CIA failure prior to Iraq War

Nemont

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
4,396
Location
Glasgow, Montana
July 6, 2004
INTELLIGENCE
C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, Officials Say
By JAMES RISEN

ASHINGTON, July 5 — The Central Intelligence Agency was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the C.I.A. failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

The existence of a secret prewar C.I.A. operation to debrief relatives of Iraqi scientists — and the agency's failure to give their statements to the president and other policymakers — has been uncovered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The panel has been investigating the government's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons and plans to release a wide-ranging report this week on the first phase of its inquiry. The report is expected to contain a scathing indictment of the C.I.A. and its leaders for failing to recognize that the evidence they had collected did not justify their assessment that Mr. Hussein had illicit weapons.

C.I.A. officials, saying that only a handful of relatives made claims that the weapons programs were dead, play down the significance of the information collected in the secret debriefing operation. That operation is one of a number of significant disclosures by the Senate investigation. The Senate report, intelligence officials say, concludes that the agency and the rest of the intelligence community did a poor job of collecting information about the status of Iraq's weapons programs, and that analysts at the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did an even worse job of writing reports that accurately reflected the information they had.

Among the many problems that contributed to the committee's harsh assessment of the C.I.A.'s prewar performance were instances in which analysts may have misrepresented information, writing reports that distorted evidence in order to bolster their case that Iraq did have chemical, biological and nuclear programs, according to government officials. The Senate found, for example, that an Iraqi defector who supposedly provided evidence of the existence of a biological weapons program had actually said he did not know of any such program.

In another case concerning whether a shipment of aluminum tubes seized on its way to Iraq was evidence that Baghdad was trying to build a nuclear bomb, the Senate panel raised questions about whether the C.I.A. had become an advocate, rather than an objective observer, and selectively sought to prove that the tubes were for a nuclear weapons program.

While the Senate panel has concluded that C.I.A. analysts and other intelligence officials overstated the case that Iraq had illicit weapons, the committee has not found any evidence that the analysts changed their reports as a result of political pressure from the White House, according to officials familiar with the report.

The Senate report is expected to criticize both the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, and his deputy, John McLaughlin, and other senior C.I.A. officials, for the way they managed the agency before the war. Mr. Tenet has announced his resignation, effective July 11, and Mr. McLaughlin will serve as acting director until a permanent director is appointed. The C.I.A. has scheduled a farewell ceremony for Mr. Tenet on Thursday, just as the reverberations from the Senate report are likely to be hitting the agency.

The possibility that Mr. Tenet personally overstated the evidence has been investigated by the Senate panel, officials said. He was interviewed privately by the panel recently, and was asked whether he told President Bush that the case for the existence of Iraq's unconventional weapons was a "slam dunk."

In his book about the Bush administration's planning for the war in Iraq, "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward reported that Mr. Tenet reassured Mr. Bush about the evidence of the existence of Iraq's illicit weapons after Mr. Bush had made clear he was unimpressed by the evidence presented to him in a December 2002 briefing by Mr. McLaughlin. "It's a slam-dunk case!" Mr. Tenet is quoted as telling the president.

In his private interview with the Senate panel, Mr. Tenet refused to say whether he had used the "slam-dunk" phrase, arguing that his conversations with the president were privileged, officials said.

In hindsight, the Senate panel and many other intelligence officials now agree that there was little effort within the American intelligence community before the war to question the basic assumption that Mr. Hussein was still seeking to produce illicit weapons. Evidence that fit that assumption was embraced; evidence to the contrary was ignored or seen as part of a clever Iraqi disinformation campaign.

Yet there were some people inside the intelligence community who recognized the need for better evidence, according to intelligence officials. In 1998, the United Nations withdrew its weapons inspectors from Iraq, severely hampering the C.I.A.'s ability to monitor Iraqi weapons efforts. In response, Charlie Allen, the agency's assistant director for collection, began searching for new sources of information, the intelligence officials said.

He pushed for several new collection programs, including one that called for approaching members of the families of Iraqi scientists believed to be involved in secret weapons programs, the officials said. At the time, the C.I.A. had no direct access to important Iraqi scientists, and using family members as intermediaries seemed like the next best thing.

Beginning in 2000, the C.I.A. contacted the relatives and asked them what they knew or could learn about the work being conducted by the scientists. Officials would not say how or where the relatives were contacted.

The relatives told the agency that the scientists had said that they were no longer working on illicit weapons, and that those programs were dead. Yet the statements from the relatives were never included in C.I.A. intelligence reports on Iraq that were distributed throughout the government. C.I.A. analysts monitoring Iraq apparently ignored the statements from the family members and continued to issue assessments that Mr. Hussein was still developing unconventional weapons, Senate investigators have found.

At the time, C.I.A. analysts were deeply cynical about statements from Iraqis suggesting that Mr. Hussein had no illicit weapons, and assumed that such talk was simply part of an Iraqi denial and deception program, several intelligence officials said.

In response, a C.I.A. spokesman said, the families' statements were "not at all convincing."

"There was nothing definitive about it," the spokesman said. "No useful information was collected from the family members, and that's why it wouldn't have been disseminated."

The agency's handling of intelligence on biological weapons has also drawn Congressional criticism. In fact, the C.I.A. relied heavily on four Iraqi defectors to reach its conclusion that Iraq had developed mobile biological weapons laboratories.
STORY
 
The spy business is pretty tricky, as I understand it. They pressure a bunch of people to talk. Under pressure, they make up some stuff, they tell some things that are true. If you get a group of people saying the same thing, it might not be made up. So, you have to go check it out, see if it is true or not.

What did the CIA do to go check out the handful of family member's claim that the program was dead? It doesn't say.

Why was it said, its not at all convincing? Because Saddam was still uncooperative and it was his family delivering the message. Sounds non-convincing to me at face value.
 
Originally posted by Tom:
The spy business is pretty tricky, as I understand it. They pressure a bunch of people to talk. Under pressure, they make up some stuff, they tell some things that are true. If you get a group of people saying the same thing, it might not be made up. So, you have to go check it out, see if it is true or not.
So then you put American soliers in Harm's way????
 
No Gummer
American 'soliers' volunteer and put themselves in harms way to protect your right to own a Micheal Moore blow-up doll and bad mouth the president on the internet.
 
Thanks HasBeen, that is an interesting take on why we have a military... :rolleyes: I learned something new today... :rolleyes:

Hopefully the 800 familes of those killed in Iraq think that your's and Dubya's logic is good enough reason to give up their sons.

Of course, I don't remember Iraq ever threatening our soverign soil OR our constitituional rights... :rolleyes:
 
My take on the article is that there is a deep structural problem with in the intel. community. They may have had good info regarding somethings inside Iraq. The problems is that they let the mission, ie. find a way to drive Saddam from power, drive the intel info they pushed up the chain of command.

Therefore there was a judgement made on information that was prejudiced toward one conculsion. The question is whether or not that is the presidents fault. I say it isn't.


As for why we have a military: The military always has remained subordinate to the civilian chain of command.

I think it needs to kept in perspective of what miracalously low casualties we have had. It is a trajedy whenever someone so young pays the ultimate price but the vast, vast majority of young men and women in the armed services understand and accept this as a fact of their service.

Nemont
 
Nemont,
I thought we had an "agreement" with our military, that we would never risk them for "unjust" causes, or something along the likes. Don't know where I got that, just always thought that was one of the "tenets" ;) somewhere along the History. Maybe the War Powers Act???
 
EG,
You are correct. The question becomes which war is just and which is unjust. It becomes a pretty sticky situation defining what is a just war. If you look at Gulf War 1, it could be argued that was unjust because we basically gave Saddam the green light when April Gillespie said, without guidance from the Whitehouse, that the U.S. wouldn't intervene in arab vs. arab disputes.

I haven't read in any of my history reading that there was a formal deal with the military. Was it just to fight in Bosnia and Serbia at 10,000 feet dropping bombs on often time innocent civilians? No U.N. declaration or backing, no international legitimacy.

So if this war is unjust then history will tell. Even if Bush is out of office after November we will still be there, justly or unjustly. Save a little of your disgust and horror for the dems and see what they do to the situation.

Nemont

[ 07-07-2004, 09:46: Message edited by: Nemont ]
 
Originally posted by Nemont:
EG,
You are correct.
Nemont
'Nuff said.... :D


Actually, I am hoping this horrible mistake by the Republicans ends soon, and I can go back to supporting my Republican party at both the Local level and the National level. Now Dubya/Ashcroft want the mailing lists of the Churches in this nation as part of their Patriot Act/Grass Roots campaign. Why on Earth Dubya needs to know who worships and where is beyond me.... What happened to the GOP that STAYED out of my business???
 
Fecl,

I DID vote for Dubya... I even sent him $$$.... That is why he sent me another letter today, begging for my support and money, with no mention of needing my vote....

As he tells his fundraisers, "Here we have the 'haves' and 'have mores'.... But I just call you my BASE!"
 
quote:

Originally posted by Nemont:
EG,
You are correct.
Nemont


'Nuff said.... :D
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I hope there isn't anything else you need to come out of the closet about. Seeing as how you are now out of the closet as a republican.
:D :D
Nemont
 
Elkgunner, there was an Islamic church in the US where they were teaching high school students it was ok to hurt or take things from Christians and Jews, because they were not Islamic. The kind and merciful one, Allah, is only kind and merciful to Islam people is a pretty common thought. I can find the article. Muslim churches have supported terrorists, have you heard that? The mailing lists will help find more of them, it sounds like a good idea to me.

There were a lot of reasons and there have been a lot of benefits from putting US soldiers in harms way.
 
To put the Middle East on alert that the rest of the world will not be held hostage to their beliefs or fundumentals is in my book enough reason to put our troops there. You also don't see very much oposition to this with the ones that are actually there doing the dirty work.
The opposition seems to be coming from a lot of those that really have never made a full committment to much of any thing. Those spoiled 'few' that make up a squeeky wheel but not much more. If it weren't for the media's continually pounding on every bad point, overlooking 99% of the good points, the people of this country would be in agreement by a much higher percentage. But since there are a lot of fence sitting sheeple out there and the media know's these people can be swayed. That is who gets the largest amount of publicity for a strictly political reason shoved down their throats, and the bad thing is, these same people don't even seem to know it...
There are a lot of us that are pretty much set in our way's, and this SI section points them out all the time, that will follow the path we feel is right with out to much outside interference.
soapbox.gif
 
Originally posted by Tom:
Muslim churches have supported terrorists, have you heard that? The mailing lists will help find more of them, it sounds like a good idea to me.

That may be one of the single most frightening posts anybody has ever put here, that somehow, we would support Dubya rummaging through Church records to determine who should go to jail.

R-I-P The US Constitution, 2004AD
 
EG,
I have not read about this church list deal you are talking about. I have heard and believe that there is an effort by evangelical christian churches to provide the Bush campaign with mailing lists of evangelicals. I believe it is voluntary as they are a big part of Bush's core.

Can you provide a link or story?

Nemont
 
Originally posted by ELKCHSR:
To put the Middle East on alert that the rest of the world will not be held hostage to their beliefs or fundumentals is in my book enough reason to put our troops there. You also don't see very much oposition to this with the ones that are actually there doing the dirty work.
The opposition seems to be coming from a lot of those that really have never made a full committment to much of any thing. Those spoiled 'few' that make up a squeeky wheel but not much more. If it weren't for the media's continually pounding on every bad point, overlooking 99% of the good points, the people of this country would be in agreement by a much higher percentage. But since there are a lot of fence sitting sheeple out there and the media know's these people can be swayed. That is who gets the largest amount of publicity for a strictly political reason shoved down their throats, and the bad thing is, these same people don't even seem to know it...
There are a lot of us that are pretty much set in our way's, and this SI section points them out all the time, that will follow the path we feel is right with out to much outside interference.
soapbox.gif
Can we get a translator in here??? Anybody??? :rolleyes:

Hey ElkCheese, is there a thought or a point buried in there??? :rolleyes:
 
Free society is not unpoliced, it is policed.

Here is the article about the religious teachings being criminal at a US high school:

Several students at the Saudi Academy told the Post that "in Islamic studies, they are taught that it is better to shun and even to dislike Christians, Jews and Shiite Muslims." One student said his instructors "teach students that whatever is kuffar (non-Muslim) it is okay for you' to hurt or steal from that person."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart030502.asp

Any church or person or organization corresponding with terrorist organizations on this May 2003 list should be investigated:
Abu Nidal Organization, Abu Sayyaf Group, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Armed Islamic Group, 'Asbat al-Ansar, Aum Shinrikyo, Basque Fatherland and Liberty, Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hezboolay(Party of God), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Jaish-e-Mohammed(Army of Mohammed), Jemaah Islamiya, Al-Jihad, Kahane Chai, ... it goes on for 20 more organizations.

Notice how many have the religion of Islam in their name.
 
That is some kind of official list of terrorist organizations. That article is about real teaching in a US high school for muslims. Not serious? What do you mean?

Jesus was not violent, Mohammed was.
 
Back
Top