'Flawed' US intel boosts North Korea's nuclear program?

"The question now is whether we would be in the position of having to get the North Koreans to give up a sizable arsenal if this had been handled differently," a senior administration official said this week.

The disclosure underscores broader questions about the ability of intelligence agencies to discern the precise status of foreign weapons programs. The original assessment about North Korea came during the same period that the administration was building its case about Iraq's unconventional weapons programs, which turned out to be based on flawed intelligence. And the new North Korea assessment comes amid debate over intelligence about Iran's weapons.

The Times also reports that intelligence officials said they still had "high confidence" North Korea had pursued a uranium enrichment capability. But what is now under question is whether or not the country used purchases from countries like Pakistan to actually create a uranium processing capability. Recent statements by senior administration officials, such as those mentioned above, would indicate a change in position. Intelligence official Joseph DeTrani, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week said the belief such a program exists is at the "mid-confidence level."

The Associated Press writes this difference in language is key.

The "mid-confidence" terminology means that analysts have differing views or credible information exists but has not been fully corroborated. That's a notable departure from the previous US view of "high confidence" that the North was working on such activities.

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times says it's time for the Bush administration to "come clean" on its dealings with North Korea in 2002, especially considering similar charges the administration leveled recently against Iran.

Cynics may even wonder whether the administration, having opted for a deal with North Korea, may be downplaying for political purposes the significance of the very intelligence it once cited as proof of Pyongyang's malevolence. Some might even ask why it matters what the administration knew then – and with what degree of certainty – given that North Korea has already tested a plutonium bomb. It's because the US has declared itself the world's nuclear watchdog, refusing to be bound by the decisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency or the UN Security Council.

Yet for the second time, serious questions have been raised about the credibility of US assessments of the potential nuclear threat posed by an enemy nation. Are these charges justified? Given the US need to enlist other nations to adopt sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and deal with other proliferation challenges, that's a question that demands an answer.

Page: 1 | 2