Bush - Gaming the Intel on Iran?, Per Stephen Hadley (NSA Advisor)

On NPR this morning, Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor, let loose this fact (transcript provided in the White House Watch, by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post):

The president has been asking for more information on Iran for the last several years. He's spent a lot of time actually bringing the Iranian analysts in and interacting with them directly, trying to probe, understand what they know. . . .

So here's the chief advisor to the President of the United States on national security matters describing a situation where President Bush actively questions Iranian analysts for the past several years.  

Now why would Bush be so directly involved with questioning the Iranian analysts?  Hadley is describing a very hands-on President, one who is famous for delegating responsibilities and is proud of being the CEO President, to such an extent that even his neocon minions have noted, as evident by this paragraph from a May 1, 2004 Washington Post column by Robert Kagen:

Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It's not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain.

One might be inclined to believe that President Bush was truly inquisitive, and that following the Iraq intelligence debacle, he was making certain that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed before agressively pushing for war.

I suspect, though, that it's something different.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, Vice President Cheney was extremely involved in the assessment of intelligence on Iraq, as reported by Walter Pincus and Dana Priest on June 5, 2003 in the Washington Post:

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

It's quite possible that President Bush has been playing the role of Cheney, as the CIA and other intelligence agencies were probably keeping Cheney at arm's length in recent years.  It's unlikely, though, that these agencies would maintain distance from Bush.  After all, he's the President, and when the President says jump, the common answer by the men and women in his administration has been to answer, "How high?"

Which brings us back to the central question: Why was Bush meeting with the Iranian analysts?  

•  Something doesn't add up

  with this whole NIE thing.  I for one think this is a backdoor bargain between arab world + Iran vs. Bush. Part of grand bargaining, middle east peace process.

  I mean seriously this NIE is 4 years old.

  But than again, even my speculation doesn't add up. If Bush wants true peace. Why bother doing the complicated thing. Do straight up. We want peace, sign at the dot.

  totally bizzare...

  by fugue on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:32:21 PM PDT

•  Simple

  He was looking at maps of suspected nuclear sites proven oil reserves in Iran.  

  by DWG on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:33:30 PM PDT

  •  oil maps

    The British have acknowledged the importance of oil in mid-east relations, but the White House, run by two former oil-men, just scoffs at this idea.  Yet both recognize the production of oil as the overriding factor in opening up public (BLM, Forest Service, and BLR)lands to drilling without consideration of the time-consuming and law-required environmental impact statements.  So on one hand we have aggressive domestic production and on the other hand we have denial that oil plays a role in foreign policy.

    Oil must be considered as a factor in every move that we make in the Middle East.  While the resolution of the Israeli-Palestian dispute is a goal pursued by American presidents for the past three decades, it has become obvious that Israel can defend itself and is comfortable with the status quo, especially in lieu of the Palestinian self-destruction over the last three years.  So defense of Israel is a convenient front for our presence in the middle east.  The real reason is oil.  Oil.  Oil.  Oil.

    by ApacheTrout on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 01:51:24 PM PDT

•  Hadley trying to make the boss look good

  Everyone knows Bush has probably been the most disengaged President we have ever had. Self-proclaimed title of "The Decider" aside, there is very little evidence that Bush has made any informed decisions while in or out of office. It is unlikely that he has changed his mis-management style this late in the game. But if a decision on Iran is imminent, then it behooves the staff to portray the President as being a bit more involved than he has been on Iraq and Katrina. Cheney has already been discredited, so the push into Iran cannot be seen as his vision. Bush must own it, which is why he must seem to be more involved than usual, such as the Iraq pre-war meeting in which he was focused on asking the other attendees whether they wanted the mints placed on the table for them or not.  

  by MagisterLudi on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:26:42 PM PDT

•  i think hadley is about to "out" the prez imo

  did you seem him at the press conference?

  by me imperturbe on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 02:36:44 PM PDT