Daily Blog Buzz: NIE Commentary

Bloggers are buzzing about the release of the NIE report on Iran and the White House's reaction to it. There's a lot of buzz out there, but here is the smartest, can't-miss commentary.

Bloggers seem to agree with Thomas Joscelyn, who asked five questions about the NIE here yesterday. He wrote, "Given the poor performance of the U.S. Intelligence Community ("IC") in drafting previous NIE's, we should review the IC's work with a skeptical eye--no matter what conclusions are drawn. Interestingly, the IC now concedes that it is certain Iran had a nuclear weapons program. But that isn't getting the headlines." More from Joscelyn here about what changed since 2005.

Norman Podhoretz voices his suspicions at Commentary's Contentions blog:

I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal. But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again.

You'll definitely want to read Podhoretz's conclusion to that one.

Also at Contentions, Max Boot asks "a few more questions about the NIE" and notes, "at the end of this NIE you come away knowing not much more than when you started. Basically you are left with the knowledge that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear work that probably won't result in a bomb in the next couple of years but that could produce a weapon sometime thereafter."

Bryan Preston at Hot Air says,

My take is that we're in a state of dangerous uncertainty all around: We can't trust the IAEA, we don't trust the Iranians (both with good reason), but there's just enough doubt in the NIE to keep the B2s grounded and the Iranians on the loose because the Bush administration cannot base an attack or even another round of sanctions on this estimate, not after the intel failures in Iraq.

The folks at the Corner are on it too, and Victor Davis Hanson notes that the NIE is actually a problem for liberal Democrats.

More good commentary (and healthy skepticism) from Captain Ed, Instapundit, and Michael Ledeen.

And what does President Bush have to say? Michelle Malkin live-blogged his press conference:

10:10am Eastern. David Gregory accuses Bush of knowing about the NIE months ago. DG: "Can't you be accused of hyping this threat?"

GWB: "I hate to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of this NIE last week…Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Conservative bloggers seem to agree.