OT - Senate Intelligence Report Slams CIA for Iraq Intelligence Failures

[NoMyths]

Link: AP: Report Blames 'Group Think' for CIA Failures on Iraq

Excerpt:
"The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday."

"Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong."

Full Text:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday.

Intelligence analysts fell victim to "group think" assumptions that Iraq had weapons that it did not, concluded the bipartisan report.

Many factors contributing to those failures are ongoing problems within the U.S. intelligence community -- which cannot be fixed with more money alone, it said.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.

"As the report will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence," he said.

"This was a global intelligence failure."

The report repeatedly blasts departing CIA 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.

White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush on a campaign trip Friday, said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."

Tenet has resigned and leaves office Sunday.

Questionable information
Intelligence analysts worked from the assumption that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to make more, as well as trying to revive a nuclear weapons program.

Instead, investigations after the Iraq invasion have shown that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program and no biological weapons, and only small amounts of chemical weapons have been found.

Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.

"This 'group think' dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs," the report concluded.

Such assumptions also led analysts to inflate snippets of questionable information into broad declarations that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, the report said.

For example, speculation that the presence of one specialized truck could mean an effort to transfer chemical weapons was puffed up into a conclusion that Iraq was actively making chemical weapons, the report said.

Analysts also concluded that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program based mainly on the since-discredited claims of one Iraqi defector code-named "Curve Ball," it said.

American agents did not have direct access to Curve Ball or his debriefers, but the source's information was expanded into the conclusion that Iraq had an advanced and active biological weapons program, the report said.

[rkmsuf]

I'd hit it.


...oops, wrong thread

[Bee]

more left wing propaganda!

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Bee

more left wing propaganda!

Yay!

[Arles]

So, I guess UK, Australian, French, Russian, Israeli and German intelligence were also wrong. Not to mention the UN being completely off in their assessment back in 2001 and 2002.

It's scary that everyone in the world can be that wrong. Especially when there's no chance Saddam shipped out his WMDs before the Iraqi war started.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, I guess UK, Australian, French, Russian, Israeli and German intelligence were also wrong. Not to mention the UN being completely off in their assessment back in 2001 and 2002.

It's scary that everyone in the world can be that wrong. Especially when there's no chance Saddam shipped out his WMDs before the Iraqi war started.

Even better, by threatening war but being ill-prepared intelligence-wise, we may have allowed Saddam to ship all of the WMDs to American-hating enemies and their terrorists in other countries and now have absolutely no idea where they are!

Great spin. I feel much better now that there are WMDs out on the loose in terrorists' hands.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Even better, by threatening war but being ill-prepared intelligence-wise, we may have allowed Saddam to ship all of the WMDs to American-hating enemies and their terrorists in other countries and now have absolutely no idea where they are!

I would change that to going through the 3-4 month farce with the UN allowed Saddam plenty of time to hide his weapons. Had the US actions begun the assault back in November when the Senate passed the use of force, perhaps we would have caught Saddam red-handed.

Great spin. I feel much better now that there are WMDs out on the loose in terrorists' hands.

Seems like this should be the focus of a government investigation (ie, where did the weapons we know he had go) instead of looking for a fall guy to enforce the myth that Saddam never possessed WMD or a panel parade trying to blame people for the trajedy of 9-11. Then again, neither democrats or republicans can point a finger in that type of investigation.

And that simply will not do in an election season.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, I guess UK, Australian, French, Russian, Israeli and German intelligence were also wrong. Not to mention the UN being completely off in their assessment back in 2001 and 2002.

It's scary that everyone in the world can be that wrong. Especially when there's no chance Saddam shipped out his WMDs before the Iraqi war started.

So it's ok that we ignored conflicting information because other countries assumed Iraq had WMDs?

and yes...in case you missed it...Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

I'm going to assume that you are in complete agreement with me on all future issues and ignore and discount any conflicting information I see to the contrary.

[Arles]

What I am saying is that onus was on Saddam to prove the UN that he no longer possessed WMDs, according the UN resolution. We knew he had them in the 90s, and he provided no evidence to the UN on what had done to dispose of them, did not let inspectors everywhere in Iraq and refused to let his scientists be interviewed in the manner requested.

The options were to trust Saddam or go into Iraq. Now, I certainly understand that some of the CIA sources didn't pan out and that should be investigated. But, that does not change the fact that the onus was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the weapons to adhere to UN resolution 1441, not the US to prove he still had them.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

We knew he had them in the 90s, and he provided no evidence to the UN on what had done to dispose of them, did not let inspectors everywhere in Iraq and refused to let his scientists be interviewed in the manner requested.

Of course we "knew" he had them now too didn't we? Oops wait, he didn't.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Arles

What I am saying is that onus was on Saddam to prove the UN that he no longer possessed WMDs, according the UN resolution. We knew he had them in the 90s, and he provided no evidence to the UN on what had done to dispose of them, did not let inspectors everywhere in Iraq and refused to let his scientists be interviewed in the manner requested.

The options were to trust Saddam or go into Iraq. Now, I certainly understand that some of the CIA sources didn't pan out and that should be investigated. But, that does not change the fact that the onus was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the weapons to adhere to UN resolution 1441, not the US to prove he still had them.

While I don't disagree with you on the burden being on Saddam, still, shouldn't we have been a little more throrough before committing 130,000 soldiers and 10s of billions of dollars?

[Fritz]

Kerry and Edwards Gay Lovers?

http://www.drudgereport.com/kerryk.htm

----
this has no place in this thread, but NM is cross posting in one of mine, so fuck em

[Ksyrup]

"Senate...Slams CIA"

This is playing to the anti-homo crowd.

[Fritz]

tinkle

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

While I don't disagree with you on the burden being on Saddam, still, shouldn't we have been a little more throrough before committing 130,000 soldiers and 10s of billions of dollars?

Perhaps, but I think 12 years and 17 UN resolutions showed enough patience. And, given the change in the world that occurred after 9-11, I don't know that you can play the waiting game with terroristic states anymore.

[Ksyrup]

Moving this over from the Republican/homo fest...

And then back to the "early 90s, Clinton" argument. Yeah, he may have thought he had him. What he decided to do about it (hint: not send in a 130,000-strong invasion force) evidently kept him from getting any of the chemical or nuclear weapons we were threatened with by the current administration. The argument that I and others made before the war was that we needed to take the time to let the inspection process play out and look for a better solution to the situation than sending our troops into the Middle East for bad reasons. As I have also said, it may have later proven necessary to send in the troops...for better reasons. Instead, the administration threatened us with WMD that didn't exist.

Hindsight's nice, isn't it? Clinton sat on his hands while Saddam ignored or violated a number of UN resolutions. But hey, we're all for the global unity thing, so let's keep letting the UN drive this thing, right? Finally, we get to the point where the guy continues to ignore/violate UN resolutions, and something has to be done about it, doesn't it?

He agreed to dispose of WMD. If he had none to dispose of, why would he agree to that? He failed to show proof that he had done so. Instead, he somehow put the burden back on us to prove he ever had them to begin with, which years earlier, he agreed he did.

In my opinion, either Bush or Gore would have been forced to do something under the same scenario. Continuing to search for something that may or may not exist, but which did exist at one time, and which Saddam agreed to get rid of but refused to provide details of, makes the world damned irresponsible if it doesn't take action.

Bottom line is, Saddam agreed to get rid of WMD. He stalled, he refused to provide details of what he may have done, he ignored and violated a number of UN resolutions, and then, at the last moment when faced with an invasion, he claimed he didn't have them and/or disposed of them, at a time when he obviously had absolutely no credibility (if he had any to begin with).

It's unfortunate that the scenario played itself out the way it did. Next time, our intelligence could (should) be better, and if accurate and we let the international community drag their feet for years longer, the results could be far worse than 1000 dead soliders in 15 months.

[Bee]

Oh cool! We're back to the UN resolution argument instead of the argument that he was a threat because of his WMDs.

BTW, the US intelligence community as a whole wasn't that bad of a failure. The Intelligence sections of the State and Defense Department both actually disagreed with the CIA analysts, but they were shouted down by Tenet and company (or ignored by the administration if you want to go with that spin).

It's all just a vast right wing conspiracy...or left wing propaganda. (Sorry, I get them confused)

[Buddy Grant]

IMO if a country breaks or ignores UN resolutions and supports terrorist organizations then they deserve to be attacked. Unless the country in question is the US of course.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bee

Oh cool! We're back to the UN resolution argument instead of the argument that he was a threat because of his WMDs.

I think they went hand-in-hand. Intelligence indicating that he had WMD + decade-long violations of numerous UN resolutions = time to act.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

IMO if a country breaks or ignores UN resolutions and supports terrorist organizations then they deserve to be attacked. Unless the country in question is the US of course.

Those are serious charges. Care to list?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Bee

Oh cool! We're back to the UN resolution argument instead of the argument that he was a threat because of his WMDs.
...

Never left it. That was the biggest reason I was behind the war. I was actually a bit annoyed that the admin picked WMD as the poster boy for war. The other reasons were always there, but they chose to champion WMD ahead of the others.

[Noop]

I know some might not agree with this opinion but... I believe they did find WMD but because it had english written on them or the chemicals, nuclear stuff can be traced back to the U.S. they figured it would be best to say it is not there. I mean imagine the type of reaction it would get to know that the U.S. gave Iraq WMD's....then again it would be sweeped under the rug and forgotten so speak... Just my opinion....

[Bee]

Of course the flaw with the UN argument is they didn't actually want us to invade Iraq...but hey what the hell do they know? We know what's best for everyone. Right?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Bee

Of course the flaw with the UN argument is they didn't actually want us to invade Iraq...but hey what the hell do they know? We know what's best for everyone. Right?

We know what's best for us. I don't really care whether they wanted us to invade or not.

[clintl]

The problem with the UN resolution argument is that the UN never authorized an invasion to enforce it. And only the UN has the legal authority to decide how to enforce its resolutions.

[Dutch]

That's not entirely fair. Veto power from France and Russia is what stopped the resolution. Two countries that (as we are finding out from the Oil for Food Scandal) had very real reasons to disallow the resolutions from being enforced by the USA.

[Ksyrup]

That's a problem with the UN. I don't see it as problem for us.

AS toothless and gutless as the UN is, do you really want to allow that body the authority to decide when we act in our best interests? I don't have aproblem with giving them the first shot, but when they repeatedly fail to make any significant progress or move toward the action that needs to be taken...screw them. They don't have our best interests in mind.

[Dutch]

In any event, all of this Intelligence blundering should allow us to put the CIA back in control of fighting for our national security by whatever means possible.

And that includes HUMINT. That includes HUMINT with the bad guys. The good guys (or better worded, the bad guys enemies) apparently are telling the world intelligence agencies whatever they want to hear. We need to work with all sorts of characters to establish what's really going on out there in this world. I honestly don't think that how we go about figuring that out should be up for debate anymore, because the public opinion of the matter is what got our HUMINT into such bad shape to begin with.

And to top it off, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein doesn't have the stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons. I'm glad we know the truth. We can thank George Bush for that.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's a problem with the UN. I don't see it as problem for us.

AS toothless and gutless as the UN is, do you really want to allow that body the authority to decide when we act in our best interests? I don't have aproblem with giving them the first shot, but when they repeatedly fail to make any significant progress or move toward the action that needs to be taken...screw them. They don't have our best interests in mind.

Their role isn't to have our best interests in mind.

So now the argument is "Everyone else is suppose to follow the UN, except for us"?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's not entirely fair. Veto power from France and Russia is what stopped the resolution. Two countries that (as we are finding out from the Oil for Food Scandal) had very real reasons to disallow the resolutions from being enforced by the USA.

Yes, it is entirely fair. That's how the UN rules were written - US, Russia, France, China, and Britain have veto power over Security Council resolutions. If you don't think that the US routinely uses its veto power to kill resolutions and enforcement actions it doesn't like, then you haven't been paying attention, because it does, and would never consent to a rules change that took veto power away from the five permanent Security Council members.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's not entirely fair. Veto power from France and Russia is what stopped the resolution. Two countries that (as we are finding out from the Oil for Food Scandal) had very real reasons to disallow the resolutions from being enforced by the USA.

You mean like the US vetoing almost every negative resolution against Israel. I assume it would be legitimate for Russia to say Israel isn't compliant (including being non-compliant with the same WMD resolutions Iraq isn't), the UN isn't acting, and unilaterally invade Israel.

It is always astounding to me when political realists who act independent of any international authority still appeal to international law when it suits their purposes. At least be honest - the UN argument is irrelevant.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Their role isn't to have our best interests in mind.

So now the argument is "Everyone else is suppose to follow the UN, except for us"?

I'm saying the UN has proven that it is not effective in dealing with issues and is a worthless institution. I wouldn't expect any other country to act against its own interests (or fail to act to protect its own interests) simply because the UN wouldn't support that country.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's a problem with the UN. I don't see it as problem for us.

AS toothless and gutless as the UN is, do you really want to allow that body the authority to decide when we act in our best interests? I don't have aproblem with giving them the first shot, but when they repeatedly fail to make any significant progress or move toward the action that needs to be taken...screw them. They don't have our best interests in mind.

Then don't use the UN resolutions as a justification. As Chubby said, the UN's purpose is not to do what is in the best interest of any individual member.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm saying the UN has proven that it is not effective in dealing with issues and is a worthless institution. I wouldn't expect any other country to act against its own interests (or fail to act to protect its own interests) simply because the UN wouldn't support that country.

I think that subsequent events validated the UN's position that the inspectors be given more time, since David Kay came to exactly the same conclusions as Hans Blix.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by clintl

Then don't use the UN resolutions as a justification. As Chubby said, the UN's purpose is not to do what is in the best interest of any individual member.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You mean like the US vetoing almost every negative resolution against Israel.

Exactly like that. I have been a proponent of removing the veto powers of 5 nations since as long as I understood them (of course, I admit, my early rationalization was because of the Soviet Union). I can certainly see how the USA veto power is just as unforgivable.

The Palestinian issue is just as unforgivable as allowing a rogue nation such as Saddam Hussein's Iraq to continue doing what it does best.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they don't necessarily always coincide, either. And when they don't, what right does the US have to act as the UN's enforcer without the UN's consent?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You mean like the US vetoing almost every negative resolution against Israel. ...

I don't think you can honestly say that the majority of the proposed anti-Israel resolutions aren't actually anti-semitic. Also this is a particularly bad straw-man because the comparison doesn't hold. None of the ridiculous anti-Israel motions have passed. Iraq was in violation of a number of resolutions that had passed, and were actually in place.

The bottom line with the U.N. is that they didn't have the spine to stand up to Saddam who was thumbing his nose at the U.N.. I believe that Frace and Russia were acting more in their own self interest than in the interest of peace, when they vetoed the resolution authorizing the invasion. It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant, or if they were simply wanting to sustain a gravy train of lucrative business dealings.

Also, If Russia invaded Israel, they'd get their ass kicked.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think you can honestly say that the majority of the proposed anti-Israel resolutions aren't actually anti-semitic. Also this is a particularly bad straw-man because the comparison doesn't hold. None of the ridiculous anti-Israel motions have passed. Iraq was in violation of a number of resolutions that had passed, and were actually in place.

The bottom line with the U.N. is that they didn't have the spine to stand up to Saddam who was thumbing his nose at the U.N.. I believe that Frace and Russia were acting more in their own self interest than in the interest of peace, when they vetoed the resolution authorizing the invasion. It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant, or if they were simply wanting to sustain a gravy train of lucrative business dealings.

Also, If Russia invaded Israel, they'd get their ass kicked.

So we are now the sole decider of policy for the UN? I fail to see how you can justify action against UN violations without UN approval.

"It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant" - You mean like the US doing whatever they want without UN approval?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So we are now the sole decider of policy for the UN? I fail to see how you can justify action against UN violations without UN approval.

"It is arguable whether France was trying to reign in the United States because they feel that the rest of the world is becoming insignificant" - You mean like the US doing whatever they want without UN approval?

I think France might be going through an inferiority complex.


Not that I blame them.

Oh and we weren't the sole decider. We had a coalition!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Arles

Perhaps, but I think 12 years and 17 UN resolutions showed enough patience. And, given the change in the world that occurred after 9-11, I don't know that you can play the waiting game with terroristic states anymore.

I can understand that point of view, but I just haven't seen any evidence to indicate that they were an immediate terrorist threat to us and, therefore, not worth spending so much of our military and budget resources on while we were also in Afghanistan chasing bin Laden.

[Bee]

When the invasion started I was torn between supporting it and not. There just wasn't much info out there and I didn't like the way the US bypassed the UN to "enforce" the UN's own resolution. But to be honest, I thought we probably had definitive information that Iraq had WMDs and that being the case I felt we would be justified in the action we took in Iraq. In fact, on this message board I said basically that I had my doubts about not going back to the UN and getting full support, but if we found WMDs or extensive Nuclear programs I felt we were justified in our actions even without the support of some of our allies. That didn't happen and now we are finding out that not only did we not have definitive information but the CIA ignored conflicting information about the WMDs and also ignored other American intelligence agencies that came to different conclusions about the WMDs. I don't mind going vigilante on someone's ass when necessary, but before we do I'd like to have some concrete information and not conflicting information and differing opinions inside our own government.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I can understand that point of view, but I just haven't seen any evidence to indicate that they were an immediate terrorist threat to us and, therefore, not worth spending so much of our military and budget resources on while we were also in Afghanistan chasing bin Laden.

One of the lessons of 9/11 is that we won't get a warning. That the people who intend to harm us are pretty secretive about their operations.

Another lesson was that our enemies "discovered" global reach and the ability to inflict mass fear and subsequently mass economic damage to our nation. Something that we could ill afford to handle repeatedly.

Something that we all believed Saddam Hussein was pursuing since 1991.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

One of the lessons of 9/11 is that we won't get a warning. That the people who intend to harm us are pretty secretive about their operations.

Another lesson was that our enemies "discovered" global reach and the ability to inflict mass fear and subsequently mass economic damage to our nation. Something that we could ill afford to handle repeatedly.

Something that we all believed Saddam Hussein was pursuing since 1991.

So anyone we "think" could be a threat can be invaded/assinated without international support or outside international law right? That's the precedent you want set right?

Nevermind that pesky evidence thing, we can just go on hunches and ignore any contrary evidence.

[Dutch]

Neither I nor President Bush has suggested the invasion of Chile.

[SFL Cat]

I believe the Senate "Intelligence" Committee is, at best, playing Monday morning QB, at worst, it is covering its own rear posterior. They have access to the same information the administration does...and the last time I looked, Congress gave the president authorization to move against Iraq.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Perhaps, but I think 12 years and 17 UN resolutions showed enough patience. And, given the change in the world that occurred after 9-11, I don't know that you can play the waiting game with terroristic states anymore.

By definition before the war they werent terroristic....Genocidal yes, terroristic no. NOW theyre terroristic but not genocidal. Ironic.


and had the Senate had all of the information wihtout the conlusion already in it that the Admin. had to go to war thereby skewing thatb informations direction, to quote senator Rockefeller, they never wouldve approved the use of force at that time.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

By definition before the war they werent terroristic....Genocidal yes, terroristic no. NOW theyre terroristic but not genocidal. Ironic.

When did Saddam Hussein get cleared of causing the deaths of 1 million people?

[Tekneek]

U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 242
NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

[Dutch]

I don't see the UN busting their asses to get that one worked out. But we have seen the USA "unilaterally" get embarrassed over trying to solve it for the UN under Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, and now Bush Jr.. Damned Americans, always trying to enforce that "talky" organization's gripes.