Why is "dubious Iraq intelligence" being treated as news?
The big story in the blogosphere today is a new report [pdf] from the Pentagon's inspector general, which states in no uncertain terms that undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith used "dubious" military intelligence to push for war in Iraq.
Most dubious of all, according to the internal report, was the administration's assertion of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as the Washington Post reports:
But why did it take so long? I remember in October 2002, while Congress was debating the Iraq war resolution, faxing the following Knight-Ridder Tribune news story to the office of Sen. John Edwards, a month after Edwards gave the green light for invading Iraq:
The bottom line: we've had strong evidence that Iraq intelligence was "cooked" for 4 1/2 years -- during which time, the Iraq war has claimed countless dollars and lives.
Is the fact that the Pentagon has belatedly made this discovery now a cause for celebration -- or evidence of further failure? And will the major media acknowledge their role in keeping questions about Iraq intelligence largely under wraps?
UPDATE: TPM Muckraker reminds us that DoD officials were openly distancing themselves from Feith's Iraq intel as early as November 2003.
Most dubious of all, according to the internal report, was the administration's assertion of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as the Washington Post reports:
Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."It's certainly encouraging to see the Pentagon confess that intelligence was manipulated and of questionable "quality or reliability."
[T]he inspector general concluded that Feith's assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a "mature symbiotic relationship" was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.
But why did it take so long? I remember in October 2002, while Congress was debating the Iraq war resolution, faxing the following Knight-Ridder Tribune news story to the office of Sen. John Edwards, a month after Edwards gave the green light for invading Iraq:
WASHINGTON -- While President Bush marshals congressional and internationalBy October 2003 -- a year later -- Iraq's WMD's hadn't materialized and no politician had yet apologized for voting in the war (and no newspapers had yet apologized for their rapturous recitations of administration intelligence claims). But we had yet more evidence of cooked intelligence, this time from Seymor Hersch in The New Yorker:
support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.
These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of
the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews. No one who was interviewed disagreed.
In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence.There have been a steady stream of such reports since -- which, like the above stories, were often woefully under-reported in major media outlets.
A retired C.I.A. officer described for me some of the questions that would normally arise in vetting: "Does dramatic information turned up by an overseas spy square with his access, or does it exceed his plausible reach? How does the agent behave? Is he on time for meetings?" The vetting process is especially important when one is dealing with foreign-agent reports—sensitive intelligence that can trigger profound policy decisions. In theory, no request for action should be taken directly to higher authorities -- a process known as "stovepiping" -- without the information on which it is based having been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
The bottom line: we've had strong evidence that Iraq intelligence was "cooked" for 4 1/2 years -- during which time, the Iraq war has claimed countless dollars and lives.
Is the fact that the Pentagon has belatedly made this discovery now a cause for celebration -- or evidence of further failure? And will the major media acknowledge their role in keeping questions about Iraq intelligence largely under wraps?
UPDATE: TPM Muckraker reminds us that DoD officials were openly distancing themselves from Feith's Iraq intel as early as November 2003.
7 Comments:
This story does not surprise me. Hearing of this stuff now really confirms the gut feeling I have had all along. Do these people think they will really get away with this. Yes. As the media brings the bad guys into focus the really bad guys just slip out the back door and hopefully as sad as it may seem America's attention gets focused on silly celebrities or banning singing while your driving your car.
This story and all stories related to anything about the Iraq war should be on the front of ever news agencies medium. America needs to know that we've been had.Truth be told.
Thank you so much for bringing this to light. I saw a story as early as December 2001 that indicated the CIA was receiving pressure from the White House to draw ties to Iraq. But then that story literally disappeared, and no attention was given to it, and the nation blindly marched to war. The entire episode was based on intelligence that was manipulated.
I always love the line in which Jack Nicholson says "You can't handle the truth". I spent 20 years in the military working in Intel, not as any analyst, not in any important decision making area. But America, you can't handle the truth when it comes to the activities of Intelligence agencies. Why because there is no truth only gray, only the ugly hard facts. Did Intelligence people lie, it all depends on what you call a lie, versus group think or telling the top dog what he wants to hear. I have seen so much bad Intelligence analysis over the years and so much good Intelligence, but we believe only what we believe. If we want to believe in the lies, we believe in the lies. Take the first Gulf war, who am I to tell the world and all of those believing in it, that those trucks being blown up and briefed on national TV could no way ever have been mistaken as scud missle launcher, no you can't say that a 4 star is wrong. They can't be as everyone has faith that the lie is the truth. So if those boxes on the tarmac are not chemical weapons and yet someone briefs this information to the joint chief of staff that they are chemical weapons, and he believes it without question, then it must be the truth. If the Army wanted to believe that the Soviets could overrun Europe in less than 2 weeks, and that miricle fuel and transport would appear to supply the logistic neccessary to do so, who can tell them otherwise. The taking dogs "briefers" who reported what the analyst had found out only reports what the top dog wants to hear or else he will be bitten hard.
OCTOBER 2002 -SENATOR BARACK OBAMA SPEECH AT ANTI-WAR RALLY IN CHICAGO
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda. I am not opposed
to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. "
It is interesting to watch an alleged President 'sign off' on over 800 laws, leaving the children to ask ? If the President is above the law mommy ? who should I address as role model ? One thing is clear, Bush HAD to get into office, come hell or high water (I do hope 2000 election gets sorted out one day), and it seems peculiar that this man Bush had a father who was president who also pushed to get the US into Operation Desert Shield, then storm (only after Bush's father lifted the cap on the # of F-15's Dick Cheney could sell them ) just prior to the beginnings of this arms deal gone bad. It is VERY peculiar we've had two heads of the CIA leave under this alleged president. To have a dedicated group attempting to pressure CIA ananylsts into saying there was a connection, AND to have Cheney Rove and Plame in the press spells a very dark cloud over what's left of America. The use of torture by the CIA and US Military - ALSO pressured directly from Cheney himself (while bush smirkly purports support for torture) has tarnished the image of this nation to the entire world. The people of the US ought to perhaps do to Bush, what Bush has been doing to them - Use of unbridled, unchecked force to do any thing they please - hmm, sounds like an adolescent, not a president.
At some point, the Bush administration needs to listen to the American people. At some point, the American people - in tens of millions by number - will march to Washington and demand accoutnability.
At this point, there won't be a presidential role, there will be blood in the streets. Bush as demonstrated that the way you remove an unlawful dictator (himself) is by force, and you do it without regard to any advice from other nationstate leaders.
What is Bush to say when 200 Million people say 'No More' and want his head on a stick ? I guess Bush can just sign off on a mob of 200 Million ANGRY people ?
Where's your signin' stick Dubya ?
This war was wrong, it was forced through washington by misuses of failed intelligence (again, didn't we have TWO heads of the CIA step down during this admin ? What does THAT say about CIA quality and integrity, sheesh, they can't even keep people IN over there, can't imagine how the fair on quality intel)- OH wait, Tennet stepped down for 'family reasons' I forgot. And Rumzy decided he's gonna retire and hit the golf course while kids have their stomaches blown to pieces. Bush ? He'll probably move to Spain.
I've never witnessed a greater pack of organized crime take the White House. This was was driven for PRIVATE interests, corporate interests. The problem now is, how do you put an alleged president on death row when tried and found guilty- Oh, wait, we don't try people first now, we just deny them representation and tell them they're guilty.
This will be an interesting year 2007. I predict Bush will strap America so heavily it will break. The producer of Fox News, before taking that job, was the guy who got Nixon elected, Reagan elected and Bush Sr. Gee, what ARE the odds he's producer of Fox News. Someday, when you have all the black SUV's, the beach house and the main estate, the jet - you can fly over your fellow species and say - gee, I guess we all kind of need each other to make it forward as a species BUT, hey, who cares, I'm living cancer.
Despite current telescopes only being able to detect "super Jupiters", no astronomers doubt the existence of Earth-sized planets elsewhere in our galaxy. But do you think it wouldn't be news if they found one?
Sure, we all knew that Doug Feith, Dick Cheney, WHIG - the White House Iraq Group, and others were cooking the intel to suit their tastes. We knew they were "fixing the facts around the policy."
But knowing it is one thing, and having the DOD Inspector General confirm it in black and white is another thing.
When I first saw the title of this blog post, I mistakenly thought that this was a right-wing dismissal of the report as "old news", the same way they dispensed with the Downing Street Memo.
This report is news -- big news -- and rightly so. And kudos to Senator Levin for shining a spotlight on it.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page