Lying Our Way to Tehran (Part 1)

As can be seen from our earlier post (Maybe We Should Just Relax, below), we are concerned that the Bush Administration is fixated on a bombing campaign designed to cripple Iran’s nuclear program, although this topic has largely disappeared from the media. We watch nervously for signs of activity, remarks by Bush or Cheney, unexplained force deployments or curious arrangements of the tea leaves in our cup.

It appears that one legitimate straw in this wind has now appeared. Its source and tenor are exactly what we might expect, judging by what we learned in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Here is the first of two parts on this harbinger of Bush’s next war.

CONSIDER THE SOURCE

The last time lies took us to war we were told that Iraq had a hand in the attacks of 9/11, that it had weapons of mass destruction and represented a threat to the United States. We have learned that these were all lies, but they sufficed to take this country to the longest war in our history.

We may have been given a preview of at least some of the lies that will be offered to stampede us into a “pre-emptive” strike against Iran. R. James Woolsey (seen above) gave us a peek on March 10, 2008 in a speech before the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) and carried live on C-SPAN.



Tape of the speech can be found on YouTube (Part 2 contains the lies) and we recommend it for its disarming, avuncular style; its just old Woolsey telling us a few unavoidable truths without passion or hysteria. You could never tell by the delivery that they are all deliberate, transparent lies.

Although there are many lies contained in Woolsey’s speech, we will focus here on just two. In Part 1 we look at his charge that the National Intelligence Estimate issued in December 2007 was dangerously misleading and, in Part 2, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adheres to a dangerous and fanatical form of Islam known as “hojjatieh” or "hojjatiyah".



THE L.I.E. ABOUT THE N.I.E.

Last December’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a document representing the consensus of all 16 of our intelligence agencies, found

“ . . . that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.”

as reported in the New York Times.

The Times further reported that ;

“Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

For those who are trying to make the case that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is real and imminent this report came as a devastating blow. Here was the entire U.S. intelligence community saying with “moderate confidence” that Iran could possibly have enough fissile material to make a bomb by late 2009, but it was “unlikely”. Further, it was judged that Iran would probably not have enough material for a weapon until the 2013-2015 time frame.

This, it would appear, takes the pressure off the need for an immediate attack on Iran. There is still time for talking.

So, if you are among those in favor of an attack on Iran, how do you counter the considered judgment of all 16 of our intelligence agencies ? Why, of course ! You lie.
Enter Woolsey, long time fan of an Iran attack and with, among other neocon credits, his signature on the 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to President Bill Clinton urging an invasion of Iraq.

In his remarks to the AFPC took dead aim at the December NIE and simply said it doesn’t say what we, the Times, and most other commentators, think it said. The secret, says Woolsey, is the footnote.

“Go back and look at the NIE of December . . . you want to be sure to read the footnote as well as the headline and the lead. The footnote makes it clear that what the Intelligence Community was talking about was simply the Iranian warhead design program. They were not saying that the Iranian enrichment program for fissionable material or ballistic missile program was held up at all and those of course are the long poles in the tent.” [Italics added][ Material found on YouTube recording here at 6:03-6:45 on the timer.]

We invite you to compare this characterization by Woolsey with the actual language of the NIE footnote which is found on Page 6 of that document:

“1 For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.” (Italics and boldface added)

Woolsey was arguing that nuclear warheads are childishly simple to build and since that was all the Iranians had halted there was no reassurance at all to be had from the NIE assertion that such work was halted in 2003.

This was a demonstrable lie. The footnote says the Iranians had halted their “nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work.” Warhead design work is, presumably, included in "nuclear weapon design", but the footnote is far from restricted to such work.

Woolsey wondered aloud why the authors had buried the fundamental truth of the report in a footnote. We wonder how Woolsey expects to get away with a lie that is exposed by the slightest glimpse of that footnote.

It seems an astonishing lapse of judgment for a man who to utter so bold and clear a lie when refutation was only mouse clicks away. Others might call it arrogance and a disdain for the intelligence of his immediate and broadcast audiences that beggars belief.

We realize this is a longish post by blogosphere standards and urge you to take a break. You can reach Part 2 of this post simply by scrolling up.