PDA

View Full Version : NYT: Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie



spurster
10-22-2004, 11:21 AM
This is something to think about when Bush says that Kerry had access to the same intel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/politics/22intel.html

Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''

The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.

In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.

Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."

Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Levin's report drew particular attention to statements by Mr. Feith in communications with Congress beginning in July 2003 about such a link.

A classified annex sent by Mr. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, which was disclosed two weeks later by The Weekly Standard, asserted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990's to 2003,'' and concluded, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.''

In a Nov. 15 news release, the Defense Department said the "provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies, and done with the permission of the intelligence community.'' But Mr. Levin's report said that statement was incorrect, because the Central Intelligence Agency had not cleared release of Mr. Feith's annex.

The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

Perhaps most critically, the report says, Mr. Feith repeated a questionable assertion concerning a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally whose presence in Iraq was cited by the Bush administration before the war as crucial evidence of Mr. Hussein's support for terrorism.

In his Oct. 27 letter, Mr. Feith told Congress that the Iraqi intelligence service knew of Mr. Zarqawi's entry into Iraq. In recommending a correction, the C.I.A. said that claim had not been supported by the intelligence report that Mr. Feith had cited, the Levin report says. Nevertheless, the report says, Mr. Feith reiterated the assertion in his addendum, attributing it to a different intelligence report - one that likewise did not state that Iraq knew Mr. Zarqawi was in the country.

A reassessment completed by American intelligence agencies in September concluded that it is not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored Mr. Zarqawi during his time in Iraq before the war, intelligence officials have said.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Marcus Bryant
10-22-2004, 12:26 PM
The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee

Marcus Bryant
10-22-2004, 12:31 PM
The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

So basically the problems with the intel were discovered after the invasion of Iraq. The article doesn't say what you thought it did.

spurster
10-22-2004, 02:02 PM
For the reading-impaired:

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

For the inference-impaired:

This is another example of how the Bush administration exaggerated the evidence for their rationales to invade Iraq, i.e., lied so they could have their war. This is a clear example of how the Bush adminstration did this to the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed hearings. Now if the Bush administration doesn't pass the intel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, how can Kerry have it?

Yes, all of that is not in the article, but as I said, it is something to think about.

whottt
10-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Spurster's snagged on this intel issue...he is 100% convinced Bush either deliberately lied or was incompetent...despite the fact that every country in the world was saying the same thing based on their own intelligence, despite the fact that Clinton was saying the same thing 6 years ago. I don't think he's going to budge on this issue.

I'd argue with him about it...but there's something about arguing with someone named "Spurster" that makes me feel mean.

Marcus Bryant
10-22-2004, 02:20 PM
Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Where exactly does it say that the CIA had conclusively determined that no such meeting occurred? It didn't. So before you decide to engage in the grade school level attacks, professor, you would be wise to read that passage again.



For the inference-impaired:

This is another example of how the Bush administration exaggerated the evidence for their rationales to invade Iraq, i.e., lied so they could have their war.

The United States was not the only nation who believed that Hussein possessed WMDs. Was the entire world lying, or had they, *gasp*, actually reached a decision based on inaccurate information and significantly influenced by the fact that Hussein had resisted consistently, for years, to disclose the status of his WMD programs?

Kerry's public rationale for his original support of the invasion was based on the belief that the Hussein regime possessed WMDs.



This is a clear example of how the Bush adminstration did this to the Senate Intelligence Committee in closed hearings. Now if the Bush administration doesn't pass the intel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, how can Kerry have it?

Yes, all of that is not in the article, but as I said, it is something to think about.


So you were in attendance at those "closed hearings"? Damn, you must be well connected.

spurster
10-22-2004, 02:30 PM
every country in the world was saying the same thing based on their own intelligence
Repeat this lie often enough and I guess you start believing it yourself. I bet you can't come up with any other country other than maybe Great Britain (Blair is still in trouble for this) that independently concluded AQ and Iraq were working together (Cheney's line), or that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs (Powell to the UN), or that Iraq was about to build a nuclear weapon (Cheney again).

Marcus Bryant
10-22-2004, 02:34 PM
Before or after the invasion?

UK, France, Italy, Germany, Jordan, etc believed Hussein had them prior to the invasion.