Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Report: CIA Gave False Info on Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:50 AM
Original message
Report: CIA Gave False Info on Iraq

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to false "group think" when assessing Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons capabilities and ended up giving the Bush administration overstated or incorrect conclusions before the 2003 invasion, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report says.

Many factors contributing to those failures are ongoing problems within the U.S. intelligence community which cannot be fixed with more money alone, concluded a bipartisan report released Friday.

The report repeatedly blasts departing CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet, accusing him of skewing advice to top policy-makers with the CIA's view and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State or Defense Departments. It faulted Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush's 2003 State of the Union address which contained since-discredited references to Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

Tenet has resigned and leaves office this week.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. The next message will be: Tenet is Clinton's fault
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Magleetis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. We know that it isn't
bugfuckers (Bush) fault, he doesn't make mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. Heard it on the radio ...
"Group think" and problems sited in the report go back to Nixon and include, CIA under Ford, Carter, Raygun, Poppy, Clinton & 1st 8 months of weedboy's admin. Report cites failure to update techniques and to replace cold war thinking, et cetera.

Under Poppy - Mr. CIA himself, he couldn't/didn't correct it? They can't blame it on Clinton alone, they all take the blame (Beiruit bombing during Raygun's admin).

400 pages released, alot of classified that were not released. Most still trying to make heads or tails of the report.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. So, as usual, Bush is innocent
Tenet happily falls on his sword for Bush.......what a guy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yes, Der Fuhrer* is as innocent as Newborn Baby Jesus
If you don't believe that, you're obviously a trator.

</sarcasm off>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. you really crack me up some times tom_pain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
UGABrother Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. Turn to MSNBC!

Tenet has fallen on his sword but the ticker doesn't look good for *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Could you explain for us "cube rats"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. i have seen where Tenet told *ush in one situation not to use the
Niger uranium info in one speach then "neglected" to notice when Stupid* wanted to use it again for Iraq.

I dont buy the report at all .. it looks lilke a cover up for *ush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is of course yet another (yawn) Soviet style Lie
Yes, Comrade Bushevik, Toilet Paper production is up 600% this year!

:puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lovedems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Since they leave Bush out of this, I am beginning to think this report
is meant to cover the asses of the congressmen/women who voted for the IWR. It is so easy to say it is the CIA's fault that we rushed to war. By leaving Bush out they are not aknowledging that his administration pressured the CIA to shape the intelligence reports to fit their plan. It wasn't congress who was wrong for not asking questions of this administration, it wasn't the administrations fault because they won't even touch that, it is all the CIA.

Something doesn't seem right here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. Interesting point
BTW, I may be alone here, but even this report doesn't make Bush look good. It portrays him as a dupe, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lovedems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. It makes more sense because congress is getting ready to go on recess
and many are going to be campaigning. With the Iraq war growing more unpopular, these assholes (republicans) just gave a great excuse to give their constituents who don't approve of the war. I only single out republicans because it looks like the democrats will at least bring the administrations faults to bear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tedzbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
40. The Democrats and Repugs in Congress are covering their ass.
This kind of BS makes me want to vote for Nader.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
43. This is just the first half of the report
The second half will examine how the false intelligence was used & if it was cooked.

Unfortunately, or conveniently? this report will not come out until AFTER the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. The second half
of the investigation will focus, in part, on Douglas Feith and the OSP.
They will face pressure to get this out by October.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. I heard Rockefeller & Roberts talking about this...
they said it will be after the election.

Tweety on Hardball asked if the people deserved to have this info BEFORE the election.

But they said it will take too long....the part released today took 12 months to compile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stubertmcfly Donating Member (285 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
10. "gave"?
or "was asked to give"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
riverwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. listening to Rockefeller
"the administration was predetermined to go to war" "was making their own conclusions before given information" etc
he is using about 600 ways to say THEY LIED without actually using those words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. I give Jay a lot of credit...
He threw every punch available to him at bushco*, mentioning that neo-con scum feith at least two times! I could tell he was having a hard time containing himself. Did you see him sweating?!? :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. I cheered
when he alluded to the PNAC ideologues who wrote to Clinton in 1998 about attacking Iraq and that they "shaped" the intel to fit their agenda (Hello OSP!) This helps take "The Whispering Campaign" (see link below) out of the realm of conspiracy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. YES!!! When he talked about the "Letter" from 1998
I couldn't believe my ears.

Can we get him in Kerry's cabinet somewhere? Or probably keeping him in the senate is OK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. What a load of bull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AussieInCA Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
13. so no WMD existed and CIA did their job on Al Qaeda link...
but bushco ignored them when the CIA was right on the terrorists links not being there.

Pretty damning, the war was totally unjustified now.

Hey PRESS you dickheads...where were you on all of this? Freaking cheerleading bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Corgigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. Cheney
was all over the CIA like white on rice. In fact I read an article (The New Yorker, I think) that mentioned a VP never came to the CIA this many times ever. If they fell for group think it was because someone was sitting next to them with a giant stick. Good try Bushy Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. So you think
that the CIA is going to roll over on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. That should be interesting
Will the CIA sit back and take the rap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Corgigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
27. Guess we will see
In case anyone wants to brush up.

Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Cheney showed up at CIA headquarters on several occasions to meet with CIA analysts, an unusual move for a vice president, Vince Cannistraro, the CIA's former chief of counterterrorism, told Nightline. But rather than focusing on the existing intelligence, Cheney often pressed analysts on what the agency hadn't found or wasn't reporting.

"The whole emphasis," Cannistraro said, "was, 'We are sure that there are weapons of mass destruction. We are sure that Saddam is acquiring a nuclear capability. Why isn't your reporting showing this? We're getting reporting independently from the intelligence community that convinces us that that's the case. You're not providing any corroboration for that.' The weapons of mass destruction analysts at CIA took these visits as intimidation, as pressure."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AussieInCA Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. yep, who is the cultist leading the group think????
yep...some leader was behind that...sounds like our abusive "go **** yourself" Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AussieInCA Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
15. Rockefeller discussing the pressure was there on analysts
just they are not allowed to discuss it in the report.

So the press going to go after the administration over this? bet not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
20. oh yea, blame it on the CIA...
...and pin it on Tenet.

WHAT a surprise (not)

IMO it was bu$hit's responsibility to review his damn SOU speech with Tenet and to verify the info there instead of just being the idiot puppet that reads what is fed to him.

In this case, his incompetence and laziness bit him in the ass and now he's blaming it on CIA and Tenet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lil-petunia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. even though it slams Tenet
it also makes the whole WH pressure for war look really bad.

This report, although not perfect, implicitly destroys all arguments by shrub and cheney
in support of their iraqi policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. true that...'s still a HUGE "DOH! Woops!" on the white house's part...idjits should have checked their damn facts before marching off into their PNAC and war profiteering junket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
25. Transcript - sorry it's from FAUX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. the white paper vs the classified version
Of the first two administration points, the case for invasion, the committee details, as Chairman Roberts has indicated, how these key pillars were not supported and should not have been there. The national intelligence estimate was given to us, at our request -- at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about 10 days before the vote came. It was done in three weeks. It was thrown together. It was based upon fragmentary intelligence, ancient intelligence.

And then there was this enormous difference between the classified version, where all kinds of doubts and caveats were included, and then the white paper, which was the unclassified version, which all of a sudden everything moved in one direction toward, "They've got them, they're ready to use them, and watch out."

I don't think that was an accident.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mourningdove92 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
26. I find it hard to believe that the CIA is going to sit by and be
villified like this. The next few weeks should be amazing. Jay Rockerfeller did a marvelous job. He got his points in. Especially referring to the intel that was given to Congress, noting that the intel whene the CIA expressed doubts over some of the information was withheld from Congress and getting the point of the pressure on the CIA analysts on the record.

While I have known all along that the Iraq war was based on total bullshit, this is the scariest thing I have ever witnessed. We are having to face the world and were right, we were wrong and thousands of people have died because of this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
28. I'm steaming over this!
Once again Idiot Boy is innocent? Oh give me a fucking break! Where, in their report, are ther references to the pressure BUsh continually asserted on the CIA, and other agencies to find a link so he could attack Iraq? Tenet fell on his sword for Idiot Boy... once again, the Teflon Dunce walks away unscathed. Criminal bastards... :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Carl Levin says .............only half the "picture"
"Carl Levin, a Democratic senator on the intelligence committee, said it was 'only half the picture' because of the insistence by Republicans on the panel that examination of the White House's role be dealt with in a separate report, to be published after the election."

Gee, I wonder why they would want to wait until after the election?

"Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations in the CIA's counter-terrorist unit...said repeated questioning of reports downplaying Iraq's arsenal and links with al-Qaida by Mr Cheney and other senior officials led to an atmosphere in which the CIA leadership and analysts 'bent over backwards' to find evidence that conformed to the administration's views.",2763,1257431,00....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. It seems obvious ...
... that Cheney and his coterie of cockroaches infested the CIA and short-circuited the analytical functions of the CIA, affording the bits and pieces of planted, falsified, and fraudulent raw 'intelligence' a level of credibility that was completely unwarrranted, serving the "faith-based" propaganda of the regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChavezSpeakstheTruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
34. What about in 2001 when Colin & Condi said Iraq was not a threat?
I'm sure it was the CIA and not the PNAC (Which published its agenda regarding Iraq in the late 90s) who pushed for this!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freemarketer Donating Member (47 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
36. George Bush is sooooooooo sorry for everything.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
38. Meanwhile, in the UK, Blair is nervous because they're about to criticise

how the info was used and get "personal" and name names...."but also that it will criticise ministers' use of the material."

1//The Independent, UK 09 July 2004

1//The Independent, UK--BUTLER TO SINGLE OUT INTELLIGENCE CHIEFS FOR BLAME IN WMD INQUIRY (Lord Butler of Brockwell is to defy the Government by including personal criticism of Britain's intelligence chiefs in his inquiry into the information they gathered about Saddam Hussein's weapons before last year's war. The Independent has learnt that the Butler inquiry has sent letters to three crucial witnesses outlining draft sections of next week's report that will criticise them directlyDowning Street is said to be "very worried", fearing the report will criticise the intelligence services for not making rigorous checks about its information on Iraq's arsenal before it was included in the dossier, but also that it will criticise ministers' use of the material.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
39. Curious Timing of Warnings and Releases of Information
I don't believe the Administration had control of the timing of the release of the Iraq Intelligence report. So what did they do?

1. They tried to take over the headlines with another terrorist warning designed to get people to panic. But whatever you do, don't panic.

2. While these big stories are occupying the headlines, they let the story out that George the Second's military records had been accidentally destroyed. See story on page A-27.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
41. Never mind Cheney marching his fat ass over to the Pentagon.....
To trump up the "sifted" intel that OSP got from the CIA.

How many times did I hear that the CIA did give more intel about the lack of WMDs but the WH used ont only the most damaging stuff....

No I am sorry this is yet another attempt by Bush to discredit opponents. Lucky for Tenet he'll soon be slamming the door on them for a final time when the Plame indictments come down and he will be free to testify.

THough I am sure Ashcroft wqill attempt to stop him based on some "Bush relection"...errrr I mean "National" Security reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
42. Tenet's Testimony.....recall....
That the SOTU speech Bush made was finalized after Tenet had reviewed portions of it. he said something aong the lines the CIA director is not responsible for what the WH deciedes to put in a presidential speech. He went to state that if he had SEEN the final draft finished some hours shortly before he would have questioned the uranium claim....

That whole report looks like a big smokescreen cover your ass type manuver.

People fail to mention that much of the info that Cheney, Powell and Bush used to support the Iraq war came from Chalabi and the Pentagon neocon goons at the request of Rummy and Wolfie...

Go back and review articles of the OSP and Tenet's testimony before the Intelligence commitees...

This whole report smacks of a Rovian smear. Shifting blame directly from one place to another. SOmething the Neocons are very good at with the help of the weak whore media.

I belive this report will quickly be downplayed after the facts of the Pentagon and Whitehosue envolvment. If just doesn't corroborate the facts as they have been disclosed.

Cheney went to the Pentagon and CIA to influence intelligence analysis.

Rummy set up a special office to handle Chalabi's intel and glean through CIA material with a Neocon eye witht he sole purpose to trump up support for the invasion.

The CIA provided intel telling both sides fo the WMD story. Presenting the rumors as well as the facts. The WH choose to ignore the facts about the rumors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
44. And 1 week ago, Cheney was STILL spouting the false
crap this report disproves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
47. The Elephant In The Room
I saved the following articles posted here before. Thought it appropriate to post again as a refresher:

The spies who pushed for war

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

As the CIA director, George Tenet, arrived at the Senate yesterday to give secret testimony on the Niger uranium affair, it was becoming increasingly clear in Washington that the scandal was only a small, well-documented symptom of a complete breakdown in US intelligence that helped steer America into war.

It represents the Bush administration's second catastrophic intelligence failure. But the CIA and FBI's inability to prevent the September 11 attacks was largely due to internal institutional weaknesses. This time the implications are far more damaging for the White House, which stands accused of politicising and contaminating its own source of intelligence.

According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior members of the administration created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency. snip

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.


No weapons in Iraq? We'll find them in Iran

By Neil Mackay Sunday Herald

Sunday 01 June 2003

Ironically, it was the ultra-hawkish US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who let the cat out of the bag when he said on Wednesday: 'It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy (WMDs) prior to the conflict.' If that was true then Saddam had fulfilled the criteria of UN resolution 1441 and there was absolutely no legal right for the US and UK to go to war. Rumsfeld's claim that Iraq might have destroyed its weapons makes a mockery of the way the US treated the UN's chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix. The US effectively told him he wasn't up to the job and the Iraqis had fooled him.


With September 11 as his ideological backdrop, Rumsfeld decided in autumn 2001 to establish a new intelligence agency, independent of the CIA and the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). He put his deputy, Wolfowitz, in charge. The pair were dissatisfied with the failure of the CIA among others to provide firm proof of both Saddam's alleged WMD arsenal and links to al-Qaeda.


That was the policy blueprint, but to deliver it Rumsfeld turned to the Office of Special Plans. Put simply, the OSP was told to come up with the evidence of WMD to give credence to US military intervention. But what do conventional intelligence experts make of the OSP? Colonel Patrick Lang is a former chief of human intelligence for the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the 1990s. He was also the DIA's chief of Middle East intelligence and was regularly in Iraq. He said of the OSP : 'This office had a great deal of influence in a number of places in Washington in a way that seemed to me to be excessive and rather ill-advised. 'The regular organisations of the intelligence community have very rigorous rules for how you evaluate information and resources, and tend to take a conservative view of analytic positions because they're going to dictate government decisions. 'That wasn't satisfactory in Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon so he set up a separate office to review this data, and the people in this office, although they're described as intelligence people, are by and large congressional staffers. They seemed to me not to have deceived intentionally but to have seen in the data what they believe is true. I think it's a very risky thing to do.'


In a further curious twist, an intelligence source claimed the real 'over-arching strategic reason' for the war was the road map to peace, designed to settle the running sore of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The source said: 'I believe that Britain and America see the road map as fundamental. They were being told by Ariel Sharon's government that Israel would not play ball until Saddam was out of the picture. That was the condition. So he had to go.'


"They are running their own intelligence operation, including covert action, and are using contractors outside the government to do some of the leg work," said a former top CIA official. "Their area of work has been concentrated on Iraq, which is why the intelligence on WMD was so bad, but they have a much broader portfolio. The office is undergoing some scrutiny from inside the government given its poor track record and the lack of 'sanity checking' their products with the intelligence community. A lot of material they produce is not shared with CIA, not coordinated, and finds its way into public policy statements by the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney."

more . . .

White man's burden - EXCELLENT Ha'aretz article to bookmark

Edited on Wed Jul-09-03 10:29 PM by Tinoire
This excellent analysis is an absolute keeper!


In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).

Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

((William Kristol))

Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein. Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think seriously about that possibility.


((Charles Krauthammer))
And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?

This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme instability will be engendered in the Middle East.

You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am positive we will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be done. George W. Bush will not let America lose.



The CIA declined to say how the agency eventually obtained the documents. Officials at several other U.S. agencies, including the State Department, declined to say whether another U.S. government agency possessed or viewed them before Bush's speech last January.

Published on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 in the Times/UK
America's Weapons Evidence Flawed, Say Spies
by Tim Reid in Washington


Present and former CIA officials, quoted in The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine, claimed that a small number of powerful neo-conservative ideologues in the Pentagon were so determined to prove the existence of a banned weapons program and links to al-Qaeda that they manipulated intelligence.

According to a report written by Seymour Hersh, the veteran New Yorker investigative reporter, the Pentagons Office of Special Plans (OSP) relied too heavily on suspect intelligence provided by Iraqi defectors with links to the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile.


One former CIA official told Mr Hersh: One of the reasons I left was my sense that they (OSP) were using the intelligence from the CIA and other agencies only when it fits their agenda. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with . . . as if they were on a mission from God. If it doesnt fit their theory, they dont want to accept it.


Patrick Lang, a former head of Middle Eastern affairs in the Pentagons Defense Intelligence agency, told Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, that when experts wrote reports skeptical about the existence of weapons of mass destruction they were encouraged to think it over again.
Published on Sunday, June 8, 2003 by The Sunday Herald
Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun for Blair
by Neil Mackay

Britain ran a covert 'dirty tricks' operation designed specifically to produce misleading intelligence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to give the UK a justifiable excuse to wage war on Iraq. Operation Rockingham, established by the Defense Intelligence Staff within the Ministry of Defense in 1991, was set up to 'cherry-pick' intelligence proving an active Iraqi WMD program and to ignore and quash intelligence which indicated that Saddam's stockpiles had been destroyed or wound down.

The existence of Operation Rockingham has been confirmed by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, and a US military intelligence officer. He knew members of the Operation Rockingham team and described the unit as 'dangerous', but insisted they were not 'rogue agents' acting without government backing. 'This policy was coming from the very highest levels,' he added.


Sources in both the British and US intelligence community are now equating the JIC with the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the US Pentagon. The OSP was set up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to gather intelligence which would prove the case for war. In a staggering attack on the OSP, former CIA officer Larry Johnson told the Sunday Herald the OSP was 'dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace', adding that it 'lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam'.

He added: 'It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated.' Johnson said that to describe Saddam as an 'imminent threat' to the West was 'laughable and idiotic'. He said many CIA officers were in 'great distress' over the way intelligence had been treated. 'We've entered the world of George Orwell,' Johnson added. 'I'm disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can't allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.'


America And Impeachment

` Kent Southard, Bush Watch

The simple, unadorned facts are these - the only 'intelligence' source that professed unequivocally that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD and an ongoing nuclear weapons program was the Pentagon's Office of Special Programs, established by Donald Rumsfeld and which had no agents in the field, only a half-dozen 'analysts' that were actually Republican congressional staffers. Their reports were contradicted by every other intelligence organization in the world, including our CIA and DIA and Britain's MI6. The only source for OSP's 'intel' was Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted swindler who left Iraq during the Eisenhower administration, and who had been promised by the Bush administration to be the top candidate to rule Iraq should Saddam Hussein be overthrown.


This was all obviously known by the Bush administration, and accordingly it is also obvious that the administration lied through its teeth about the reasons for warring on Iraq, lied in every generality and every particular. Virtually every member of this administration that wanted this war is also a signator of the Project for a New American Century, whose plan formulated some years ago calls for domination of the world's oil supply, starting with an invasion of Iraq.

These are the simple, unadorned facts. Either the American people demand an Impeachment of this president and vice-president and they are removed from office; or else the America of the founding fathers is finished, and we might as well admit it. --06.16.03

More Missing Intelligence
by Robert Dreyfuss


According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's--and which has not previously been reported--prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad--which prides itself on extreme professionalism--had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official.


Astonishingly, the Bush Administration did not even bother to prepare and internally publish an intelligence estimate about postwar Iraq. (An "estimate," in intelligence jargon, is a formal evaluation produced after sifting, sorting and analyzing various bits and pieces of raw intelligence. So-called National Intelligence Estimates are produced by a unit that reports immediately to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet.) "Back in the old days, there would have been an estimate," says Raymond McGovern, the twenty-seven-year CIA warrior who formed Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity this past January. "In their arrogance, they didn't worry about it."


Other sources concur. "There was no intelligence estimate done, and there weren't a lot of questions being asked," says Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst with the Center for International Policy. "And I know for a fact that at CIA and NSA , none of them thought that postwar Iraq would be governable." Goodman says that CIA and DIA experts on Iraq were not called in by the Pentagon, and no intelligence roundtables were held to evaluate the situation. Most of the intelligence about how easily the INC and its allies could assume power in Iraq was coming from the INC itself, says a former State Department official. "And I know for a fact that when the subject came up, intelligence officers were extraordinarily skeptical of the exiles' information."


On the eve of the invasion, there was something akin to panic at the Norfolk,Virginia-based US Joint Forces Command, which was responsible for supporting the Pentagon's Iraq task force, then headed by retired Gen. Jay Garner. "They were scared shitless," says a former US official who was in close contact with the command. "They were making it up as they went along." He adds, "There was a great deal of ignorance. They didn't know the names of the tribes, much less how they relate to each other. They didn't have the expertise, and they didn't have enough time to assemble the expertise."


Bush 'skewed facts to justify attack on Iraq'

A growing number of US national security professionals are accusing the Bush Administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq.

A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terror groups.

This team, self-mockingly called the cabal, "cherry-picked the intelligence stream" in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defence Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence.
The INC, which brought together groups opposed to Saddam, worked closely with the Pentagon to build a case against Iraq. "There are current intelligence officials who believe it is a scandal," Mr Cannistraro said.

Cheney Investigated Forged Niger Uranuium Document

As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.

During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush, and other very senior policy makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.

The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy makers at the table.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." (Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 attack)

A call to maintain CIA independence.

As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.

This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war," the news service reported recently. "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."

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed
The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he added in a phone interview. He said the CIA had "no guts at all" to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi."
They believe the administration, before going to war, had a "moral obligation to use the best information available, not just information that fits your preconceived ideas."


The top Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said on Friday U.S. intelligence was "simply wrong" in leading military commanders to fear troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons in the March invasion of Iraq that ousted Saddam.

Richard Perle, a Chalabi backer and member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defended the four-person unit in a television interview.

CIA had doubts on Iraq link to al-Qaida

The debunking of the Bush administration's pre-war certainties on Iraq gathered pace yesterday when it emerged that the CIA knew for months that a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida was highly unlikely.

As President George Bush was forced for the second time in days to defend the decision to go to war, a new set of leaks from CIA officials suggested a tendency in the White House to suppress or ignore intelligence findings which did not shore up the case for war.

Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data

A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq.

Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends -- while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting.

They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof.

"It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy," said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. "That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days." ---

Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The groups members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts withsenior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence wascooked to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions. They write in the letter to Mr Bush: While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war.

You may not realise the extent of the current ferment within the intelligence community and particularly the CIA. In intelligence, there is one unpardonable sin cooking intelligence to the recipe of high policy. There is ample indication that this has been done in Iraq.

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

U.S. diplomats also tried to stop this invasion:

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

Letter of Resignation (Mary Wright)

U.S. Mongolian Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq (Fourth U.S. Diplomat)

Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy

Second US Diplomat Resigns in Protest

U.S. diplomat resigns over Iraq war plans

Niger-Uranium Timeline


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-09-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. And this is a great article explaining how CIA's been compromised
Since its creation in 1947, the CIA had taken pride in maintaining an analytical division that stayed above the political fray. The CIA analysts confident if not arrogant about their intellectual skills prided themselves in bringing unwanted news to the presidents door. Those reports included an analysis of Soviet missile strength that contradicted John F. Kennedys missile gap rhetoric or the debunking of Lyndon Johnsons assumptions about the effectiveness of bombing in Vietnam. While the CIAs operational division got itself into trouble with risky schemes, the analytical division maintained a fairly good record of scholarship and objectivity.

But that tradition came under attack in 1976 when conservative outsiders demanded and got access to the CIAs strategic intelligence on the Soviet Union. Their goal was to contest the analytical divisions assessments of Soviet capabilities and intentions. The conservatives saw the CIAs tempered analysis of Soviet behavior as the underpinning of then-Secretary of State Henry Kissingers strategy of dtente, the gradual normalizing of relations with the Soviet Union. Dtente was, in effect, a plan to negotiate an end to the Cold War or at least its most dangerous elements.

This CIA view of a tamer Soviet Union had enemies inside Gerald Fords administration. Hard-liners, such as William J. Casey, John Connally, Clare Booth Luce and Edward Teller, sat on the Presidents Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Another young hard-liner, Dick Cheney, was Fords chief of staff. Donald Rumsfeld was then as he is today the secretary of defense.

Team B

The concept of a conservative counter-analysis, which became known as Team B, had been opposed by the previous CIA director, William Colby, as in inappropriate intrusion into the integrity of the CIAs analytical product. But the new CIA director, a politically ambitious George H.W. Bush, was ready to acquiesce to the right-wing pressure.

Although his top analysts argued against such an undertaking, Bush checked with the White House, obtained an O.K., and by May 26 <1976> signed off on the experiment with the notation, Let her fly!!, wrote Anne Hessing Cahn after reviewing Team B documents that were released more than a decade ago.

The senior George Bush offered the rationale that Team B would simply be an intellectual challenge to the CIAs official assessments. The elder Bushs rationale, however, assumed that Team B didnt have a pre-set agenda to fashion a worst-case scenario for launching a new and intensified Cold War. What was sometimes called Cold War II would demand hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayers money for military projects, including big-ticket items like a missile-defense system. (One member of Team B, retired Lt Gen. Daniel Graham, would become the father of Ronald Reagan Star Wars missile defense system.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bleowheels Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-10-04 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
49. What?!!! Are you kidding?
No proof?!! I must have been under a rock for the past year and a half. I have'nt heard the press mention anything about there not being any WMD. It's time for the media to stand up and start asking the tough questions again. It's times like these that beg for the next Edward Murrow to arise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 16th 2018, 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC