Saturday, December 08, 2007

GOP Wants To Investigate Whether Intelligence Has Been Manipulated? Really? (With Update)

I haven't blogged all that much about the fallout from the Iran NIE. What would be the point? So Bush lied again with regard to the threat another country poses to the world. Is anybody really surprised by that?

But this is pretty funny:

Senate Republicans are planning to call for a congressional commission to investigate the conclusions of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as well as the specific intelligence that went into it, according to congressional sources.

The move is the first official challenge, but it comes amid growing backlash from conservatives and neoconservatives unhappy about the assessment that Iran halted a clandestine nuclear weapons program four years ago. It reflects how quickly the NIE has become politicized, with critics even going after the analysts who wrote it, and shows a split among Republicans.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) said he plans to introduce legislation next week to establish a commission modeled on a congressionally mandated group that probed a disputed 1995 intelligence estimate on the emerging missile threat to the United States over the next 15 years.

"Iran is one of the greatest threats in the world today. Getting the intelligence right is absolutely critical, not only on Iran's capability but its intent. So now there is a huge question raised, and instead of politicizing that report, let's have a fresh set of eyes -- objective, yes -- look at it," he said in an interview.
A fresh set of eyes? Is that PNAC-speak for "let's get some Neocon guy to look into this"? I hear Paul Wolfowitz is looking for work (or maybe not).

UPDATE: By the way, this is what being a patriotic American is all about:

The "jungle telegraph" in Washington is booming with news of the Iran NIE. I am told that the reason the conclusions of the NIE were released is that it was communicated to the White House 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.

No comments: