CIA Slammed for Iraq intelligence

[Vanhalen 0]

Well, I think we can see why George Tenet resigned now

 

US senators have severely criticised the CIA for the quality of its pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

In its 500-page report, the Senate Intelligence Committee says the CIA overstated the Iraqi threat.

 

Its evidence was "unreasonable and unsupported," committee chairman Senator Pat Roberts said.

 

The report does not address the issue of whether the Bush administration exaggerated the case for war in Iraq - which is being investigated separately.

 

"Most of the key judgements in the intelligence community's October 2002 'National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programmes for Weapons of Mass Destruction', were either overstated or were not supported by underlying raw intelligence," the report said.

 

"It is an accurate, hard-hitting and well-deserved critique of the CIA," Democratic Senator Carl Levin, a member of the panel, had said on Thursday.

 

The agency has been severely censured over "its intelligence failures and mischaracterisations regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction", Mr Levin added.

 

Republican Senator Pat Roberts, said there had been a worldwide intelligence failure.

 

The report also looks into Iraq's alleged ties with terror groups, whether it posed a threat to Middle East stability, and its human rights record, officials said.

 

The committee was expected to say there was evidence that analysts came under pressure from the White House to reach certain conclusions.

 

A second report on how the White House used the assessments from the intelligence agencies is due to be released by the end of the year, despite the objections of some Democrats who wanted the whole matter addressed in one inquiry.

 

'People will judge'

 

The report could also have implications for Lord Butler's UK report, to be published in a few days' time, our correspondent says, increasing pressure for a strong examination of what happened in British intelligence.

 

Outgoing CIA director George Tenet has denied charges that the agency had been under political pressure to conclude that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

 

On Thursday, he told employees that the American people would judge where intelligence has done well and where the CIA has fallen short.

 

Mr Tenet - who leaves his post on Sunday - told colleagues at a farewell ceremony that he hoped those involved with the inquiry recognised the difficulties the agency faced.

 

"My only wish is that those whose job it is to help us do better show the same balance and care," he said.

 

"In recognising how far we have come. In recognising how bold we have been. In recognising what the full balance sheet says."

 

"This much is clear right now: Your work is far too important for distractions."

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the more interesting part is that they aren't releasing the criticisms and errornous ways of the Bush administration until AFTER the elections. How convenient.....but not suprising.

[Guest MikeSC]

SCREW ACTUAL REVIEW --- WE WANT A WITCHHUNT!!!

Yeah, I thought so.

-=Mike

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

From the AP

 

Rockefeller said: ''Tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished. Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before.''

 

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.''

[Vyce 0]

SCREW ACTUAL REVIEW --- WE WANT A WITCHHUNT!!!

Yeah, I thought so.

-=Mike

Apparently, the joke of a 9/11 Commission isn't enough for some people, Mike.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

Exactly. Why waste time researching and investigating when you can just blow people up? Sweet.

[Highland 0]

Yes, why bother investigating events that led to the deaths of nearly 3000 people?

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, why bother investigating events that led to the deaths of nearly 3000 people?

Well, the way the 9/11 Commission has DONE it is the issue.

 

Hint: Having COMMISSION MEMBERS GOING TO SEE FAHRENHEIT 911 IS NOT GOING TO GIVE A LOT OF CREDENCE TO THE CLAIM OF THIS BEING NON-PARTISAN.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

No one is going to confuse Fahrenheit 9/11 with a documentary.

[BX 0]

Yes, why bother investigating events that led to the deaths of nearly 3000 people? 

Well, the way the 9/11 Commission has DONE it is the issue.

 

Hint: Having COMMISSION MEMBERS GOING TO SEE FAHRENHEIT 911 IS NOT GOING TO GIVE A LOT OF CREDENCE TO THE CLAIM OF THIS BEING NON-PARTISAN.

-=Mike

It's always something with you, Mike. If they had not have seen F 9/11, you would have posted a bitchstorm after finding out from Drudge that they used Heinz Ketchup at a 9/11 Commission get-together.

 

And wouldn't the Commission members be more fully prepared to counter the bullshit you think permeates that film? Seeing as their job is to investigate it?

[Guest MikeSC]

No one is going to confuse Fahrenheit 9/11 with a documentary.

True --- but having commission members go to it definitely looks bad.

-=Mike

[Vanhalen 0]

Its a classic case of misdirection by Mike, if theres something he disagrees with he will shout on and on about something else, in the hope that people will shift their attention to that. Hence the point about Faherneit 9/11 which is completly irrelevant.

[Vyce 0]

I caught a little of this on C-SPAN last night, and I have to say: props to Rockefeller, who completely no sold what the Senate report actually said and focused only on how this was entirely Bush's fault (even though that wasn't any part of the actual, you know, report).

 

Wasn't surprising, just kind of amusing.

[Guest darkquack]

this cracks me up. who held power over the cia for YEARS?!? george bush sr. he has so much clout he ORDERED them to lie and make shit up. if this suprises you its because you been playin xbox too much and need to get your head out your arse

[Guest MikeSC]

this cracks me up. who held power over the cia for YEARS?!? george bush sr. he has so much clout he ORDERED them to lie and make shit up. if this suprises you its because you been playin xbox too much and need to get your head out your arse

Dear quack,

We have informed you, repeatedly, about dire consequences for airing our dirty laundry to the public. Since you have become public, we are unable to take care of you in our normal manner. However, the electrodes we implanted in your skull will now lead to debilitating headaches.

Sincerely,

the CIA guys

[Vyce 0]

Tin foil hats, quack!

 

Tin foil hats!

 

The CIA can't read your thoughts when you have one on!!!!

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Pssst...Mike...you do know that nine Republicans signed off on this report too, right? It was unanimous...

 

--Ryan

...who still doesn't understand how seeing F9/11 means that people will suddenly be unable to be moderate...

[2GOLD 0]

...who still doesn't understand how seeing F9/11 means that people will suddenly be unable to be moderate...

 

I didn't either.

Till I saw people claiming the movie opened their eyes to the pure evil of our government and are calling Michael Moore a hero for putting all the 100% truth out there. When you take it as gospel, then you scare me.

 

Course when you believe anything any politician on either side says then you scare me as well. And if John Kerry or George Bush inspire you, then I am running from you in full sprint.

[Dr. Tom 0]

this cracks me up. who held power over the cia for YEARS?!? george bush sr. he has so much clout he ORDERED them to lie and make shit up. if this suprises you its because you been playin xbox too much and need to get your head out your arse

Where do tards like you find out about this place?

 

Really, I think we must be linked at crackpotsanonymous.com.

[NoCalMike 0]

And if John Kerry or George Bush inspire you, then I am running from you in full sprint.

I'll be right there running next to ya.

[Guest MikeSC]

Pssst...Mike...you do know that nine Republicans signed off on this report too, right? It was unanimous...

 

--Ryan

...who still doesn't understand how seeing F9/11 means that people will suddenly be unable to be moderate...

Wow, irrelevant point. Kudos.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Explain to me how a bipartisan report that shows many of the shortcomings in the intelligence leading towards the war in Iraq is irrelevant, especially throughout a time period when everything is partisan?

 

It would be prudent to continue said investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration in the build-up to the Iraq War, in order to determine whether said poor intelligence was then misused/manipulated, or if the Administration merely acted upon shoddy intel. That has not been seen, and it's a question left unanswered by this report.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

Explain to me how a bipartisan report that shows many of the shortcomings in the intelligence leading towards the war in Iraq is irrelevant, especially throughout a time period when everything is partisan?

 

It would be prudent to continue said investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration in the build-up to the Iraq War, in order to determine whether said poor intelligence was then misused/manipulated, or if the Administration merely acted upon shoddy intel. That has not been seen, and it's a question left unanswered by this report.

 

--Ryan

Because MY comment was directed at darkquack's psychotic ramblings.

 

I guess you missed the paragraph of the report where, and I quote, "The committee found no evidence that the [intelligence community's] mischaracterization or exaggeration of weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressi...Conclusions.pdf

 

There is NOTHING further to investigate if you assume they are correct.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I was responding to some of your earlier posts in the thread. Probably should have used the old QUOTE button, but that would have required effort...

 

Responding to your last one, though, Conclusion 3 of the report, as I quote: "The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led IC analysts, collectors, and managers to both interpret ambigous 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. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized." Bold is by me.

 

The question becomes: where did the presumption come from? In order to explore all possibilities, wouldn't the Adminstration be at least a place to investigate to some degree? If the investigation turns up nothing, the Administration can put this behind them. Without one, it seems more like they have something to hide.

 

--Ryan

[Guest MikeSC]

I was responding to some of your earlier posts in the thread. Probably should have used the old QUOTE button, but that would have required effort...

 

Responding to your last one, though, Conclusion 3 of the report, as I quote: "The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led IC analysts, collectors, and managers to both interpret ambigous 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. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized." Bold is by me.

 

The question becomes: where did the presumption come from? In order to explore all possibilities, wouldn't the Adminstration be at least a place to investigate to some degree? If the investigation turns up nothing, the Administration can put this behind them. Without one, it seems more like they have something to hide.

 

--Ryan

You know, if this was a Democrat, the cries of "witch hunt" would never stop.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I'd hope it weren't that way, but knowing the way that Dems piss and moan, yeah, it'd probably be.

 

Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a look into it, no matter who's in office.

 

--Ryan

[Guest Cerebus]

The question becomes: where did the presumption come from? In order to explore all possibilities, wouldn't the Adminstration be at least a place to investigate to some degree? If the investigation turns up nothing, the Administration can put this behind them. Without one, it seems more like they have something to hide.

Well the Senate Committee thought the same thing. Hence:

 

(U)Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

 

(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

 

[...]

 

(U) Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11.

 

I would suggest reading ALL of the conclusions.