The ‘Bush Lied, People Died’ crowd needs to read this over and over again until it sinks through their thick partisan skulls:
After speaking to “innumerable” U.S. intelligence officers, David Kay has concluded that Bush administration officials did not pressure analysts to exaggerate the threats posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. On Capitol Hill, the Senate Intelligence Committee staff has interviewed over 175 analysts and critics and reached the same conclusion.
Leading the C.I.A.’s own internal review, Richard Kerr has apparently also concluded that there is no evidence that political pressures influenced the C.I.A. reports.
It is a shame we have to take some of the Bush haters seriously.
Jay
You should point that out to Josh Marshall who obviously has a reading comprehension problem because he’s asking, “How does Kay know?”
bittern
Oh good. Let’s make David Brooks our new oracle. The main argument of his article is not to believe the collective conclusion of an agency. Yet his upfront conclusion is that Senate Intelligence Committee “staff” interviewed 175 people and concluded there was no pressure on analysts to exaggerate. Brooks’ paper is internally inconsistent. His say-so isn’t enough to convince me, no matter how many times I read what he wrote over and over. It just won’t diffuse in through my skull.
Kay seems like a fine enough fellow, but his write-up seems a bit of a whitewash. The Administration as victim of bad CIA intelligence? THAT’s farce. So Kay’s say-so doesn’t quite do it, either.
What percentage of career intelligence officers are going to say “yes, I gave bad information that lead to war because I was subtly but strongly pressured to exaggerate a threat”? There may be suggestions one way or another, but incontrovertible proof?
It’s a strange world when I start taking Bush defenders seriously.
CadillaqJaq
I’m an old guy, older than GWB and older than many of you, and I’ll confess, I have been guilty of making an important decision, hell, many decisions, by using the best information I had on hand at the time. Were there consequences? Yep… some good, some not so good, but my INTENTION was always good.
When some Dem can provide absolute, irrefutible proof that GWB’s INTENTION was to lie and mislead, then we’ll have a ball game. Until then, they are merely spewing self serving bullsh*t.
Sander
Jaq, how can you possibly ask for absolute, irrefutable proof, when you admit to making decisions by using the best information on hand?
More on topic: ever heard of the OSP, you know the organization that was created because the CIA supposedly underestimated the Iraq threat?
bittern
Strange criterion, CadillaqJaq. Irrefutable proof of what’s in another man’s soul is not for this life. You do seem to have a judgement about the total extent of motivation of liar-calling Dems. How do you know this?
Preponderance of the evidence is enough for the ball game we’re in. It’s enough for this voter, it’s enough for this election, it’s probably enough for the left’s pipe-dream of an impeachment. Frankly I wouldn’t base an impeachment merely on a charge of lying or misleading, never mind proving intent to do so. But you never know what will drive other people.
Evidence suggests to me that GWB’s intentions are/were to get re-elected and to get Saddam Hussein or Iraq, I’m not sure which.
Botany
Because of 9/11 we had to go to war in a Country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and look for weapons that were not there. He has got to go!
bring em on
Robin Roberts
Typical misrepresentation Botany. The War on Terror is not a war of retribution for 9/11. The grownups – ie., Bush administration – are working to defeat the larger spectre of anti-western terrorism. Al Queda is a large focus of the war, but not its sole focus. And never has been. Iraq’s direct involvement in 9/11 was never claimed or used as a basis for the invasion of Iraq.
wallster
Robin – unfortunately, Bush’s actions in Iraq have done nothing to defeat the larger spectre of anti-western terrorism, and likely have increased the danger. Personally, I’m looking forward to next January, when we may actually have some grown-ups in the White House.
Maj. D
Yeah, wallster; his actions in Iraq didn’t get Qadaffi to ‘see the light’ and give up his own WMD programs (after seeing what befell saddam), and his actions didn’t cut off the funding for families of Palastinian murderers. And his actions didn’t obliterate terrorist training camps in Salman Pak (A few miles south of Baghdad). Oh wait, yeah they did.
Andrew J. Lazarus
If you actually read Marshall’s post, he’s got quote after quote from Administration sympathizer BOASTING that the Administration had finally gotten CIA (and State) to stop waffling and join the Iraq-is-a-threat chorus.
Another
Not to mention, WHY WAS THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS at DoD established in the first place?
This was back when believing in massive Iraqi WMD aimed at the East Coast was the right side of history. Ooooops! Well, quick, find David Kay and shove it all down the memory hole. (This has got to be one of the lamest coverups in history.)
capt joe
Well, if you can find someone credible that said there were no WMD before the war started then you are far more successful that Kevin Drum/ CalPundit. He posed exactly that question and no one was able to find anyone, not even Josh marshall. Nice rabbit down the memory hole.
Andrew J. Lazarus
No, Capt. Joe, what’s going down the memory hole is evidence that the White House PRESSURED the CIA to increase its assessment of the Iraq threat. At the time, the White House was PROUD of that accomplishment, as you can see from the quotes. (And when they still weren’t satisfied, they set up their own intel office, that dealt entirely with unsubstantiated “rumint” and the con-game patter of Ahmed Chalabi.)
Sander
Maj D: 1) probably not, 2) hardly and 3) Bush disagrees.
Ghaddafi (Qadafi, Schamdafi or whatever) was trying to get into good standings for like, you know, 6 years. According to Flynt Leverett, senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council from 2002 to 2003, Libya did what it did, because the neocons (all sticks, no carrots) were kept OUT of the talks. 2nd point: Most of the funding of Palestinian terrorists comes from Syria and Saudi Arabia. 3. I don’t know much about the Salman Pak story, but it seems it has been dead for some time.
Capt Joe: ‘exaggerate’, not ‘fabricate’…
Maj. D
“Maj D: 1) probably not, 2) hardly and 3) Bush disagrees.”
1) Sorry, it’s just a little coincidental that about a week after Saddam gets punked out in front of the whole world that Libya capitulates on their WMD program. Sorry you have to be so cynical when the facts are staring you in the face.
2) “Not hardly.” Are you kiddin me man? Everyone in the Middle East was proud of the fact that Saddam was paying the family members of Palestinian murderers. Who’s payin’ em now? It sure ain’t his two boys or his non-existent regime.
3) Ummm, no he doesn’t. He saw the same Intel reports that I SAW for ten years of active duty as an INTEL officer. Salman Pak was a terror training camp that doesn’t exist anymore because we turned it into a smoking hole! The fact that it doesn’t exist anymore is testament to his belief that Saddam was in bed with Terrorists.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Below is excerpted from Salon. It looks like some people haven’t been trying very hard, if they can’t find former intelligence officials who think we didn’t so much have a failure, as a White House that was working from preconceived “facts” towards a predetermined conclusion.
BEGIN EXCERPT
Never before had any senior White House official physically intruded into the CIA’s Langley headquarters to argue with midlevel managers and analysts about unfinished work. But twice Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, came to offer their opinions. According to Patrick Lang, “They looked disapproving, questioned the reports and left an impression of what you’re supposed to do. They made it clear they didn’t like what the analysts wrote. They would look at the analytic piece that was produced and say you haven’t looked at the evidence. We find some reports here you didn’t take in consideration. The answer would be, those reports aren’t valid.” The reports in question were from Iraqi exiles such as Ahmed Chalabi. “The analysts would be told that you should look at this again. Finally, people gave up. You learn not to contradict them.”
Others also turned up at CIA to browbeat analysts, including Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the house and member of the Defense Policy Board, and Condi Rice, according to Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East. “Cheney, he just likes the soup in the CIA cafeteria,” McGovern joked.
Meanwhile, senior intelligence officers were kept in the dark about the Office of Special Plans. “I didn’t know about its existence,” said Thielman. “They were cherry-picking the intelligence and packaging it for Rumsfeld and Cheney to take into the president. That’s exactly the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent.”
Sander
Maj D
1) umm… post hoc ergo propter hoc? maybe Muammar had a bad dream after he saw what happened to Saddam and decided to give up his weapons that particular month, but if you extrapolate his actions of the past couple of years, you’ll see he would have anyway. This whole Libya self-congratulatory business is a typical bully response; Take credit for everything good that happens and deny all failings. Whatever happened to the Roadmap to Peace? Anyway, read the Flynt Leverett piece…
2) sure, some of the funding has been cut off (I’m not sure what you wrote was stating the obviously obvious or was making a point), but Palestinian suicide bombers will still be rewarded by other countries (and Grover! ;) ), countries that are supposedly our allies, so the problem didn’t go away. By the way, as an intel officer, don’t you think there are other ways of preventing financial support?
3) I’ll rephrase: with all the buzz around Salman Pak’s supposed connection to 9/11 in april 2003, why did Bush say
Maj_D
“This whole Libya self-congratulatory business is a typical bully response”
> I will give up on this because you are so steadfastly against giving credit where it’s due (and it isn’t diplomacy that deserves credit in this). You simply refuse to allow yourself to see anything other than what you want.
“By the way, as an intel officer, don’t you think there are other ways of preventing financial support?”
Yeah, because those “other ways” have been working just swimmingly so far…
“But U.S. intelligence officials, who knew about the fuselage since it was installed in the mid-1980s, also knew that it was being used to train security personnel to prevent hijackings.”
Sounds like a Saddam cover story. By the way, Salman Pak wasn’t the only terrorist training facility in Iraq. And who said that Iraq was connected to 9/11? He was still in bed with terrorists; that doesn’t mean he had to have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 to be deemed a credible threat to us. If anything, Bush has downplayed the Iraqi connection to terror in this intel officer’s (and many others as well) opinion. Check out the following story by Stephen F. Hayes. He nailed it. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
P.S. I hope the link comes through.
Sander
Maj D.
1) so you disagree with both the senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council (Leverett) and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Jack Straw), men who were both major players in the Libya talks? Ok, fine, but don’t accuse me of only seeing what I want to see… but I guess you’re right, when I cite an official who should know what he’s talking about, it is me who is “steadfastly against giving credit where credit is due”. So why exactly is 6 years of painstaking diplomacy (including sanctions) not the main reason? Because it doesn’t agree with your worldview, perhaps? Sheesh..
2) Uh, yeah, at least as well as this Iraq mess we’re in now. Are you a neocon?
3) How does that sound like a Saddam cover story? Please refute the claim. About the 9/11 connection: My apologies, most of the articles I found about Salam Pak linked it to 9/11 (but then again most articles were by newsmax and Iraq-hawk blogs) so I presumed you did as well. I checked out the Hayes story but the subsequent debunking is also quite interesting to read…