The Intelligence Agencies Didn’t Get It Wrong, The Bush Administration Did
The Intelligence Agencies Didn’t Get It Wrong, The Bush Administration Did
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday was the first time a congressional committee held a public hearing on the pre-Iraq War intelligence failure, and the first time any testimony had been taken on postwar intelligence failings. We still do not know for certain why officials were wrong in every one of their claims that Iraq posed such an immediate threat. But the available evidence strongly points towards a systematic campaign by senior officials to manipulate the intelligence. I explained why to the DPC panel yesterday:
If it’s true that [the intelligence failures] were the fault of some “group think,†as the Senate Intelligence Committee said, or some “systemic weaknesses,†then surely the evidence of that would have showed up immediately after 1998, when the original UNSCOM inspectors were kicked out. But we found that when you look at the intelligence assessments from ’99, 2000, and 2001, you saw a rising level of concern as it became harder and harder for us to ascertain with certainty what Saddam was doing over these programs. But also deep caveats, deep cautions about what we actually knew. No certainty at all in this, and certainly nothing like the definitive answers that suddenly came out of the intelligence agencies in 2002, particularly with the NIE.
The NIE took a dramatic leap forward that was a complete break with all previous intelligence. This led us to conclude that…intelligence failures were due primarily to political pressure brought to bear on the intelligence agencies by senior administration officials. [Video here.]
Here are three ways that administration officials systematically misled the American people about the nature of the Iraqi threat:
1. Administration officials repeatedly suggested that Hussein would transfer WMD to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. There were no intelligence findings to support this claim.
2. Administration officials routinely dropped caveats and uncertainty present in intelligence assessments. E.g. Cheney said he knew with “absolute certainty†Iraq was developing its nuclear program. Powell said there was “no doubt†that Iraq had biological weapons.
3. Administration officials misrepresented the findings made by UN inspectors. Bush said prior to the war that U.N. inspectors concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times anthrax that had been found, but inspectors never said they actually had produced such materials.
These false claims have been extensively critiqued elsewhere, including in the Carnegie report, WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications.
It was not the analysts that killed the intelligence process, it was the politicians. America deserves a comprehensive assessment of the failure, including the operations of White House and Defense Department officials.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
59 Responses to “The Intelligence Agencies Didn’t Get It Wrong, The Bush Administration Did”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
how come it took so long for this committee to figure out the obvious……politicians are so dumb
June 27th, 2006 at 5:11 pmOff topic, but Israel has invaded Gaza
June 27th, 2006 at 5:14 pmWell, now that the skeleton is out of the White House closet - what is Congress going to do with it? I’m glad this is coming to light, and that Mr.Cirincione is speaking openly about the deception - but am getting tired of words. Time for actions. Hasn’t this tyrannical Regime done enough yet? And aren’t we done fiddling with flag burning and anti-gay nonsense yet to notice the destruction to our poor country?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pmcan they go before a world court now and answer for their actions?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:17 pmI’m still waiting for the intelligence community to stick up for itself. They have been continuously smeared as the villains by a White House that blames them for its own failures.
Contrary to BushCo’s claims, the administration was notified of threats prior to 9/11. They were advised that Iraq did not have WMDs. They knew that sources from Italian agencies and loners like Curveball were unreliable.
The president had all of this info which he got from the CIA, but he still blames them for his mistakes. The CIA should speak out. I know there have been some retired agents doing so, but there is just so much of the record to correct.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pmOff topic, but Israel has invaded Gaza
Comment by squegeeboo — June 27, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
And we need to mind our own business.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pmFrom The New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/ doc.mhtml?i=20031201&s=ackermanfoer120103&c=2
June 27th, 2006 at 5:22 pmhttp://www.tnr.com/ doc.mhtml?i=20031201&s=ackermanfoer120103&c=3
My mistake, CNN has retracted it’s statement, currently just some air strikes
June 27th, 2006 at 5:22 pm# 8….That’s too bad. Air strikes are a good start, but a full-on incursion by the Israelis against the terrorists would likely have been more effective. Oh well…Perhaps, the air strikes alone will be enough to convince the Hamas terrorists to release the kidnapped Israeli soldier. Our thoughts are with Cpl. Gilad Shalit, his family, and all of Israel.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:28 pmExley
It still might happen, Ynews is reporting that ground troops have moved in, but until some bigger players also say so, I’m gonna doubt. Hopefully this will be the end of Hamas in Gaza.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:30 pmThe Israelis have tanks on the border, they aren’t going to stop with air strikes.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:30 pmInteresting that the Bush Cabal’s justification for invasion and occupation of Iraq used cherry-picked intel information.
Rather reminds me of what Hitler’s Henchmen did with intel on Poland. :(
June 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pmsam, you’re full of shit you know……
June 27th, 2006 at 5:34 pmOK, excuse me, you may not be full of shit. But whomever you are quoting is full of shit.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:35 pmI don’t think sam is capable of independant thought. He only seems to be able to cut and paste.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pm10….That’s good. I suppose the air strikes first makes sense militarily…Soften up the enemy from the air and then move in and wipe them out.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pmHe only seems to be able to cut and paste.
Comment by Krazny
And derail threads…
June 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pmJoe once told us this in 1998:
Iraq’s Breakout Potential.
“Iraq does maintain the technical know-how to again attempt uranium enrichment. However, even assuming an immediate return to pre-Gulf War conditions, Iraq is probably 5-7 years away from the possession of enough highly enriched uranium for a rudimentary nuclear explosive device. The illicit acquisition of fissile materials from outside sources could speed this process significantly.”
1998 plus 5-7 years = 2003-05.
Thanks, Joe, for providing justification for removing Saddam. BTW, we caught you lying last night on CSPAN. Sanctions were working? Bwahahaha! What a joke!
June 27th, 2006 at 5:41 pmThank you, Mr Cirincione. This is SO important. It’s NOT the intelligence — it’s the Bush administration. Repeat often.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:44 pmNot sure Exley according to a yahoo news report the airstrikes hit a bridge. Hard to get tanks across a river without a bridge. I don’t that amphibious stuff works all that well.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:44 pmWhat are the odds that Sen. Roberts will now release his much delayed Phase II assessment of what was done with the intelligence? And Exley #19 hasn’t air stikes been going on in the Gaza strip since, oh I don’t know, for the last 20 years?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:45 pmGreat fin # 21…How interesting that Joseph Cirincione’s group (CEIP) was discussing Iraq’s WMD capabilities and ambitions back in 1998 and now he is trying to recover what he perceives as a blow to his and his group’s credibility. So, which is it, Mr. Cirincione’? Should we believe you now or should we have believed you then?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:48 pmGreat find # 21…How interesting that Joseph Cirincione’s group (CEIP) was discussing Iraq’s WMD capabilities and ambitions back in 1998 and now he is trying to recover what he perceives as a blow to his and his group’s credibility. So, which is it, Mr. Cirincione’? Should we believe you now or should we have believed you then?
(I apologize for the double-posting…I just hate posting typos!)
June 27th, 2006 at 5:49 pmWow, someone’s nads finally dropped. Or they grew some Thatchers. Whatever the case, it’s nice to see someone in government doing something besides marching in lockstep.
Now if only something could be done with the information being gathered.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:51 pmMaybe this is an indication that the shit is going to hit the fan and this guy knows it. He is trying to distance himself as much as possible.
June 27th, 2006 at 5:52 pmAnd this, Joe in 1998 provides another justification for removing Saddam:
Non-Proliferation Paralysis: The Decline and Stall of US Policy
“Hardly a week passes without a new, major crisis. Iraq threatens to break out of the UN inspection regime; terrorists attempt to acquire biological, chemical or even nuclear materials; Iran and North Korea conduct surprise tests of intermediate-range missiles.”
June 27th, 2006 at 5:54 pmSanctions and inspections were working, Joe? You didn’t seem to think so in 1999:
“Concerns with missile and nuclear programs in North Korea, Iran and Iraq remain unresolved; international negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament and the Non-Proliferation Treaty review sessions drift inconclusively; and it appears that President Clinton may complete his eight years in office without signing a single strategic nuclear reductions treaty, compared to the two his predecessor signed during his four-year term.”
We now know that Iraq did have an illiegal missile program, right Joe?
June 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pmIn an earlier post someone said that they were wondering when the Intelligence Comnunity was going to stand up for itself. Excuse me, but it has been all along. You wouldn’t know anything about the pre-Iraq “sexing up” of intelligence if it weren’t for whistleblowers, leakers and retired officials gone public, you wouldn’t know anything about the massive black ops aimed at the US and British populace prior to the invasion. It certainly wasn’t aggressive investigative journalism on the part of the US mainstream news media, or the courage of a defiant, principled opposition party that has brought out the truth…nor is it just about Iraq, it is also about 9/11…nor is it just intelligence officers been that have come forward, it has also been career diplomats, national security officials and military professionals, and Michael Scheuer, Richard Clarke, Greg Thielman, Roger Cressey, Rand Beers, Larry Johnson, Paul Pillars, Tyler Drumheller, Russell Tice, Sibel Edmunds, Karen Kwiatowski, Joe Wilson, Ann Wright, Colonel Wilkerson, Generals Newbold, Riggs, Zinni, Batiste, Eaton, etc…they have been sticking out their necks, and laying their careers on the line for several years now, others are being purged, others are being silenced….I call it the John P. O’Neill Wall of Heroes…it is shameful that it has taken so long for the Senate Democrats to move forward on their own, and it is shameful that the issue was not forced months if not years ago by the US mainstream news media…
June 27th, 2006 at 5:59 pmHere is continuity and context –
Words of Power #18: 48 Hours — What Happens When Military and Intel Officers Must Challenge Political Leaders to Uphold the Rule of Law
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ words-of-power-18-48-hours-what.html
Words of Power #16: Lt. Gen. Newbold Bears Witness, Sy Hersh Sounds the Alarm & Patrick Fitzgerald Raises the Stakes
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ words-of-power-16-lt-gen-newbold-bears.html
Words of Power #21: Judith Miller, Ken Lay, Florida, 9/11 and The Return of The Forbidden Truths?
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 05/ words-of-power-21-judith-miller-ken.html
In an earlier post someone said that they were wondering when the Intelligence Comnunity was going to stand up for itself. Excuse me, but it has been all along. You wouldn’t know anything about the pre-Iraq “sexing up” of intelligence if it weren’t for whistleblowers, leakers and retired officials gone public, you wouldn’t know anything about the massive black ops aimed at the US and British populace prior to the invasion. It certainly wasn’t aggressive investigative journalism on the part of the US mainstream news media, or the courage of a defiant, principled opposition party that has brought out the truth…nor is it just about Iraq, it is also about 9/11…nor is it just intelligence officers been that have come forward, it has also been career diplomats, national security officials and military professionals, and Michael Scheuer, Richard Clarke, Greg Thielman, Roger Cressey, Rand Beers, Larry Johnson, Paul Pillars, Tyler Drumheller, Russell Tice, Sibel Edmunds, Karen Kwiatowski, Joe Wilson, Ann Wright, Colonel Wilkerson, Generals Newbold, Riggs, Zinni, Batiste, Eaton, etc…they have been sticking out their necks, and laying their careers on the line for several years now, others are being purged, others are being silenced….I call it the John P. O’Neill Wall of Heroes…it is shameful that it has taken so long for the Senate Democrats to move forward on their own, and it is shameful that the issue was not forced months if not years ago by the US mainstream news media…
June 27th, 2006 at 6:00 pmHere is continuity and context –
Words of Power #18: 48 Hours — What Happens When Military and Intel Officers Must Challenge Political Leaders to Uphold the Rule of Law
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ words-of-power-18-48-hours-what.html
Words of Power #16: Lt. Gen. Newbold Bears Witness, Sy Hersh Sounds the Alarm & Patrick Fitzgerald Raises the Stakes
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ words-of-power-16-lt-gen-newbold-bears.html
Words of Power #21: Judith Miller, Ken Lay, Florida, 9/11 and The Return of The Forbidden Truths?
http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 05/ words-of-power-21-judith-miller-ken.html
Hey Joe! Inspections were working? Apparently in 1999 you didn’t think so:
The non-nuclear-weapon states cannot be happy with the lack of progress on any of the “Principles and Objectives for Non-Proliferation” adopted as an integral part of the 1995 indefinite extension decision:
The arms reduction process is stagnant and may be breaking down;
June 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pmNegotiations to stop the production of fissile materials are still-borne in the Conference on Disarmament;
Two new nuclear weapon states have emerged in South Asia;
US efforts to develop and deploy national and theater missile defense systems threaten to trigger additional nuclear deployments and modernization efforts;
Russia has announced a new reliance on tactical nuclear weapons for its defense and may begin developing new weapons for this purpose;
The UNSCOM inspection regime in Iraq has collapsed;
Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea have all tested new missiles; and
North Korea’s nuclear program remains contentious and mysterious.
I think the notion of “standing up” concerns doing so before bad things happen, not only after. Whistles were blown after implementation, not while in the planning stages, which is when maybe the proverbial cat should’ve been let out of the bag. So ok, call them heroes, but wouldn’t they have been better people if they had spoken up right away? Before the damage is done?
June 27th, 2006 at 6:03 pmSaddam had 500 tons of yellowcake and 1.77 tons of enriched (or at least more highly radioactive) materials. We knew that before twe went in, because they were declared and sealed materials the UN was keeping tabs on. We found them after the invasion, right where we knew they’d be…and with the UN inspection seals still intact. We shipped them out -of-country, mostly here. Whoop-dee-do. I can’t believe the Cheap Republic crowd still cites this as evidence of treachery. Dummies.
On the other topic, part of Sharon’s plan all along was to remove Israeli settlers from Gaza so that it would become a Palestinian-only, free-fire “kill box” where the IDF could go in without restraint and level everything in sight. Looks like that may be working for them. They’re hoping to do the same thing on the West Bank. I’m just glad the British didn’t decide to stick Israel in Southwestern Pennsylvania, and make ME leave. I got enough problems.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:05 pmThere’s more:
“During the 1990s, fears that some group or nation would use internationally banned biological or chemical weapons actually increased. United Nations inspectors after the 1991 Persian Gulf War discovered that Iraq had assembled hundreds of weapons filled with VX and sarin nerve gas and two dozen others with biological agents, including anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin.”
VX? Oh yes, Iraq was providiing VX to al Qaeda in Sudan in 1998. Remembr al Shifa, Joe?
June 27th, 2006 at 6:17 pmFinally some truth about the Bush Regime lying to the Congress on Intelligence matters related to the Iraq fiasco > I am glad the lies are being uncovered finally!
June 27th, 2006 at 6:18 pmbush lied, people died. he should be on a gallows instead of ruining america more everyday.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pmThose who testified to this PARTISIAN committee wern’t going to say anything that the committee didn’t wan’t to hear especially from someone like Mr.Cirincione. Give us a break! Apparently the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which Mr. Cirincione is a member, has conveniently forgotten that it (and the UN weapons inspectors) were just as wrong as the intelligence agencies.
October 11, 2002 “Iraq’s WMD Programs: A Comparison of Assessments”
http://12.150.189.35/ publications/ index.cfm?fa=view&id=12846&proj=znpp
“Chemical Weapons
Agreement on Some Existing Stockpiles
The UK dossier is the least specific regarding the diversity of Iraq’s existing or potential arsenal; it states that Iraq has an unspecified useable chemical weapons capability, which has included recent production of chemical agents. The DCI report states that there is strong evidence that Iraq maintains a stockpile of chemical agents, with a numerical estimate of at least one hundred, and up to five hundred combined metric tons of VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard gas.
Both Deadly Arsenals and the IISS report concur that it is likely that Iraq maintains a stockpile comprised of the agents listed in the DCI report. Deadly Arsenals notes that UNSCOM inspectors destroyed more than 480,000 liters of chemical agents and 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors in the Iraqi arsenal. Still, it is widely regarded that Iraq maintained unaccounted precursors for the production of VX, sarin and mustard gas. According to IISS, these stable precursors could possibly have since resulted in the production of a few hundred tonnes of sarin and cyclosarin and a similar amount of VX. Both the DCI report and the UK dossier note that Iraq likely maintained such weapon precursors. All publications note that Iraq failed to account for significant amounts of artillery rockets and shells filled with chemical agents, with Deadly Arsenals noting that Iraq may maintain up to 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells capable of delivering chemical agents.”
Deadly Arsenals was written and published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:23 pmOur thoughts are with Cpl. Gilad Shalit, his family, and all of Israel.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:36 pmComment by Exley
That is one of the most pathetic things Ive heard.
Soften up the enemy from the air and then move in and wipe them out.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:38 pmComment by Exley
Gee, I dont see any softening in Iraq insurgency.
#37 - Finally some truth about the Bush Regime lying to the Congress on Intelligence matters related to the Iraq fiasco > I am glad the lies are being uncovered finally!
After so many false starts this only matters if the ReichWingNut led Congress will do something to clean up their own mess.
If during the Fall elections the ReichWing falls and is driven from Congress, an angry mob might make them pay for their sins of alignment with Bush the Dumber. I can’t believe they would risk it. But it looks like the ReichWing is a one tune trickster and their trick has been blown.
Until someone really holds the Bush Cabal accountable, with consequences, nothing really has changed.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pmCarnegie Endowment for International Peace, Tracking Nuclear Proliferation 1998.
High-Risk States:
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya
have taken steps in the past several years to acquire
nuclear weapons capabilities.
Who do you think you’re foolin’, Joe? Are you going to blame Bush for your statements on Iraq’s WMD’s? Guess what, Bush wasn’t in charge when you claimed Iraq had WMD and was a threat to world security.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pmHey Joe, surely you remember writing this:
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) poses the single greatest threat to the national security of the United States. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has noted, “The greatest threat to our society at the moment are the weapons of mass destruction. Those are the weapons that know no boundaries.”
You thought Iraq was a threat then. What changed you mind? I know, you’re covering your a**. Good job.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#9 I too am keeping Cpl. Gilad Shalit and his family in my thoughts but I really do believe the situation is far more complex than the cuurent terrible kidnapping situation that is currently the focus.. Neither Israel nor Palestine have the upper hand when it comes to a solid moral footing in this crisis. BBC article about imprisoned Palestinian women and children
I truly hope that a positive resolution can result from this tragedy.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:54 pmShouldn’t there just have been a collective “Well, no shit” from the committee? Next up is a hearing that will reveal that trees are made of wood.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pmVery few of the interactions between the Isreali’s and Palestinian’s have had a positive result.
June 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pmIf Joe was so convinced that Iraq didn’t have WMD why did he say otherwise before the war? But now that Bush was in charge he was starting to flip-flop in 2002.
Iraq’s WMD Arsenal: Deadly But Limited
“UNSCOM repeatedly reported that Iraq had failed to provide a full and correct account of its biological weapon program. UNSCOM remained concerned that Iraq may have retained a stock of biological weapons and related manufacturing capabilities as late as 1997. In the absence of inspections, it is likely that Iraq retains stockpiles of anthrax, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin. There are numerous unconfirmed reports of Iraq’s research into and possible production of other agents.”
“Still, Iraq may have secretly reconstructed some nuclear capabilities. Some experts believe Saddam may have a workable design for a weapon, but no official report claims that he yet has the material to put in it. CIA officials told the Senate in March 2002, that Iraq, unconstrained, would need several years to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon.”
“After the Gulf War, UNSCOM destroyed more than 480,000 liters of chemical agents and 1.8 million liters of chemical precursors in Iraq. Because of the size of the Iraqi program, however, it is widely believed that significant quantities of chemical agents and precursors remain stored in secret depots. U.N. officials have publicly expressed their doubts that the entire Iraqi stockpile of chemical weapons was found. Rough estimates conclude that Iraq may have retained up to 600 metric tons of agents, including VX, mustard gas and sarin. There are thousands of possible chemical munitions still unaccounted for.”
“There is no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon or will soon have one, (although you said otherwise when Clinton was president) unless Saddam is able to get fissile material from some other nation. The greatest threat from a weapon of mass destruction would be from the delivery of a biological agent, probably by non-missile means, that is, by truck or ship or possibly small aircraft. However, it is unclear what such an attack would accomplish and why Saddam would attempt such an attack. If the attack were covert and the assailants unknown, there would be no glory or gain for Iraq; if Iraq were known as the source of the attack-or even suspected as the source-there would undoubtedly be an overwhelming and devastating counter-attack that would eliminate the Iraqi leadership. While there may be thousands of chemical-tipped rockets and bombs still in Iraq, these are primarily short-range weapons. If delivered, dozens or hundreds would die, but not significantly more than would die from conventional military assaults or terrorist attacks on critical infrastructures.”
Joe “The Carp” Cirincioni
June 27th, 2006 at 7:35 pmJoe thinks inspections were working? Carnegie reminds us on their website that they weren’t with this story from the Washington Post authored by Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. “The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions.” Any approach “that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak.” “Mr. [Kofi] Annan’s resolve seems in doubt.” When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for “a decade-long failure to detect Iraq’s secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war” and for a “tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein.” His selection was “a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system.” The “further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects.” Even “[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming.”
The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that “of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf,” including “intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.”
June 27th, 2006 at 7:57 pmKagan then analyzes Clinton’s failed policy to contain Saddam:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/ publications/ index.cfm?fa=view&id=258
Saddam Wins Again, Jan 4 1999
And since the ostensible trigger for the attack was Saddam’s refusal to give up his quest for chemical and biological weapons, targeting his limited conventional capabilities would seem rather beside the point. On the question of what it proposed to do about Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons, the administration’s answer was a cacophony of contradictions. When the strikes began Secretary Cohen declared that the “objective of the attack is to go after those chemical, biological or weapons of mass destruction sites to the extent that we can.” This proved to be an artful and misleading claim. When the strikes ended, we learned that military planners had decided not to target weapons-production facilities after all because they were concerned about exposing innocent civilians to chemical and biological agents. According to senior Pentagon officials, they also avoided targeting facilities, like pharmaceutical plants, that might have civilian as well as military uses. But these decisions raise some questions. Why, for instance, was it legitimate to target a dual-use pharmaceutical plant in Sudan last August but not legitimate to hit similar facilities in Iraq? And if it really is the administration’s policy to avoid hitting production facilities in Iraq, what does that say about any future effort to “contain” Saddam’s weapons programs?
Over the past year, before every threatened use of military strikes against Iraq, the Pentagon claimed that one of the goals would be to hit those sites where Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. This was always a dubious proposition, given our limited knowledge of precisely where those sites are, but at least in theory it was a strategy aimed at the heart of the problem. Even after last week’s bombing, administration officials suggested that the United States could contain Saddam by launching missile strikes whenever U.S. intelligence detects a renewal of his weapons programs. But what good will more strikes do if the administration persists in declaring the weapons-production sites themselves untouchable?
Stranger still were the broad hints offered by civilian and military officials that the hidden purpose of the strikes was to spark an Iraqi uprising against Saddam. While Secretary Cohen repeatedly declared when the bombing began that it was “not our objective to remove Saddam from power,” after the strikes ended, the commander of the operation, Gen. Anthony Zinni, said he hoped the strikes had “contributed” to destabilizing Saddam’s regime. He lamely pointed to the fact that while the Republican Guard were not actually in their barracks during the bombing, they would now be without a roof over their heads and had “lost the ability to command and control.” Such musings were especially ironic coming from Gen. Zinni. At the end of October, Zinni had declared that any effort to topple Saddam would be foolish and dangerous, since it would fracture Iraq, create an “Afghanistan-like” condition of warring factions, and destabilize the entire region. What changed Zinni’s mind? Cynics might suggest that it was his need to find a purpose for a mission that had no purpose.
Finally, there was the explanation offered by national security adviser Sandy Berger. “For me,” Berger said, “the most important reason for why we had to do this was that to have failed to do so not only would have lost UNSCOM but would have lost the credible threat of force.” Since UNSCOM is as good as lost anyway, Berger’s point boils down to this: The administration had to use force so that it could maintain the “credible threat of force.” In light of the administration’s earlier bluffs, which Saddam repeatedly called, this credibility problem is no doubt a serious one. But how credible is the “threat” of force if the actual use of force has no discernible impact on the adversary, and serves no purpose?
The Clinton administration is, in short, bereft of a policy toward Iraq, indeed more so today than before the missile strikes. It refuses to consider serious action to remove Saddam by supporting the Iraqi opposition. It won’t even contemplate the idea of sending in U.S. ground forces to do the job. Clinton’s national security team utters vague promises about containment, about keeping Saddam “in his box,” but they cannot begin to explain how they intend to accomplish this. Guess who’s in the box now.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:10 pmThank you for stating this so clearly.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pmHippie and Tracy:
What Joe Wilson or anyone else believed back in the 90s is irrelevant today. Their beliefs turned out to be INCORRECT. The intelligence turned out to be UNRELIABLE. They were WRONG then, and Joe Wilson and others have been adult enough to admit this. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are wrong; this shows maturity. Then you move on to act on later and more correct information.
So the important thing to do now is truly investigate the failures in intelligence gathering or interpretation, and figure out ways to do better in the future. Those failures have cost 2500+ American lives and who knows how many 1000s of Iraqi lives. What people believed in the past is relevant only insofar as it helps to figure out how not to have incorrect beliefs to inform future actions.
That said, I do wish that some of the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to take action with regard to Iraq, would stand up and be adults and admit that they were wrong. To admit that they should have studied the issues more thoroughly. Yes, Bush went beyond their authorization. But they should have voted NO to start with, as some of the most courageous of them did.
Probably some rightwinger will now reply that we ALL thought Iraq had WMDs. No, not ALL. I knew Iraq couldn’t have WMDs to any threatening degree, from reading blogs, the International Atomic Energy’s reports, Hans Blix’s reports, Scott Ritter’s reports, etc., and I wrote against going to war to all of Arizona’s congress people in Sept. 2002 urging that they not vote to go to war. And I’m a nobody without access to classified intelligence. But I and many other people knew that someone was, to put it most charitably, exaggerating.
Keep up with your posts, rightwingers. You were wrong then and we were right. You only make yourselves look silly but clinging to outmoded information.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:01 pmHippie and Tracy:
What Joe Wilson or anyone else believed back in the 90s is irrelevant today. Their beliefs turned out to be INCORRECT. The intelligence turned out to be UNRELIABLE. They were WRONG then, and Joe Wilson and others have been adult enough to admit this. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are wrong; this shows maturity. Then you move on to act on later and more correct information.
So the important thing to do now is truly investigate the failures in intelligence gathering or interpretation, and figure out ways to do better in the future. Those failures have cost 2500+ American lives and who knows how many 1000s of Iraqi lives. What people believed in the past is relevant only insofar as it helps to figure out how not to have incorrect beliefs to inform future actions.
That said, I do wish that some of the Democrats who voted to authorize Bush to take action with regard to Iraq, would stand up and be adults and admit that they were wrong. To admit that they should have studied the issues more thoroughly. Yes, Bush went beyond their authorization. But they should have voted NO to start with, as some of the most courageous of them did.
Probably some rightwinger will now reply that we ALL thought Iraq had WMDs. No, not ALL. I knew Iraq couldn’t have WMDs to any threatening degree, from reading blogs, the International Atomic Energy’s reports, Hans Blix’s reports, Scott Ritter’s reports, etc., and I wrote against going to war to all of Arizona’s congress people in Sept. 2002 urging that they not vote to go to war. And I’m a nobody without access to classified intelligence. But I and many other people knew that someone was, to put it most charitably, exaggerating.
Keep up with your posts, rightwingers. You were wrong then and we were right. You only make yourselves look silly by clinging to outmoded information.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:01 pmDebunking… now:
1. Administration officials repeatedly suggested that Hussein would transfer WMD to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. There were no intelligence findings to support this claim.
No, they said that they could, not would.
2. Administration officials routinely dropped caveats and uncertainty present in intelligence assessments. E.g. Cheney said he knew with “absolute certainty†Iraq was developing its nuclear program. Powell said there was “no doubt†that Iraq had biological weapons.
When you see people quoting others with only a few words, alarm bells should start ringing. In this case, Mr. Cirincione is acting dishonestly by taking Cheney out of context. This is Cheney’s full statement:
Cheney was saying they were absolutely certain he was procuring equipment, not that he was absolutely certain they were building nuclear weapons. Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.
For Powell, Mr. Cirincione is less deceiving, but still Powell said this:
Certainly saying there “can be no doubt” is not the same as saying there “is no doubt”.
3. Administration officials misrepresented the findings made by UN inspectors. Bush said prior to the war that U.N. inspectors concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times anthrax that had been found, but inspectors never said they actually had produced such materials.
I think the words in bold speak for themselves.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:30 pmAnother whole area of the Bush administration ignoring pre-occupation intelligence warnings appears to have concerned the likelihood of a vibrant, bloody, and sustained nationalistic (non-terrorist) insurgency following the occupation with the real risk of civil war… intelligence appeares to have warned that the occupation would take many more troops than the administration put into play, would take much, much longer, would be much more bloody, would cost much more than the administration pretended, and would distract from efforts to address terrorism. Not the cheap 2-4 week cakewalk filled with hugs, kisses, flowers, and song, as promised by Bush.
The committee also should review this end of things.
June 27th, 2006 at 10:26 pmProg News Alert ***” The Intelligence Agencies Didn’t Get It Wrong, The Bush Administration Did *****
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday”….blah,blah,blah
Insightful comment by the non-partisan “Guest” Joseph Cirincione
WOW!!! This is a surprising and shocking expose from a Carnegie Peace Tank mouthpiece!!
June 27th, 2006 at 10:47 pmNoone got it wrong - the Bush Administration knew Saddam had been disarmed and spent the entire time between 9/11 and the invasion drumming up fake evidence, from mobile biowarfare labs to uranium enrichment programs to chemical weapons factories - all deliberate lies, some of which were planted by the Iraqi National Congress members. The Judith Millers of the mainstream media spewed this garbage out over print, radio and TV news with no fact checking - just little mouthpieces for the Bushies. Saddam never had any connections with Al Queda; Saddam was a secular Bathist who was hated by the Osama bin Ladin types. The US wanted oil and wanted military bases in the Middle East; that was the motivation and the lies were deliberate. The ‘oops, we got it wrong’ explanation is a load of nonsense. The Rendon Group ran the PR machine for this, most likely, using disinformation and black propaganda targeted at the American people (which, incidentally, is a crime).
June 28th, 2006 at 12:36 amGood news!
GAZA, June 28 — Israel sent troops into southern Gaza, and its planes attacked three bridges and a power station early this morning, in an effort to prevent militants from moving a wounded Israeli soldier they abducted on Sunday, Israeli Army officials said.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel would not hesitate to use “extreme steps” in its effort to rescue the soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, 19.
Our thoughts are with Cpl. Gilad Shalit, his family, and the Israeli troops going into battle with the terrorist.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:32 am#51
“I knew Iraq couldn’t have WMDs to any threatening degree, from reading blogs, the International Atomic Energy’s reports, Hans Blix’s reports, Scott Ritter’s reports, etc.,”
You didn’t know that you were right any more than we thought we were wrong. LOL! You chose to believe what you wanted to, i.e. there was evidence on both sides of the argument and you went with one. You can’t look in hindsight and now CLAIM you knew that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs. Please don’t claim that you knew for a fact the Saddam didn’t have any WMDs in his possession considering you are not in the intelligence community.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:45 amSome of those posting comments to my posting of June 27 seem to be confused between concerns that Saddam could still have weapons or programs in 2002 with conclusions that he definitely had them.
Many agencies, countries and experts–including me and my colleagues then at the Carnegie Endowment–were concerned that without inspections it was possible, even likely, that Saddam still had tons of weapons agents. We also worried that he could be continuing a clandestine nuclear weapons research program. These concerns were largely based on the materials unaccounted for at the time the UNSCOM inspectors had to leave Iraq at the end of 1998. We made estimates of the possible.
Here\’s the difference: In late 2002, inspectors went back in. We started getting new intelligence. Dozens of inspectors went to hundreds of sites. The inspectors visited the former nuclear facilities at which US satellites detected suspicious activies. They could now look under the roofs, swipe for radiological traces, interview technicians, audit accounts. They found the facilites in a worse state of repair than when the had left. There was absolutley no evidence of any renewed nuclear activity. The same for chemical and biological programs. We could now make new, more accurate estimates based on this new intelligence.
In other words, it was never a choice between war and nothing; between taking action and trusting Saddam. We had in place the most coercive inspection regime ever imposed on an independent nation. And it was working. Saddam was in an iron box, surrounded by thousands of troops, his political base deteriorating. David Kay said later that Saddam\’s regime was in \”a death spiral.\” The concerns expressed at the time of the difficulties in keeping troops in the area through the summer to allow inspections to continue seem ludicrous in light of the 2500 US troops killed, 15,000 maimed and $300 billion squandered.
But it is even worse. US officials intentionally disparaged the inspectors and ignored their intelligence. They were bent on war and nothing, certainly not UN inspectors, was going to stop them. I spoke to inspectors after Secretary Powell\’s UN presenation. I asked them how they felt to be told that the Iraqis were moving chemical weapons from sites just before their inspections. They said they knew the Secretary was wrong. I asked about the decontamination trucks that the Secretary pointed out using overhead photos. They said that those were not decontamination trucks–they were water trucks. They knew this because they had been at the site and seen them. They also told the Americans this, they said, but they were ignored.
No, it was not for lack of intelligence that we invaded Iraq. It was not because the intelligence analysts misled us. The betrayal happened at a far higher level. The entire nation will pay the price for a generation.
–Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress
June 29th, 2006 at 7:08 amI see that TP is engaged in censoring especially when they want Mr. Cirincione to have the last word. No more posts allowed after this guy….does everyone understand?
June 30th, 2006 at 3:29 pmComrades,
I concur that the “The Bush Administration got it wrongâ€
But, you’re loosing focus again! There is a greater, clearer and more dangerous threat too our party that will shortly perpetrate our air-waves on ABC’s “The Path to 9/11â€
These traitors at ABC are betrayers of our new mother land. Where I come from, this Robert A. Iger would be dragged through the streets in front of the tomb of our glorious leader Vladimir Lenin and shot in public. The producers, directors, writers and anyone associated with this propaganda would be picked up in the early hours of the morning by our State Security Chief Lavrenty Beria (The Black Hand) and taken to a Siberian labor camp never too be heard from again.
For many years I have been loyal to ABC and the Pravda (truth) that our Socialist Liberal ally has put forth in order to progress our ultimate goal; the decline and absolute destruction of America and the capitalist traitorous pig’s like ABC.
I ask you Mr. Robert A. Iger, “Have you no shame Sir�
Comrades, we must not give up the fight. It has taken us many years to groom you and your elected leaders.
Remember what our great leader Nikita Khrushchev said:
“ We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism ”
It’s more important now then ever before that we stand together and stay focused! We can not allow this abomination of propaganda to go forward.
We must do whatever it takes to keep this film from airing on Sunday the 10th, 2006, we only have a few hours left.
It is your duty as loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to rise up in solidarity and put a stop to this immediately!
Senator Harry Reid, one of our courageous and distinguished Senatorial leaders from the state of Nevada, reminded the capitalist traitorous pigs at ABC of their license from the FCC. Please Senator Reid, we’re your loyal comrades in arms and begging you to use all the glorious power you possess. You must stop this film! You must push forward with an iron fist and crush this despicable display of propaganda.
If this film isn’t stopped from airing on ABC, Sunday night, I’m afraid all our efforts since the cold war and the aspirations of our great leaders from glorious years past and Nikita Khrushchev’s dreams and predictions will have been lost.
If we loose now, the great Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, we have nurtured, will decline into the ash heaps of history never too be heard from again.
Where are our great defenders the A.C.L.U.? There silence is deafening. Their founder; Roger Nash Baldwin a supporter of the Communist Party would not let this despicable propaganda go unchallenged.
Remember comrades, we destroyed Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950’s while attempting to exploit and expose us.
This should be an easy task. We already have many supporters in positions of power. If we wish to control this country, then we must be more diligent in our efforts to stop this ABC film.
You must!…. I repeat, you must contact our comrades in arms at their offices in Washington.
Now I’ve done all the work all you have to do is contact our “elected officials†below by e-mail or call:
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact
Reid, Harry- (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Kerry, John F.- (D - MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Levin, Carl- (D - MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm
Schumer, Charles E.- (D - NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Stabenow, Debbie- (D - MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Bayh, Evan- (D - IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Nelson, Bill- (D - FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Obama, Barack- (D - IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Conrad, Kent- (D - ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Dayton, Mark- (D - MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D - CT) Class III
September 10th, 2006 at 9:08 pm448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130