| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democrat concerned over US intel on Iran |
| 2006-04-05 |
| U.S. intelligence information on Iran is inadequate and may contain misinformation that spy agencies are accepting as solid, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Tuesday. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told a Council on Foreign Relations gathering that she and other lawmakers recently received a briefing from intelligence agencies based on information shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council. Her bottom line: "I remain skeptical — lots of unanswered questions." "The conjecture that I have is that if I were Iran, and I wanted to put out disinformation, it might look a lot like what our government is claiming is information," she said. "I can't tell you that's true, but I can't tell you it's not true." Harman didn't provide details on the classified session. With tensions growing between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program, Tehran in the past week has touted new weapons including missiles supposedly invisible to radar and torpedoes too fast to be avoided. Experts have questioned Iran's claims about the weapons' capabilities. The announcements came as the Bush administration was working toward a diplomatic solution to address its belief that Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. Iran says it aims only to generate electricity, but it has thus far defied U.N. Security Council demands that it give up key parts of its program. Last week, the Security Council unanimously approved a statement demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment. When asked about Iran's recent weapons announcements Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Iran's "aggressive military program and defiant rhetoric are further examples of how the regime is isolating itself." But he stressed the administration hopes to work toward a diplomatic solution. McClellan said the United States has a number of concerns about Iran's behavior, including its efforts to conceal its nuclear activities, support of terrorism, use of threatening rhetoric and disregard for the demands of the international community. Harman said she does not doubt that Iran is a threat. "The issue is how capable are they and what are the real intentions of Iran's leaders, and I think the jury is out on both of those," Harman said. In recent months, she and others on Capitol Hill have been seeking information about how to deal with Iran. Bruises in Congress and elsewhere in the government remain fresh on the botched prewar intelligence on Iraq's never-to-be-found weapons of mass destruction. "I want to be absolutely sure that we base decisions — especially tough decisions like what are the next steps with Iran, and I surely hope they are diplomatic because I think those are our best options — on pristine and pure intelligence or the closest we can get to that," Harman said. She was echoing the words of former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay, who was in charge of the hunt for Iraq's arsenal until he quit his position in January 2004. Then, he said that "pristine intelligence, good accurate intelligence" was fundamental to a pre-emptive military policy, which the Bush administration adopted after Sept. 11, 2001. Harman spoke alongside former acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, a veteran intelligence analyst who was the agency's No. 2 official in the run-up to the Iraq war. He politely quibbled with the use of the phrase "pristine intelligence." "It's important, I think, to realize that intelligence isn't going to be pristine and pure," McLaughlin said. He said intelligence is often incomplete and at some point policy decisions must be made. "We are getting a little caught in the idea that intelligence has the answer to everything," he said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #18 amen, CA - she reminds me of a parrot that's learned from a disaffected family - she'll say whatever it takes to get the cracker and her feathers preened. Her turnabout on FISA should've got her ass off the intelligence committee if her party had any nads |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-05 22:58 |
| #17 Harmon is a political hack, first and foremost. She was on so many sides of the terrorist surveillance issue of which she was a principle, along with Rocky from the Senate Intel Committee. If she is one of the brighest bulds on the donks side, sheesh. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-04-05 22:51 |
| #16 She's a Californian, not an American. Ignore her. SM, It's not Californian anymore It's Caliphornian! /sheech |
| Posted by: RD 2006-04-05 19:45 |
| #15 49 and OS and anyone else with experience... My question has always been, "Isn't intelligence one of those areas that you never see or hear about the successes, only the failures?" If so, how can anyone outside the system judge whether or not things are going reasonably well? Remember, a batting average of .800 is pretty good, but, if you only hear about the misses it's still a .000 |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-04-05 19:01 |
| #14 I have not been up at the senior levels were the ivy league guys are, and presumably the problems are. But down at the operator level, all of the guys I have known and worked with were focused, dedicated and trustworthy. I see them as the new breed as the culture shifts in that agency. As much as the senior leaders have embarased themselves and the agency, the new guys climbing the ladder are different. I am hopefull. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-04-05 15:40 |
| #13 Sadly, she has a point. A stupid one, but a point. That being, that US intelligence agencies have so embarassed themselves so many times, over so many years, that to get accurate intelligence we almost have to subcontract to private entities, like Janes. I really wonder if it is an insolvable institutional problem. That they are just so enormous that they cannot see out from under the puffy rolls of bureaucratic flesh. They would not be the first bureaucracy to suffer from such a problem. The side of this coin she is concerned about is that they might lead us into an unneccessary war. HOWEVER, it should concern those of us here, if their data is so flawed, that in a war, it might lead to a significant number of our soldiers and sailors getting killed. I, for one, do not want to see a single soldier or sailor killed because some honorable schoolboy Eli at CIA was promoted because of his class ties. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-05 14:18 |
| #12 The intelligence would be a lot clearer if the Democrats hadn't deliberately gutted intelligence capabilities. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2006-04-05 12:28 |
| #11 She's a Californian, not an American. Ignore her. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2006-04-05 11:23 |
| #10 It’s delusional to believe the majority of elected US officials (of all stripes) can resist their political instincts. Even with all her deserved accolades, Harman has proven not to be the exception. Take her recent statement of how she felt “mislead” into authorizing the Iraq War for example. Or how she used weasel words to imply trepidation in light of the congressional intelligence committee briefing and authorization for the NSA surveillance. At best, for someone in her position, these smokescreen statements should be viewed as unashamed admissions of incompetence. Although I agree with her apprehension to accept some of the sensational information about Iran’s capabilities and goals, this is clearly another example of a politician making a CYA statement. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-04-05 11:08 |
| #9 Dems need backup so if the war goes badly they can say told you so. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-04-05 10:36 |
| #8 If the dems are downplaying the intell, then it must be fairly damning. You know how dems run from war, therefore, Jane is off and running, indicating we are soon off to war. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-04-05 09:54 |
| #7 I'd like to see a statement from George Bush to the effect that as a result of historical experience, we have no choice but to believe it when other countries make warlike and threatening statements, or claim to have or to be acquiring certain weapons -- and therefore we will respond to stated threats in the same way as to confirmed threats. This is not the kind of thing for which equivocation or nuance is helpful. But lately I've been feeling more than a bit impatient with the usual nonsense. I'm very glad I'm not in the diplomatic corps, else we'd be in the middle of a couple of wars by now. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-04-05 09:05 |
| #6 Harman's one of the smarter Dems... Damning with faint praise, again? I mean "one of the smarter Dems" is like being one of the more chaste street walkers. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-04-05 07:39 |
| #5 She really pissed me off with her fench sitting. Sorry folks for the spelling errors. My bad. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-04-05 07:22 |
| #4 "I can't tell you that's true, but I can't tell you it's not true." Indecisiveness and and hand wringing. Plane and simple. "I remain skeptical — lots of unanswered questions." Failure to commit and take a stand. Again, plane and simple. What does she nor understand? They are building Nuclear material to use in boms. They have shown it to the world, there is no hunting for it or conjecture. Their Pres has said his goal in life is to destroy the United States of America. The Iranian Government funded the Beirut bombing that killed 200+ great American, bombed the Kobar towers, and built an army, Hammas, designed to carry out terrorist actions worldwide. My only question to our esteemed Congresswoman is, "What questions here need answering????" |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-04-05 07:20 |
| #3 Jane Harman may be one of the smarter Democrats, but I'm sure as Hell not willing to bet my life or my childrens' lives on her "concerns." Iran has been shaking its fist at us and screaming, "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!" for 27 years; a few years ago we learned they were running a secret program to develop uranium enrichment capability; and they continue to defy all efforts to persuade them to stop. Those simple facts right there are enough for me. Whack the Mad Mullahs. DO IT NOW. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-04-05 06:01 |
| #2 She was echoing the words A pity thats all she and her kind are qualified to do. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-04-05 05:21 |
| #1 Harman's one of the smarter Dems but she still thinks we can somehow get 'pristine and pure' intelligence. It's like she wants to convict them in court after mirandizing, subpoening, etc. It does not occur to these people most decisions in the real world, and all made in wartime, are made under uncertainty. When possible, it's best to err on the side of caution. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-04-05 01:51 |