The IAEA says that the "intelligence" report is flawed, and completely misrepresents the truth, with the apparent purpose of making the evidence against Iran seem worse than it actually is.... and you know what, they're absolutely right. To the best of our knowledge, Iran has yet to refine ANY weapons grade nuclear material.
The report also makes a number of claims that are not substantiated by any available evidence, including accusations that "Iran likely has an offensive chemical weapons research and development capability" and "Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program." Given that the report relies exclusively on public documents, without interviewing a single intelligence official, the factual basis of the report is highly questionable. Indeed, Rep. Rush D. Holt (N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said that the report was not "prepared and reviewed in a way that we can rely on."
The House Intelligence report was penned by Frederick Fleitz, who is the same Bolton lackey who was accused by members of the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee of writing deceptive intelligence reports that appeared to have been intentionally slanted to favor John Bolton's point-of-view, and then trying to pressure and intimidate other Intelligence personnel on behalf of Bolton to adopt his skewed interpretations of the existing intelligence.
In other words, he skewed the truth, stovepiped intelligence, and violated his duty to the people of the United States in order to advance his career. U.S. soldiers die so that assholes like Fleitz can get a promotion.
In an e-mail to a top official in the intelligence community, Fleitz wrote on behalf of Bolton to dispute an intelligence assessment of an alleged Cuban bioweapons program. "Actions of this type cannot help but undermine the bond of trust between" Bolton's office and the agency, he wrote. He also suggested that Bolton's office might seek to bypass the intelligence bureau in the future.
('Cause when you're John Bolton, you don't need intelligence, apparently.)
To make matters worse, Fleitz also personally visited the intelligence bureau -- again, to represent Mr. Bolton -- in order "to share his feelings about our memo," saying that "it was unprofessional . . . to criticize the 'carefully vetted' work of 'experts' in the IC," or intelligence community.
When questioned by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about his approval of Mr. Fleitz's actions, Bolton said that he had "no recollection" of authorizing them.
("No recollection" is the safest legal weasel word when you authorize things you shouldn't, isn't it?)
So, how is it then that Mr. Fleitz didn't get the boot? Is it standard procedure in the Bush administration to allow people to claim they are acting on behalf of important members of government, without any prior authorization whatsoever? Or, if you are caught doing that kind of stuff, do you automatically wind up as the intelligence advisor to Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee instead?
Really, I don't know the process by which Fleitz wound up in his position as the Intelligence Advisor to the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, but doesn't it seem to you that Congressman Hoekstra would've said, "I don't know about this. That guy you want me to hire seems like bad news, and could lead to people questioning the independence and validity of what we're trying to do here..."
But of course, you'd only feel that way if you believed in, say, seperation of powers, the Constitution, etc. All that stuff. And why should anyone in Congress believe in that?
Really, can you think of a better way to stovepipe intelligence than for the Bush administration to put handpicked cronies who have shown their willingness to manipulate intelligence for political ends into a position where they advise the Senate too?
I mean, with intelligence like that, who needs Congress anymore? Why not just replace them with a monkey with a rubber stamp instead?