When you get an answer you don't like (such as the NIE report on the halting of Iran's nuclear program in 2003), find someone to give you and answer you DO like:
The new report was received skeptically by some Republicans on Capitol Hill who believe Iran's nuclear program remains an immediate threat, and think the 2005 report is closer to the truth.
Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada plans to introduce legislation to create a bipartisan commission to produce an alternative report on the same intelligence.
"We just see politics injected into this," said Tory Mazzola, Ensign's spokesman.
"When it comes to national security we really need to remove politics. We're saying, let's take a second look."
The proposed commission is based on similar review panels convened in the mid-1970s to reconsider the intelligence agencies' analysis of the Soviet Union, and an effort in the mid-1990s to reassess the threat of ballistic missiles to the United States.
Last week, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said at a committee hearing he does not trust the new findings.
"I'm not sure we have a good, clear signal of what's really happening inside Iran," he said. "We've got a very big batch of mixed signals."
Twice in the last week, senior U.S. intelligence officials have been forced to defend what they consider the most rigorously reviewed National Intelligence Estimate they have produced.
"We need to remove politics" says the Republican who wants his new "report" to be nothing BUT politics, Neocon style. By the way, the "review" of the 1970s intelligence assessment of the Soviet Union was the notorious "Team B", which produced "intelligence" that turned out to be utterly false and dangerously misleading.
Face it. These idiots want their war with Iran and they want it now. If they can't get the intelligence agencies to "cooperate" then they'll appoint their own BS "commission" and get the justification for war that they're looking for.
Gee, I wonder what their "bipartisan" group will conclude about the "threat" of Iran?