We’ll see the other NIE — just as soon as the elections are over

September 27, 2006

OK, so now we’ve seen some of the National Intelligence Estimate involving the administration’s counter-terrorism efforts, and the results are hardly encouraging. But what about the other NIE, focused exclusively on Iraq?

As Josh Marshall explained yesterday, there’s one NIE on terrorist threats in general, and another exclusively on Iraq. Any chance we’ll get a sense of what’s in that one before the election? Apparently not.

In a conference call with reporters last night, White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend acknowledged the existence of the report, but said it wouldn’t be available until January 2007:

“My understanding is the planned release date, given the work that must be done to have it be comprehensive and complete, is January of ’07. But I will tell you, that’s still quicker than most NIEs get done.”

Townsend added, “The timing has got nothing to do with the election.” No, of course not. Who could ever imagine the Bush White House allowing political considerations to dictate the release of a government report?

But that’s not the only problem here.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), who helped expose this second NIE yesterday, told reporters:

“It should be clear five years after 9/11 that we need accurate and actionable intelligence — actionable in real time — and we need our leaders to read that intelligence and cite it accurately.” (emphasis added)

That’s the point that’s bothering me about this. We know the document exists and we know the White House has it. We also know that the administration can summarize, redact, and declassify a document in a hurry, when it wants to.

With this in mind, the White House line yesterday is, to put it mildly, unpersuasive. Townsend said it’s important that this Iraq-only NIE be “comprehensive and complete.” Isn’t it already “comprehensive and complete”? If not, why not? And if so, why not release it? Before the election?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Who wants to admit that not only did they have their hand in the cookie jar but they were the ones who knocked it off the counter and broke it? Even when they’re the little playground bully standing in the midst of the mess?

  • This (partially de-classified) NIE certifies Bush’s un-provoked, unnecessary, largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (UULUIUOI) as a shipwreck in progress. Time to throw the deck furniture overboard.

  • We are truly stuck in a bad episode of the Twilight Zone. How many times have we seen Bush ignore intelligence he doesn’t like, hide the fact that he ignored it, and then launch us off onto another disastrous course?

    Two years ago…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28intel.html?ei=5088&en=a050dbd7b0b3d5bc&ex=1254110400&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position=

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 2004 – The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began…

    …The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam…

    …[the NIE] said there was a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent internal conflict with one another unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so…

    …Senior White House officials… have contended that some of the early predictions provided to the White House by outside experts of what could go wrong in Iraq, including secular strife, have not come to pass…

    …warnings about anti-American sentiment and instability appear to have been upheld by events…

    …[the NIE] was described by White House officials in the past two weeks as an academic document that contained little evidence…

    …The White House has also sought to minimize the significance of the estimate, with Mr. Bush saying that intelligence agencies had laid out “several scenarios that said, life could be lousy, life could be O.K. or life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.”…

    I have but one question: Can we agree we need to impeach him yet?

  • The missing point is we’ve only seen about 4 pages of the over 30 page document (the first NIE). I guess you could pick a word here and there from the Bible and make it read like a Harry Potter book, but…

    A sentence here, and bullet point there is not the entire document.

    It’s obvious it’s much worse than we’re seeing because they’ve had it since April. Ditto the 2nd NIE. They have it, it’s damning and they’re trying to make it into a silk purse.

  • This is the first ever NIE on Iraq? If not, can we see the last one? If so, why in the hell has it taken 5 years? This is bullshit and as soon as Congress comes back in session in Democratic control all this crap Bush has been shoveling will start flying back at him. I hoe hw catches one right in the mouth!

  • Snow said clearly in his press conference today that the Iraq report was only started a month ago. I suspect he’s lying about the start date to give the impression that a draft report hasn’t been completed yet. In fact, I believe he also denied that an Iraq-specific report was being held until after the election, for what it’s worth.

  • SnowFlake, whether he realizes it or not, has pretty much exposed the foundational lie of this “need for secrecy.”

    In his “briefing” (read: bovine-excrement being slung every which way with a snowblower), he refers to the need to keep the thing secret because it mentions specific “human-source” and “state-sponsored-source” items. In the past, the normal redaction practice has been to say “such-and-auch” with the proviso that the named source is subject to redaction. Now, they not only redact the named source, but the findings as well?

    It is time to “redact” the entire administration of Herr Bush….

    • Comments are closed.