Devious Reporter Lies to Sell another war to the public. ‪Don't Let Them Trick Us into Another War‬! See These Videos, Click Here for Playlist:

Youtuber tantzer sent me this info: In a Congressional hearing early in 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, replying to Senator Carl Levin, confirmed that as of 2011, the American intelligence community has a high level of confidence that Iran has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.

This testimony reflects the contents of the 2011 National Intelligence Estimate. Its texts has not been released, but from the Congressional testimony, it's clear that it repeats the conclusions of the 2007 that since 2003 Iran has not pursued military applications of nuclear technology. The text of the 2007 NIE was published during the Bush presidency.

Sanger of the New York Times has often relayed misinformation from anonymous U.S. officials to the effect that the 2011 NIE would reverse that of 2007. On 6/8/10, he wrote that the new NIE "is using new evidence to revise and in some cases reverse conclusions from that [2007] estimate," and that the U.S. "is gradually backing away from a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate." On 6/15/10, he wrote that the new estimate "is likely to back away from some of the conclusions in the earlier document." On 3/27/10, he wrote that the 2007 NIE's key conclusion "is also being rewritten." On 1/2/10, he wrote, "Mr. Obama's top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran." As of today, the New York Times has not corrected such misinformation or tried to explain it.

As for the 2007 NIE: the NYT's reporting gives exhaustive coverage to criticisms of the 2007 NIE and information that seems to contradict it. Sanger rarely referred to the NIE estimate without the adjective "much-disputed"-- not pointing out that within the United States, it's politicians and media pundits who dispute it quite predictably, not U.S. intelligence organizations that voted for it 16-0 and reconfirmed it in 2011.

As late as November 6, 2011, Sanger has sentences like this: "the report has been widely criticized as flawed." Note the absence of any reference to the 2011 NIE as recently as last November in a context where it should have been mentioned! And in this story from a month ago he put the emphasis on its being "widely criticized as flawed" rather than its having been re-affirmed.