA, but which are often supressed or perverted.
  • mrivorey, on 12/08/2007, -3/+56I'd just like to say thank you to the CIA (I'm sure they're reading).
    • sockpuppets, on 12/08/2007, -1/+22You're welcome, Chris. By the way we noticed you have the death of the president as your most favorite Digg. May we ask your whereabouts on December 26, 2006?
    • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -0/+15Don't thank the CIA - a corrupt, criminal agency. Thank the brave men and women within the CIA who managed to hold on to some principles and integrity and try to the right thing at great personal risk. Remember - trust individuals, not organizations.
      • mrivorey, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5>> Remember - trust individuals, not organizations.

        Here, here!
    • mrivorey, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3>> By the way we noticed you have the death of the president as your most favorite Digg.
      >> May we ask your whereabouts on December 26, 2006?

      Sitting on the couch, submitting breaking news to Digg.
  • superkendall, on 12/08/2007, -17/+5Everyone remember this is the same NIE that said there were WMD's in Iraq. Why should we trust anything they say now?

    Perhaps, the NIE people are doing things for their own reasons. And to claim you'd go to jail after the fact when you'd know you will not, is pretty hollow bravery.
    • MadN, on 12/08/2007, -3/+0"Perhaps, the NIE people are doing things for their own reasons."

      I disagree with you.
      Those type of people are rare; more so today;
      I am sure they would die for your right to slander their good name.
      • superkendall, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2They are slandering themselves. Look at what is going on with the tape destruction scandal.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2It would be highly coincidental that in an agency with tens of thousands of employees, the same people that leaked a document were the same ones who destroyed a tape made in Gitmo.

          Generally, the analysts who write and edit intelligence estimates or presidential daily briefings work in cubicles at the "George Bush Center for Intelligence" off of Rt 123. The folks who would be videotaping interrogations would be out in the field, and never get close to doing office work.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5It is not "the same NIE". I sense that you don't understand what a National Intelligence Estimate really is. It is a document. There is a new one every year.

    • kreneskyp, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1If this intelligence really is wrong then how did it ever come out? This report is in direct opposition to what bush has been saying for over 2 years. It makes him look like a liar or incompetent. Do you really think that this report would come out if they werent absolutely sure?

      The only purpose for releasing this other than it being true is if someone were trying to embarrasses the president. Its so unlikely that someone could do that and get away with it.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Why not? Bush gets away with it, himself, all the time. The media is all too willing to brush things under the rug, and it appears people were so scared after 9/11 that they threw themselves at George's feet in allegiance, and now they've had blind faith in him so long it would be embarassing to acknowledge any faults. So they deny any glaring defects so as not to shatter the image.
  • TheIguana, on 12/08/2007, -2/+20"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~Patrick Henry, 1775
  • Frostman3D, on 12/08/2007, -1/+19It's good to see someone up there making a stand for America.
  • QuantumBios, on 12/08/2007, -1/+28Those men are true patriots.
    • Dongvid, on 12/08/2007, -3/+4woah woah woah!!! hold on a second! are you saying you can be against war and still support our troops and be a patriot?
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Don't assume he's a neocon fox news fan. They're still peddling that BS on Fox news, now more than ever.
  • Elderon, on 12/08/2007, -2/+12It's nice to see real heros. I hope nothing bad happens to them. I'm reminded of that bomber that took off a few months ago that was loaded with nuclear cruise missiles and how quite a few of them ended up dieing suddenly after it came to light. We need more people like these men to get rid of all the greedy cowards that seem to populate our government.
    • CrazedLeper, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5Nothing will happen to them--until after martial law is declared.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Dead airmen can't talk, or be questioned by reporters.

      Rumor has it the cruise missiles were supposed to disappear, but concerned airmen blew the whistle when they saw what was happening.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Who wants to speculate whether a disappeared nuke would be used ON Iran or used to create a reason to attack Iran?
      • nicholai, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1I think they wanted to use the nukes to create a reason to declare martial law and perhaps another war.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Yeah, that has two benefits in one. A nuke on American soil would definitely keep the sheep scared and in line, and willing to accept a complete dissolution of the constitution, not just martial law.
          • nicholai, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1War is an excuse to declare "martial law".
  • spyd3rweb, on 12/08/2007, -5/+6They probably wont last long enough to make it to jail if they do.
  • petrodollar, on 12/08/2007, -1/+12Wow, I can't wait to hear how the right spins this.
    • MacEnvy, on 12/08/2007, -1/+14You haven't heard it yet? They're basically making up ***** to try to contradict each story as it comes out. For example, after the story broke that the CIA had destroyed interrogation vids right after finding out they might be subpoenaed, several right-wing sites and commenters posted stuff about how the tapes were destroyed as part of normal procedure prior to the threat of subpoena. It wasn't true, but it was posted all over the place, and a lot of people believed it.

      So in other words, their defense is to deny, lie, and obfuscate. Just like the Administration.
      • superkendall, on 12/08/2007, -6/+2That wasn't the right wing sites making that up - that was the CIA director saying that was what happened! And as it turns out, seemingly not true - and the right likes the CIA even less than you do so they are happy to report that.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5Well, hayden is on YouTube insisting to a reporter that the 4th amendment says nothing about probable cause, that it only requires searches and seizures to be reasonable.
        • nicholai, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2Don't get pulled into the "left vs right" *****. This is about freedom vs big government. Neocons are the lowest life form on the planet.
    • adwarereport, on 12/08/2007, -0/+9They're already spinning it. They're attacking this report and the people behind it, claiming it was "flawed".

      A lot of people are going to go down on this. I feel it.
  • MadN, on 12/08/2007, -3/+19Here's to real heroes; may you never need a star on the wall.

    A better man than me once said this:
    "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." --Thomas Paine
    • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3I don't know why someone dugg you down (I countered it), that's one of the more profound statements on this thread.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3The kool-aid drinking fox news watchers fear anything that might make their war mongering, arab hating philosophy appear wrong.
  • urbandistrict, on 12/08/2007, -1/+14Dugg for true Americans.
  • khyberkitsune, on 12/08/2007, -1/+6Hey, CIA - Hire me, I have no qualms about taking a bullet to ensure that Americans have a just reason to fill our incumbents with bullets.
    • nicholai, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1The CIA only wants mindless drones, I think these agents will be fired at the very least.
  • jeezus, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Well, digg's getting better. I only had to click through one blog to get to the original source of the story.
    • anoriega, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Really? I clicked through 2 to get to washingtonpost.com...
  • CrazedLeper, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Wow, government corruption is *less than total* but it's still beyond repair. Of course, the defectors will all have to be waterboarded, now.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4No, the corruption is pretty much TOTAL. Notice the "willing to go to jail" part?

      There will always be good even in the most evil of political systems.

  • 01l0, on 12/08/2007, -1/+10You can already see the conservative spin machine attempting to attack the credibility of our national intelligence-gathering apparatus, there is truly nobody they won't throw under the bus in order to save face. You know your dissembling is out of control when Dick Cheney provides a voice of reason to the discussion:
    “I don’t have any reason to question what the [intelligence] community has produced [...] I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available.” The Politico, 12/5/07
  • p0s3r, on 12/08/2007, -18/+1Source: Lefty blogger heard another lefty blogger's friends cousin who used to work at the McDonalds in the CIA food court say...

    • p0s3r, on 12/08/2007, -14/+1Serously this dudes source is "jungle telegraph” in Washington".
      LOL you people are morons.
      • archiesteel, on 12/08/2007, -1/+5"LOL you people are morons."
        Shh. The grownups are talking.
  • ralph12c41, on 12/08/2007, -8/+1Hero.... traitor...double agent.....who knows??
  • LoneRanger85, on 12/08/2007, -13/+2Regardless of who is in office, the federal government is primarily run by liberal bureaucrats. Since Bush was elected, they have been conducting their own insurgency. Whether it be leaking classified info to the media or just sitting with their feet up on their desk rather than follow orders, these treacherous weasels are determined to undermine the Bush administration in every way possible.
  • TimNinja, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4This country is run by intelligently designed idiots, finally someone is standing up to these fascists!
  • acudoc, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3Go CIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • nastronomical, on 12/08/2007, -16/+1Repost for truth

    Source: Lefty blogger heard another lefty blogger's friends cousin who used to work at the McDonalds in the CIA food court say...


    Oh ***** THINKPROGRESS??? Bury this GARBAGE!!
    • nicholai, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1We are already burying your comments as fast as possible, no need to remind us.
  • superkendall, on 12/08/2007, -11/+1This is the most hilarious time ever, watching Digger fawn over the CIA in this story and lambast them for the tape destruction scandal that has multiple entires on the front page now. The most blatant display of hypocrisy ever.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -1/+5Your mind is only able to deal with absolutes, and everything is a monolithic entity??

      I think the article talks about a few analysts WITHIN the CIA, going against the institution to do what is right. The other article is about institutionalized disregard for the law.

      Two completely different things.

      I know, if you watch too much Bill O'Reilly, you lose the capacity to differentiate.
  • nastronomical, on 12/08/2007, -12/+1***REPORT WAS A FRAUD***

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/1 ...

    NIE: An Abrupt About-Face
    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.)

    • 01l0, on 12/08/2007, -2/+6“I don’t have any reason to question what the [intelligence] community has produced [...] I think they’ve done the best job they can with the intelligence that’s available.” -Vice President Cheney
      The Politico, 12/5/07

      If you want to believe a liberal blogger over the Vice President of the United States, thats fine, hippy.
      • nicholai, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1The fact that Cheney agrees with this has caused me to reconsider it.
    • marillion, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Two points: 1) The intelligence community normally speaks through the filter of politically appointed officials. 2) The editors of The Weekly Standard include a fellow named William Kristol. http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_kristol. ... - Kristol is a co-founder for the Project for a New American Century and widely considered one of the founders of the neo-conservative movement.
  • kkss, on 12/08/2007, -0/+10It's not hypocrisy -- it's a tolerance for contradiction. It's a willingness to see that the world is not a simple, black and white place. To see that the same agency that engages in torture and extortion and overthrows of democratically elected regimes ALSO employs patriots who believe in democracy, rights, truth, and justice. It's about individuals deciding to do the right thing. If it's true, and these people took a personal risk to make sure the people get an accurate assessment of the intelligence, then they are the type of patriots our founders would have been proud of.
  • nastronomical, on 12/08/2007, -10/+1'intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary' < Sounds like something a Liberal with the usual over Emotional BS would cook up to rally his weak, cowardly, apologetic buddies. Get real no one believes this BS. Its thinkprogress which is no different than Rawsewage.
  • Tangeuray, on 12/08/2007, -0/+7True Patriots. Hats off to these guys
  • Groovydoo, on 12/08/2007, -3/+1Where were these patriots when the interrogation/torture tapes were destroyed?
    • kkss, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5Were the same people who destroyed the interrogation tapes the ones working on the NIE?
  • boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -3/+0True patriots that follow the political flow. If the public still supported the war in Iraq and condoned an attack on Iran, would they be so willing then to report the truth?
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5Perhaps it has taken them just as long as the average American to realize and understand just how bad things have gotten.

      Maybe Iraq was their wake-up call. Maybe it was the strange "nuke cruise missile" incident. Maybe everything just finally added up and they couldn't stand for it anymore.
    • odigity, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1The past is the past, what matters is that people do what's right, now. Let's encourage people who see the light or get the courage to take a stand.
  • GorfTron, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3Plamegate has hurt Bush's rep at the CIA, I am sure.
  • weebit, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2I sure hope this is enough to get the ball rolling on the impeachment. If not then I commend the ones that stepped forward and told the truth. Remember... It's not your fault that Bush is a lier and fraud. Just keep doing the right thing, hopefully, one day, all of the truth will be heard.
  • Bratan, on 12/08/2007, -7/+0You liberal scum don't read much, do you? Read an OBJECTIVE analysis and then talk.
    http://economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?s ...
    Read this line "For now, it is true, Iran is enriching the uranium at below weapons grade. It says it is doing so only in order to power reactors to produce electricity. But it has no such reactors"
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3I'm sure the liberal scum will read that and suddenly become a true believer just like you. But, since I'm an intelligent "paleoconservative", I would read the line you cited exactly as it is written, up to the last part which is an outright mischaracterization.

      Darkovin is a 360 Mw nuclear power plant.

      Bushehr, started by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the American puppet who was overthrown by the ayatollahs) is set to produce 915 Mw once completed.

      Arak is a 40 Mw research power plant.


      Keep drinking the kool-aid, believe what Bill O'Reilly tells you because if you ever open your mind, you might be forced to change your entire perception of reality. That is scary.
    • kkss, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4First, name calling isn't necessary.

      Second, the same article says, "The case for American pre-emption now becomes almost impossible to sell either at home or abroad. That is probably a good thing, given that a military attack was always likelier to restore Iran's determination to build a bomb than destroy its ability to get one."

    • Zenas, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Objective? there is no such thing as objective - everyone has a bias. I just don't want writers telling me they are being objective - they aren't.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1To him, if it agrees with his bias, then it is objective. If it doesn't, then no matter the bias of the writer, it is written by and meant for liberal scum.

        It comes from being poorly educated, growing up in an isolated rural town and a need to belong to some group, preferrably the one doing the most kickin' ass around the world, particularly kickin' brown people's ass.
  • bsmang, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2It's great to see that the IC now knows Bush & friends well enough to go to these lengths. I only wish they would have known him as well before Iraq.
  • daze99, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2How long do George and Dick have before the trials start? Where are they going to try and run? Who would take them!!! LOL


    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1George bought a very large estate in Paraguay a year or two ago.

      South America always seems like a good place for fugitive leaders to run to.
  • RKMBrown, on 12/08/2007, -4/+2Did you guys actually read the NIE? It contradicts itself so many times to be ridiculous and explains the contradictions with so many maybes & what ifs so as to be about as useful as their Iraq has WMDs report. The pubs want this drama to end so they can put you all to sleep & get back into power in 08, at which time they will discover the "Covert" nuclear weapons program that they say is very likely so many times in the report. Are we supposed to be surprised that the CIA produces a report that says basically nothing accept that they want more money & power so they can find the evidence?

    We don't need to go into Iran.. If they start to work on a nuclear weapons program Israel will blow it up. What we need to do is find Osama in Pakistan.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Osama who? Oh, well, see right now there isn't a rights grabbing bill or a close election at hand. Better you just forget about him for now. He'll be paraded around again if Rudy faces a tight nomination, and then just before the general elections if Rudy is the republican nominee.
  • iainc, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Be nice if the CIA could arrange to have the two bozos at the top "whacked".
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2It's happened before, and then they got their wished for war in Vietnam.
  • HalfGiraffe, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Actually article (cutting through blogspam) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  • jumpyg1258, on 12/08/2007, -1/+410 bucks says these same heroes are going to be voting for a person with integrity for president in this election, someone like Ron Paul.
  • MrFunions, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3Finally some people in the government are starting to grow some balls. Now if only we can get Congress to grow some balls.
  • caferrell, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2I knew it! The Bushies had been sitting on this information for a long time. They were never going to release this information, in fact they were busy spinning lies like the whopper that Amedinejad has repeatedly called to wipe Israel off the face of the map. (He once said, quoting Khomeini, the Israel would be erased from the pages of time)
    Bush was completely set off course by the release of this NIE, saving us from another unnecessary war.
    God bless the brave men who did this.
    Thank you!
  • jlhoben, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Best news all year.
  • laudyms, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1This may not quite restore my faith in America, but it sure helps! Thank you Col. Lang and all other stand-up Americans.
  • ngmdotcom, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1No heroes there, just politics as usual. They figured that winds are changing and if Ron Paul comes to power they for surre going to jail for not disclosure.
  • shakingfist, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Someone in that group would have gone to the media 'on the record' to disclose its contents."

    The media? Not my choice saviors. I never voted for them and I don't even know whose running their little dog and pony act.
  • lolo2007, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0I knew it! The Bushies had been sitting on this information for a long time. They were never going to release this information, in fact they were busy spinning lies like the whopper that Amedinejad has repeatedly called to wipe Israel off the face of the map. (He once said, quoting Khomeini, the Israel would be erased from the pages of time)
    Bush was completely set off course by the release of this NIE, saving us from another unnecessary war. http://download.paramegsoft.com/
    God bless the brave men who did this.
    Thank you! http://game.paramegsoft.com/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.