Articles
Features
Resources
About Us
 
Search
Newsletter Signup
Enter your email address to receive the In Perrspective newsletter:
Resource Center
  • Polls
  • U.S. News
  • Int'l News
  • Document Library
  • Online & Print Mags
  • Columns/Blogs
  • Elections & Voting
  • Key Data Sources
  • Think Tanks
  • Reading List
  • Oregon Resources
  • Support the Troops
  • Columns and Blogs
  • Eric Alterman
  • Marc Ambinder
  • AmericaBlog
  • Atrios
  • Bad Reporter
  • BlueOregon
  • Calculated Risk
  • Crooked Timber
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Daily Beast
  • Daily Kos
  • Brad Delong
  • E.J. Dionne
  • Kevin Drum
  • FiveThirtyEight
  • FireDogLake
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Huffington Post
  • Hullabaloo
  • Mark Kleiman
  • Ezra Klein
  • Paul Krugman
  • LeftyBlogs
  • Rachel Maddow
  • Media Matters
  • Memeorandum
  • MyDD
  • Pam's House Blend
  • The Plank (TNR)
  • Political Animal
  • Political Humor
  • The Politico
  • Pollster.com
  • Satirical Political
  • Sideshow
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Talk2Action
  • Talking Points Memo
  • TPM Cafe
  • TPM Muckraker
  • TAPPED
  • Think Progress
  • Wonkette
  • Matthew Yglesias
  • -- more --
  • November 7, 2005
    Roberts' Iraq Stonewall Crumbles

    Over the past week, Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas chose to ignore the old dictum, "when in a hole, stop digging."

    As I wrote last week, Roberts has been a key leader of an elaborate GOP effort to stonewall investigation into the Bush administration's uses and misuses of pre-Iraq war intelligence. Stung by the closed Senate session in which Democrats savaged his obvious obstructionist tactics, Roberts came out swinging. Now, Roberts is insisting that there is no evidence of "political manipulation or pressure" in the use of pre-war intelligence.

    To bolster his case, Roberts cited the British Butler Report, his own Senate Select Committee on Intelligence "Phase 1" Report, as well as the Silberman-Robb Commission Report. (To access these and other relevant documents, visit the Perrspectives Iraq/WMD Intelligence Resource Center.) On CBS Face the Nation on Sunday, Roberts stated flatly, "we interviewed over 250 analysts and we specifically asked them: 'Was there any political manipulation or pressure?' Answer: 'No.'"

    Unfortunately for Roberts, a growing mountain of evidence suggests otherwise.

    Let's start with the CIA. Roberts' claims to the contrary, current and former CIA personnel reported persistent and intense pressure to produce findings to support preconceived Bush administration policies. In a damning piece in the American Prospect, Robert Dreyfus concluded that:

    The pressure directed at Tenet, McLaughlin, and scores of other CIA managers, analysts, and field officers was intense. Subsequent official investigations, by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and by the commission co-chaired by Lawrence Silberman and Charles Robb, blithely passed over the question of whether intelligence analysts were pressured by the administration. Both studies determined that analysts were not pressured, a conclusion that CIA and other U.S. intelligence professionals find laughable -- especially the idea that analysts would answer in the affirmative when asked by commissioners or senators if they had been pressured.

    A litany of intelligence community employees past and present confirm this assessment. W. Patrick Lang, formerly head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Middle East section, grumbled, "The senior guys got together and said, 'You guys weren't pressured, right? Right?'" 32 year CIA veteran Richard Kerr, brought out of retirement to lead an investigation of the agency's failures on Iraq WMD was even more blunt about the pressure brought to bear by the Bush administration. In a series of five reports, Dreyfus noted, Kerr found that "unlike the outside reports that looked at the same issues, however, Kerr's concluded that CIA analysts felt squeezed -- and hard -- by the administration." Kerr bluntly stated that the squeeze came from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others within the administration:

    "Everybody felt pressure. A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions…I talked to a lot of people who said, 'There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.' There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had…"It was a continuing drumbeat: 'how do you know this? How do you know that? What about this or that report in the newspaper?'"

    Michael Scheuer, the former CIA agent who gained prominence with his 2004 anonymous book, Imperial Hubris, backs Kerr's assessment. Scheuer noted the dissent within the CIA over the claims made in the controversial October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document critical in the march to war. "I know a lot of people in the Iraq shop who were dissenting," he said. "There were people who were disciplined or taken off accounts. There was a great deal of dissent about that [NIE]. No one thought it was conclusive. One gentleman that I talked to, a senior Iraq analyst, regrets to this day that he did not go public."

    Former CIA officer Larry Johnson noted that it was WINPAC that most vociferously advanced the Bush administration's case in the face of solid opposition from the agency's Near East Division. "The Near East Division people didn't buy into what the Bush administration wanted to do in regard to Iraq, but much of WINPAC did," Johnson said. "Bush, and the White House, favored WINPAC over [the Near East Division]. There were people in the agency who tried to speak out or disagree…who got fired, got transferred, got outed, or criticized. Others decided to play ball."

    For Senator Roberts, the story only gets worse when it comes to fictional linkage between Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Saddam's regime in Iraq. As one former high-level official put it:

    "We, at CIA, were convinced within days -- within hours, by midday on September 11 -- that we had evidence that it was al-Qaeda and had no reason to suspect that Iraq was involved. That was our position, and we held to it firmly."

    As it turns out, the Bush administration was undeterred. The New York Times reported this weekend that analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had concluded by February 2002 that reports from captured Al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi about his organization's presence in Iraq were fabrications. Despite DIA's conclusion that al-Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers," Bush, Cheney and Powell "cited Mr. Libi's information as 'credible' evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons." The President mentioned the claim in his now infamous October 2002 address in Cincinnati. Secretary of State Powell repeated the fictions in his February 2003 performance before the UN Security Council. Though al-Libi recanted in January 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney was insisting as late as September 2003 that "there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

    Through the fall of 2002, the Bush team kept up the pressure on the intelligence community for validation of the White House's claimed Al Qaeda-Saddam links. As Scheuer reported, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith's office kept up the drumbeat, even though "the agency reviewed more than 70,000 documents and pieces of data, concluding that there was no tie between Hussein and al-Qaeda."

    The manipulation of pre-war intelligence and browbeating of intelligence analysts by the Bush team also was at work with the President's now infamous 16 words regarding uranium in Niger. Joseph Wilson, of course, in February 2002 reported that rumors of Iraq seeking yellow cake in Niger were unfounded. As then Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said, CIA chief George Tenet himself insisted that the claims that the Iraqis sought uranium in Niger be pulled from President Bush's October 7, 2002 address in Cincinnati. As well he should have; apparently, the CIA by that time had suspected that documents provided by Italian sources regarding Iraqi purchases of uranium were forgeries, a concern shared by the Italians themselves in January 2003. (As the Butler Report notes, the IAEA concluded in April 2003 that the Italian documents were fake.) Nevertheless, the claims reemerged in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and the rest is history.

    It is worth noting that Hadley of all people should be well acquainted with the Italian forgeries and their subsequent uses and misuses by the Bush White House. After all, it was Hadley whom Italian SISMI intelligence director Nicollo Pollari briefed about the Niger documents on September 9, 2002 after the CIA proved so skeptical.

    All of which brings us back to Pat Roberts. In the glare of the klieg lights, Roberts declared this week that there was "no political manipulation or pressure." Now it's his turn to feel the heat.

    Perrspective 6:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | Share
    Find Entries
    Find by Keyword(s):
    Syndicate:
    Recent Entries

    Will GOP Call for Prosecution of McChrystal Report Leaker?
    September 22, 2009
    Comments (0)

    What's (Still) the Matter with Oklahoma?
    September 21, 2009
    Comments (0)

    Bi-Curious Baucus
    September 20, 2009
    Comments (0)

    Teen Birth Rates Highest in Religious Red States
    September 17, 2009
    Comments (0)

    Baucus Bill Latest Proof of Krugman's Law
    September 16, 2009
    Comments (1)

    A Look Back at the Week That Doomed John McCain
    September 15, 2009
    Comments (0)

    Employers to Raise Health Care Costs, Cut Coverage
    September 15, 2009
    Comments (0)

    10 Lessons for Tea Baggers
    September 14, 2009
    Comments (3)

    The Republicans' Zombie Myth of 9/11 and Iraq
    September 11, 2009
    Comments (0)

    The Bad Medicine of the Republican Doctors
    September 10, 2009
    Comments (2)

    Monthly Archives
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • Category Archives
  • 9/11
  • Barking Mad
  • Bush Admin.
  • Business
  • China
  • Congress
  • Contests
  • Culture War
  • Democrats
  • Economy
  • Education
  • Election '04
  • Election '06
  • Election '08
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Foreign Policy
  • GOP Quotes
  • Health Care
  • Image Gallery
  • Immigration
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • John Kerry
  • Media
  • Nat'l Security
  • North Korea
  • Obama Admin.
  • Republicans
  • Soc. Security
  • Sports
  • Supreme Court
  • Technology
  • Terrorism
  • The States
  • Top 10 Lists
  •  

    Copyright © 2004 - 2010 PERRspectives.com. All Rights Reserved.
    Visit the Contact page to report problems with the site.