Almost the first thing you learn in journalism is that the lead par, the intro, is the most important part of any piece you write. It would have been possible for the NIE to present exactly the same information as it did in this report, but to do so in a way which generated the opposite headlines to those which this report generated.
The headlines around the world were that Iran is no longer a nuclear threat. Yet that is the opposite of the NIE's lengthy consideration of Iran's uranium enrichment program or indeed of its missile efforts. And it ignores the report's only moderate confidence that Iran has not recommenced actual weaponisation.
Thus, in generating headlines the opposite of its overall conclusions, the report was either written with monumental incompetence, or, much more likely, with an overtly political purpose.
The CIA has been in semi-open revolt against the Bush administration for years now. I may be an old-fashioned sort of a fellow but it has always seemed to me that an American citizen had two alternatives in life. Either he could campaign publicly against the president, or he could be a secret intelligence officer. The CIA has apparently decided you can do both, simultaneously. Imagine the outcry if there were a liberal Democrat president and right-wing elements of the intelligence community were constantly leaking and briefing against the administration.
Indeed, the press went right along with the spin the CIA intended that Iran is not a danger and so Bush has no reason to attack even as the NIE itself did not in fact clear Iran, covering their butts very nicely should Iran explode a nuke next month or so.
Sheridan goes on to wonder why the Bush administration just let this report leak without trying to shape it:
At the very least, Bush should have demanded that the NIE present the same information in a less sensationalist way, or in a different order. This is not so that information could be distorted, but rather that its public reception would reflect its real content.
Ah, but Sheridan neglects the fact that the CIA has allies not only in the press who willingly spun the report to clear Iran but that the CIA has allies in Congressional leadership. Had the Bush administration "only" sought to shape the presentation, rest assured we would be treated to Congressional inquiries into Bush administration "interference" and "politicization" of intelligence. Charges our press would have been happy to amplify. So whether we do something or don't do something, we are damned with equal fervor. As the media saying goes, "Damned if you're Bush. Damned if you're Bush."
I'm a realist at heart. As much as the NIE smacks of deceit, the reality is that too many people find it too convenient to act like the NIE is Gospel truth. I am glad that a push back on the NIE has begun and that most Americans don't actually believe Iran is innocent. But that doesn't erase the fact that too many would rather ignore Iran's nuclear threat even though most believe Iran wants atomic weapons because the price of acting seems to high. So the press portrayal of this NIE is too convenient not to believe.
In time, the NIE spin will be shown to be false. The only question is whether we will still have time to defend ourselves from a nuclear-armed mullah regime in Tehran.
