Death Squads Negroponte Claims He'll Prevent Propaganda

by emptywheel

Wednesday mornings I pick up my CSA share. I'm always one of the first people at the market. And now that it's staying dark later, it can be kind of surreal, with farmers standing in the dark behind overflowing tables of produce, little old ladies with their cheery market baskets, and the farmers' white vans creating a maze of impermanent walls where normally there is open space.

It was particularly surreal, this morning, because NPR was actually doing some reporting as I pulled up. NPR was reporting a story Laura Rozen reported back in May, that BushCo has established an Iran Directorate, which is basically the Office of Special Plans updated to replace the "q" in Iraq with an "n."

At the Pentagon, the new Iranian directorate has been set up inside its policy shop, which previously housed the Office of Special Plans. The controversial intelligence analysis unit, established before the Iraq war, championed some of the claims of Ahmad Chalabi. A number of assertions made by the former Iraqi exile and onetime Pentagon favorite were later discredited.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable declined to name the acting director of the new Iran office and would say only that the appointee was a "career civil servant." Among those staffing or advising the Iranian directorate are three veterans of the Office of Special Plans: Abram N. Shulsky, its former director; John Trigilio, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst; and Ladan Archin, an Iran specialist.

Things got still more surreal when NPR interviewed John Negroponte about the new office. It's bad enough to hear Death Squads Negroponte before breakfast. But he was trying to claim that there was no way unvetted intelligence would get stovepiped to BushCo ... "without me knowing about it." Well, perhaps he knows about Fred Fleitz' most recent propaganda efforts? Because either that's a product of insufficient vetting ... or Negroponte knows it wasn't vetted and is perfectly happy with that.

As a service for our Director of National Intelligence (hired, you'll recall, to avoid the politicization of intelligence), here is a summary of the problems with Fred Fleitz' propaganda.

From the IAEA:

• The report claimed Iran was enriching uranium to weapons grade. But Iran is enriching uranium to 3.6% purity. Weapons grade is normally considered 90% purity or greater.
• The report claimed Iran had "covertly" produced polonium-210. But Iran is not required to report polonium-210 to the IAEA under the NPT. So it's incorrect to consider this "covert" production.
• The report claimed the IAEA had removed Mr. Charlier for "not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program." But under the inspections agreements, each state has the right to object to any of the inspectors--as Iran did in this case. The IAEA had nothing to do with it.

From Matthew Yglesias:

• The report shows a map indicating Iran's missiles can reach much of Europe. But it does this by using the range of the non-existent Shahab-4 missile, and shifting the launch point west so the Shahab-3 missiles (which Iran has tested) could reach all of Israel.

From Gary Sick:

• Repeats the observation that the report claims 3% uranium is weapons grade.
• Repeats the observation that the report uses a non-existent missile to show Iran with a range extending across Europe. Also notes that the ranges for the Shahab-3 missile are exaggerated.
• Notes that the IAEA has found no evidence of weapons development--a point Fleitz ignores.
• The report claims that Iran has the largest ballistic missile inventory in the Middle East. But both Israel (with 50) and Saudi Arabia (with 40-60 long range missiles) have a larger inventory than Iran.

From emptywheel:

• The report claims one of the feared uses for the Shahab-3 missiles are to carry a nuclear weapon. But Sandia Labs have tested Iran's missile modifications, and they would not work to carry a nuclear warhead.
• The report accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants with IEDs, even as it admits that General Peter Pace has debunked this claim.

There are more problems than these even. As the WaPo's new A-17 martyr pointed out, those who are familiar with the current intelligence can find at least a dozen problems with the (as Arms Control Wonk calls it) Fleitz of Fancy. And Dafna Linzer also reveals your office reviewed this document.

Privately, several intelligence officials said the committee report included at least a dozen claims that were either demonstrably wrong or impossible to substantiate. Hoekstra's office said the report was reviewed by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. [my emphasis]

So which is it, Mr. Death Squads DNI? I realize Fleitz has probably been tasked with these reports (word is he's working on a similarly BS North Korea report) precisely because, working for the House Intelligence Committee, he can avoid vetting. Just like the Iran Directorate. But apparently you've vetted this document.

The Fleitz report clearly challenges your assurances that unvetted propaganda could never be used to game the policy debate again. Should we just assume you know this is propaganda, and you're perfectly happy with that?

Update:

And while you're explaining how you let Fleitz' report by your vetting process, Death Squads DNI, would you mind explaining how you let the White House resuscitate its claims of an AQ-Iraq link? Via Think Progress, we find this.

Comments

[leveymg]

What accounts for the long lag in major media picking up this story? Does it just not exist until someone like Corn and Isikoff release their book, and others in the same stratosphere have a chance to read it?

I think not. Anyone who's on top of the news has to read War and Piece, TPM, and Next Hurrah, and at least look at DailyKos every day, in order to keep up with what's breaking. Why does it take so damned long for the NPR-types to write their reports?

By the time it reaches state radio, I begin to think that spin is taking over, and the story is now being played for an agenda set on high. Am I just too suspicious, or is this simply the way it always is with "controversial" topics?

On a related note, I'd like to recommend a most fair, balanced and compassionate review by H20 Man of Corn and Isikoff's book. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2171547

I think he must be a more patient guy than I ever will be.

[Katie Jensen]

One of Bush's first actions as president of the United States was to remove the caps on media ownership which opened the way from huge corporations to buy up the media. This is what happened. Now there are only a handful of media giants running our media in the united states. We have found out in the last week that at least 2 major studies that said that this deregulation would have a negative impact on several aspects of our media. These studies were buried by the FCC and Barbara Boxer is looking into the fiasco. This one move, in my humble opinion was a huge step in giving the republicans much more control over what is printed, followed and released. Censorhip came in when big corporate interests took over our media. So today, we must find and seek out our news. I am frequently amazed at the progression and loss of rights for the little folks in America with each step that Bush took as he came into office.

[William Ockham]

I heard that same NPR report this morning. In addition to all the things that ew points out, I found another serious problem. The story was rather obviously stamped out of one of the dozen or so common media narratives about policy-making. In this case, it was the "nefarious underlings subvert policy-making process and mislead policy-makers, leading to bad policy" template. Of course, that's not what happened with the OSP or what's happening with the Iran Desk. What happened was the policy makers (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) created the OSP expressly to support their predetermined conclusions. The problem is not nefarious underlings, it is our nefarious overlords. I'm sure that Negroponte would be surprised if unvetted intelligence got to policymakers without him knowing about it because he wants to be sure to take credit for it. While it is true that the story is better than most of what passes for reporting these days at NPR, it's pretty thin gruel for a functioning democracy.

[Meteor Blades]

..."without me knowing about it."

Yep. I think your take is precisely right on this score: Of course, he knows about it. John is a slippery fish, has been at least since his Honduras days.

[Origos]

Negroponte make the same type of deals Shayes did or is different if its not India, but Morrocco?

[Origos]

Negroponte make the same type of deals Shayes did or is different if its not India, but Morrocco?

[emptywheel]

Thanks for adding that, WO.

I also noted that they didn't name their intell sources--probably people like Joseph Cirincione and Pat Lang and Greg Thielmann, all of whom have reason to know that the intell past time was completely bullshit. Perhaps their sources were off the record, though I doubt it. Why not name those guys, and give the critics their due credibility?

[pow wow]

leveymg - Your DU link went to a General Lee diary there. This URL should take people to H20 Man's Hubris review from his DU journal:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/H2O%20Man/52

I really like H20's 'framing' in that piece of the Bush administration as hijackers who forced their way into our nation's cockpit... Very effective metaphor (of the truth).

Also, which National Propaganda Radio reporter had the story on this new outside-intelligence-channels Iran propaganda shop at the Pentagon?

[emptywheel]

I don't remember which reporter it was, and I couldn't find the story online (thus the absence of a link). Teach me to blog about radio coverage I hear before coffee.

Do you remember, WO?

[emptywheel]

Mary Louise Kelly.

Here's a link to the story (via Rozen's site). Note where Douglas Feith defends the OSP by bragging of its "creativity."

Yeah, "creativity" is what I want when my government is making the case for war.

[Thurman Savage]

frustulent gubernator flusherman pristane afterhelp henceforth actinocarp exordia
Austin Kaye of the Strand
http://www.houseofflora.com/