Fabricating Intelligence On Iran

The Bush Administration has been preparing for war with Iran since 2004 at least. There is no mistake that the US is occupying countries that surround Iran. Iran has always been a primary target, to change it's policies by influence, coersion or by force. Clearly, Iran is the winner in the war in Iraq. Now the US's only course is to isolate Iran as best it can and continue the build up to war. This time however, the Bush Administration may be feeling a well earned sense of impotence.
A new intelligence assessment on Iran was commissioned by Republican leadership. Here is comments by the Newsweek and a former CIA leader on that topic.

Political pressure and sober intelligence analysis don’t mix well. Paul R. Pillar, who served as the CIA’s National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, took that as a clear lesson from the Iraq war. So when a House intelligence committee issued a sharply worded report on Iran last week, Pillar had concerns. Authors of the study—“Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States”—chastised U.S. spy agencies for “major gaps in our knowledge of Iranian nuclear, biological and chemical programs,” and insisted that intelligence analysts must “not shy away from provocative conclusions.”


The report was immediately controversial. The New York Times said it “seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran.”


Pillar, who retired from the CIA a year ago, spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Jeffrey Bartholet at the offices of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, where he’s on the faculty. Excerpts:


NEWSWEEK: The new intelligence committee report criticizes U.S. spy agencies for not providing enough evidence about Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and ties to terrorism. Does this have echoes of Iraq and what you call the “politicization of intelligence”? Is it happening again?


Paul R. Pillar: I see worrisome signs of it happening again. When you have pressures coming from one place on the political spectrum—which seem to be pressures to come up with evidence to support a conclusion that is already there—I take that as a worrisome sign of the same sort of thing. The bright side here is that the unhappiness of Iraq is still fresh enough in all of our minds … we will all be on our guard.

Apparently there were several statements in the report that were on the face typos. Can you imagine a report with a significant typo getting presented to Congress?