Bush’s Direct and Constant Knowledge of the NIE Intelligence

Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer have an article that answers most of our questions on the genesis of the NIE. What they don’t say–though their article shows–is that Bush was much more cognizant of the development of the NIE than he has let on. Not only did he keep the US people in the dark about the new intelligence on Iraq, he also kept our European allies in the dark (and, I wonder, perhaps even Condi?), even while he was demanding they impose more sanctions.

The article starts with the news that not just Dick this time, but Bush himself, has been meeting with analysts on Iran directly.

They call them "deep dives," special briefings for President Bush to meet with not just his advisers but also the analysts who study Iran in the bowels of the intelligence world. Starting last year, aides arranged a series of sessions for Bush to "get his hands dirty," in the White House vernacular for digging into intelligence to understand what is known and not known.

Those deep dives led directly to the discovery of the new Iran intell. As with Dick Cheney, when he claimed he never got an answer to his questions about uranium in Niger, Bush has been telling us no one informed him of the answer to questions he, himself, posed. Uh huh.

Then the article goes back to April 2007, when the Administration first started pushing back against the conclusion that Iran wasn’t getting very far on its nukes program.

As analysts scrambled to finish by April, they were reaching the conclusion that Iran was still a decade away from nuclear weapons, senior intelligence and administration officials said. For three years, the intelligence community had not obtained new information on Project 1-11, vexing administration officials who worried that a cold trail would lead to doubts about the reliability of the laptop’s information.

Note, the laptop in question is the "Laptop of Death" that Linzer has been reporting on for years; I frankly think the reporting–and the laptop itself–is dubious. But I’ll try to deal with that in a follow-up post.

Then in June, as the debate over the now completed NIE got more intense, Michael Hayden and NSA head Keith Alexander all of a sudden (?) threw resources at enemy number one.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and National Security Agency Director Keith B. Alexander responded by directing vast manpower and technology toward spying on Iranians who may have been involved in the warhead effort.

This is what led to the collection of the communication intercepts that verified that the Iranian program had been mothballed since 2003.

And then, as I expected, Bush received an August PDB that informed him of the new information.

McConnell told Bush about the new information in August during a daily intelligence briefing, but did not provide much detail or anything on paper, White House officials said.

Note the source: we still don’t have McConnell’s version of how much information he gave Bush. But it doesn’t matter, because someone wants us to know that McConnell kept giving Bush information, all while Bush was invoking World War III.

Bush periodically asked McConnell for updates. "The president and his advisers were regularly and continuously appraised on new information as we acquired it," an intelligence official said.

Let me just say–this news (that Bush was asking for updates) makes it pretty clear that the White House claim that McConnell wasn’t providing any information is totally bogus. Not a surprise, but still.

Here’s a detail I’m really fascinated by given the apparent ignorance of Jello Jay and Silvestre Reyes of the NIE when it came out on Monday.

Officials also informed House intelligence committee members and key Senate intelligence committee staff members in September, although they were circumspect. "They said, ‘We’ve got new information. We want to make sure we get this thing as close to right as possible,’ " said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the House panel’s senior Republican.

Though I suspect this may be parsing: "House intelligence committee members," though no description whether that included all HPSCI members, or just those like Crazy Pete whom the Administration likes. And on the Senate side, they briefed "key Senate intelligence committee staff members," but not, apparently, Jello Jay or Kit Bond or anyone else. I wonder whether and how Jello Jay’s staffers relayed the news to him.

The article then describes two murder boards that are as interesting for their attendees as their existence. In September, Hayden and Steven Kappes vetted the intelligence (suggesting this was still heavily led by CIA), and in "late October or early November" Thomas Fingar (the guy Bolton hates so much) vetted it. And he would have been vetting it as debates about whether to declassify it raged.

Finally, here’s the description of what happened in the last three weeks:

By mid-November, the agencies were ready to deliver their conclusions to the White House. Intelligence officials gave a preliminary briefing Nov. 15 in the Situation Room to Vice President Cheney, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials.

Notice they don’t mention Condi here–who was busy trying to persuade the Europeans to increase pressure on Iran. When did they tell Condi?

The process was climaxing just as Bush was convening a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, a meeting designed at least in part to rally the region against Iran. No one told participants about the new information, but on the same day they were gathering in Annapolis on Nov. 27, the National Intelligence Board met to finalize the new NIE. McConnell and others briefed Bush and Cheney the next day. Even though intelligence officials planned to keep it from the public, Bush later that day passed it on to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Cheney told Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

So, this offers a different version than Sy Hersh got, and suggests Stephen Hadley was kinda sorta telling the truth when he said Bush was briefed on the 28th. It would also mean that Bush immediately briefed Olmert on the NIE, as soon as he himself was briefed on it. Apparently, Olmert and the Israelis did not take the news well.

Had they known before the summit, a senior Israeli official said, "I’m not sure we would have shown up."

Which I guess explains the head fake with Khalilzad’s resolution before the UN.

And as to informing our "allies," Bush did not, apparently, extend the same courtesy of an immediate briefing to Old Europe, who didn’t find out until the day the NIE appeared.

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called counterparts in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, which have been negotiating a new set of sanctions against Iran. Foreign officials groused about how it was handled.

Once again, I’m curious whether anyone bothered to tell Condi this NIE was going to poop on her parties in Europe and Annapolis; I suspect Bob Woodward will tell us in a book published 3 years from today that Condi learned the NIE was coming out well after Olmert did, perhaps as late as Sunday or Monday. In any case, the sleight has apparently pissed off even Sarkozy.

That irritated European allies. "The administration is going to pay a price for not allowing allies in on it at an earlier date," said Robert J. Einhorn, a former State Department nonproliferation official. "The French had carried the administration’s water on this issue and really went out on a limb to get the European Union to adopt tough sanctions. And now the rug has been pulled out from under them."

Yup, Condi’s in a remarkably similar position as Powell used to be.

One final detail. This article kind of confirms (albeit in polite-speak) what Pat Lang informed us. Here’s the polite version.

By last weekend, an intense discussion broke out about whether to keep it secret. "We knew it would leak, so honesty required that we get this out ahead, to prevent it from appearing to be cherry picking," said a top intelligence official. So McConnell reversed himself, and analysts scrambled over the weekend to draft a declassified version.

Note the code. "We knew it would leak, , so honesty required that we get this out ahead, to prevent it from appearing to be cherry picking." Translation: we knew Dick was going to actually cherry-pick, so we pre-empted his NIE leaks.

Here’s how the same news appears when explain by someone with Lang’s frankness:

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.

Anyway, the article provides a whole bunch of details that will go unnoticed on a Saturday in which everyone is more interested in the disappearing torture tapes. A pity, though. Because it really reveals how much Bush was gaming who knew and who didn’t know about this intelligence.

image_print
  1. billinturkey says:

    OK, all together now, reporters and congress-persons:

    ‘What did the president know, and when did he know it?’

    There – we knew you could say it.

  2. sharonhutton says:

    What is amazing is how well buried this article was in the online edition of the WP. Thanks for finding it and commenting EW!

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s kind of unfortunate (and reflective of the WaPo’s history of burying the lede). They don’t have anything on the torture tapes, but have put up a “Investigation REport” anyway pimping the role of Dana Priest’s Black Site story in the larger narrative. But here they’ve got real, important news, and its buried.

  3. jayrosen says:

    Thanks, Marcy.

    Here’s what I wrote at my blog: “It’s hard for his supporters to admit it, it’s hard even for his critics to believe it, and it’s hard for the American people to understand it, but Bush isn’t an empiricist. At all. You have to go back to the enlightenment to find the origins of what he rejects. The idea that a strategy for acting on the world must first ascertain what is happening in the world, this idea is what he rejects. Instead he feels he can decide what is happening and then devise a strategy that brings people around to his facts.”

    What’s significant now is that the intelligence community is (finally) wise to this pattern. The only way they can do their job now to ensure that widest possible distribution of their findings. To give those findings to the anti-empiricists in the White House would be folly. Thus McConnell’s reversal.

    Don’t like the new FDL digs, by the way, which are inferior to the old in many ways. Less readable, more cluttered, more compacted, more commercial, less respectful to the writers, uglier (a surprise). I’m sure it will get better, but for now a step back.

    • Ann in AZ says:

      What’s significant now is that the intelligence community is (finally) wise to this pattern. The only way they can do their job now to ensure that widest possible distribution of their findings. To give those findings to the anti-empiricists in the White House would be folly. Thus McConnell’s reversal.

      I think what’s significant is that the intelligence community has regrown its spine but our elected representatives have not yet. The Congress is way behind both the intelligence community and the American people. The Congress has allowed the executive branch of government to severely wound their ability to do their job. Unless they start showing more signs of life, we may have to infuse the Congress with extremely new blood!

      BTW, Jay, I also disagree with you about the new digs. I don’t think its uglier or “Less readable, more cluttered, more compacted”. As for “more commercial,” I think that was the point. I think Jane would like the blog to be more self-supporting; can’t blame her there. This is a capitalist society, after all. The part about “less respectful to the writers” does bother me, though. I miss TRex; he was good enough for late night for quite a while, but now that they’ve gotten into this big new venture it seems he got booted instead of included. And how long before Christy gets to be alongside Emptywheel or TBogg with her own blog, where she can say that she wants more civility and wants her readers to be less pugnacious to one another. OTOH, I like the mall concept.

      • selise says:

        ann – i’m also having a lot of trouble reading the new layout/font… although, that may be just my old eyes

        but i figure that a bunch of people are working their asses off behind the scenes – while i sit here and benefit from everything they’re doing… so, i’m in a mood to be grateful and just wonder if there is any little thing i can do to make their work easier.

  4. Ann in AZ says:

    So much in the so-called Friday news dump a person doesn’t know where to look first!

    Am I crazy or does

    Officials also informed House intelligence committee members and key Senate intelligence committee staff members in September, although they were circumspect.

    imply that the full House IC membership was informed but only staff members of “key” Senate IC members were informed of the existence of new information.

    And finally, I have this odd feeling that Cheney’s sudden trip to Saudi Arabia has something to do with this NIE information. I’m wondering if he went there to try to enlist the Saudis to give him some “actionable intelligence” to prove that there is or was an active even if covert nuclear weapons development program in Iran. Could this be? Could it also relate to why Saudi’s Prince al-Faisal resigned and left the US so abruptly last year?

  5. Neil says:

    Note the code. “We knew it would leak, , so honesty required that we get this out ahead, to prevent it from appearing to be cherry picking.” Translation: we knew Dick was going to actually cherry-pick, so we pre-empted his NIE leaks.

    So when Cheney said “everything leaks” in the Politico interview he was claiming he had no less right to do it than anyone else with classified clearance.

  6. merkwurdiglieber says:

    CNN has just announced that Campbell Brown will explain all this for
    us in a segment titled Iran Fact And Fiction. Relax firepups, help is on
    the way.

      • MrWhy says:

        Re readability:

        In IE7 you can use your own style sheet. (Tools/Internet Options/Accessibility) You can then choose your preferred font and font size. Requires some minor work to create a suitable style sheet.

        I find Firefox (home) is handling the formatting much better than IE (work).

  7. sona says:

    It’s great to to see EW at FDL – been an addicted fan of both since 2005 though more a lurker than a commenter. Also good to see that annoying troll ‘Jodi’ from TNH seems to have disappeared. EW, thank you for your insightful analysis of MSM’s soundbites, much appreciated downunder in Australia.

    • Neil says:


      Also good to see that annoying troll ‘Jodi’ from TNH seems to have disappeared.

      Where is that confounded bridge troll?

  8. Leen says:

    “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.”

    Bless those “intelligence career seniors” souls.

  9. Starbuck says:

    Reading from a screen as never as good as reading from a book. But even books have certain styles that differ from each other. Change from one to which you are used to and the grumbling starts.

    Objectively, these new pages are a relief to me. On PC, hit Ctrl+ to increase the font size. Ctrl- to decrease.

    • bigbrother says:

      AMAZING I CAN SEE WITHOUT EYE STRAIN NOW THAT IS VERY COOL THAT THE VEIWER CAN CHANGE THE SIZE! MANY THANKS

  10. WilliamOckham says:

    Can I go back to something I pointed out earlier? In February of this year, a former Iranian deputy defense minister (served until early 2005) defected. A senior U.S. intelligence official told the WaPo’s Dana Linzer (co-author of the current article) in March that we weren’t even asking the guy about the alleged Iranian nuclear program.

    This was right in the middle of the time period when Bush was pushing hard for more information and getting his deep dives (according to the current story).

    I’m not some much concerned about whether or not the March story was true (it seems silly to think it was). I want to know who the “senior intelligence official” was talking to through the WaPo. The sentence in question was this:

    Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country’s nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it.

    Isn’t that an odd point of agreement between us and the Iranians? Was that somebody’s way of signaling the Iranians that we had figured out they were telling the truth when they told us in 2005 they had stopped?

  11. prostratedragon says:

    Too bad this article appears on a Saturday and under the cloud of the torture tapes news.

    Ah, the Saturday rollout, a fine chestnut from the NYTImes playbook! I’ll bet it was on p.1, just so no one could say they never run this type of story there.

  12. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    So Bush leaned on the intel community to deliver up credible evidence that Iran was building nukes, then told us he’d been kept in the dark? Surprising? Not so much.

    Probably the WaPo is getting so anesthetized to BushLies that it doesn’t even regard them as ‘Page 1 News’ anymore…? Even when they are REALLY BIG lies.
    Just sayin’.

    An alternate interpretation as to why the House Intel may not have been ‘fully briefed’ about the NIE:
    Wasn’t some former bootlicker of Bolton’s hired onto the House Intel committee staff last year? If he’s still there, OR ELSE IF the intel community had any qualms that the committee staffs are still a NeoconNode, the intel community probably didn’t share much info with the Congress. After all, wasn’t Dick the Chair of the House Intel committee during Iran-Contra? If anyone knows how those committee staffs function, it ought to be Dick. And if anyone has had a network from the committees straight to the back door of his office, it’s probably Dick.

    One supposes that the intel folks did not want to tip off Cheney by sharing too much info with the Congressional committees, but that’s just an outtamyarse guess from outside the Beltway.

    But if Bush (and Cheney) knew in mid-August that the intel community was convinced Iran had shut down developing nuclear weapons… well… just how desperate did Bush and/or Cheney become…. particularly in late August or early September? There’s food for thought.

    And if the WaPo ever does stumble on information that sheds light on those questions, well… what are the odds that the info might find its way to page A1?
    Just for a change of pace, even if they don’t think the story might actually have ‘legs’?

  13. Neil says:

    What has undermined public support for the war in Iraq is the suspicion that other agendas, not least oil among them, were at work but not being disclosed by our leaders. It is a sure guarantee that the American people will turn against any foreign enterprise when they come to suspect that they are not being told the truth.

    Perhaps now is the time for everyone to put their cards on the table.

    The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz
    Gary Hart, December 7, 2007

  14. prostratedragon says:

    My whoop for the day, from Silverstein’s article: The same crew that caused some agent to be in eternal spiritual peril by ordering this:

    “The tapes would have shocked the conscience of the public, and should not have been made. Nothing good would come of it.”

    nevertheless went to trilling and ululating in horror at the thought of enduring discomforts of travel to view the questioning live:

    This person said a key reason behind the decision to videotape the interrogations was that “it would eliminate the need to travel to these remote, dangerous, and uncomfortable locations. If they could watch the tapes at HQ, they didn’t need to travel to a remote place to watch. It was too far and too hard.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, that’s it for me, and good night!