Another Intelligence Officer faults Admins use of Pre-Iraq War Intel

[Keino]

And no Dave, he is not pushing a Book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

I find this quote particularly disturbing.

[Spence]

The man is Paul Pillar, a former CIA official who was, until last year, in charge of U.S. intelligence for the Middle East. He was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

I gotta tell you, the number of people in the government who hate America and freedom is really starting to pile up. How did so many America-and-freedom-hating people get into the government and rise in the hierarchy?

[Keino]

The man is Paul Pillar, a former CIA official who was, until last year, in charge of U.S. intelligence for the Middle East. He was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.

I gotta tell you, the number of people in the government who hate America and freedom is really starting to pile up. How did so many America-and-freedom-hating people get into the government and rise in the hierarchy?

Next thing you know, they will all be calling Freedom Toast and Freedom Fries French. When that happens you will know this country is going to hell in a handbasket.....(I've never really understood that phrase)

[Spence]

If I was an uncharitable fellow, I'd make a few remaks about crickets. But I'm not the kind of person, so I won't do it.

[Keino]

If I was an uncharitable fellow, I'd make a few remaks about crickets. But I'm not the kind of person, so I won't do it.

I've never played Cricket, but I'm sure I'd be better at than I am at Golf.....

[C-7]

People act like this stuff is surprising. Anybody with a clear head knows Bush has told one lie after another, that he is on Irak for their oil and that he cares two craps about freedom. Please.

[RedskinsDave]

Wait, so you're saying that another one of the guys who is being blamed for the bad intelligence is saying that the people who used the intelligence were the ones who were wrong? Ahhhh, that makes it all better now. Thanks!

[CNYSkinFan]

Wait, so you're saying that another one of the guys who is being blamed for the bad intelligence is saying that the people who used the intelligence were the ones who were wrong? Ahhhh, that makes it all better now. Thanks!
man that was alomsot pathetic....but it did not even rise to that level.

That is right everyone was wrong but the White House who acted only in good faith. Sure Sure. Move alon, nothiing to see here.

[Spence]

Do you do a lot of hunting? I ask because nobody shoots the messenger better than you, Dave. Without the book angle to work, you changed direction pretty nicely. As far as I know, however, he's not being blamed for the bad information on Iraq. Well, you're blaming him, apparently, but nobody else has. Let's read on:
Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.

Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."
...
Pillar wrote that the first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was "not until a year into the war."
For those, like Dave, who want to absolve the decisionmakers of all blame for Iraq and instead slough it off on the CIA, there is this issue to consider: If the CIA screwed it all up and made the faultless Bush admin look bad, why did President Bush bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom upon CIA Director George Tenet -- long after the intel cock-up had been revealed? There is no rule that CIA Directors get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Bush wasn't just being polite? So why would he single out Tenet for special praise and honor if the CIA had screwed up the pre-war intel? Is Bush really that much of a sweetie-pie? Or is it that Tenet got his honor because he provided Bush with precisely the intel Bush required?

[RedskinsDave]

No ones absolving the decision makers. Even this guy says that the intelligence on the WMD's was faulty but then blames the admin for ignoring other intelligence that the same folks gave them. I am only shooting the messenger here because it's an echo and we've pretty much heard this before. The ones who screwed up the war blame the intel guys and vice versa.

Also, I don't think anyone here thinks the admin is remotely faultless, we're just willing to accept that others are at fault too, where you will never tread.

[Spence]

Dave, I've never seen you do anything but blame the intelligence services for the pre-war intel. Point me to a post where you wrote Bush deserves a share of the blame for the faulty intel and I'll retract that first statement. Seriously. I'm not saying for certain that you've never laid any of the blame at the White House, but if you did, I missed it.

Secondly, you're glossing over a key issue here. People like me have never denied that some intel indicated Saddam Hussein had WMD. What we've said all along is that the intel was clouded and uncertain. Some intel indicated Saddam had WMD and some indicated he had none. And much of the intel indicated Saddam did have WMD came from defectors who had failed lie detector tests and had a history of criminal activity or mental instability.

And the key point of all that is the Bush admin never discussed any of that. Never. They never allowed that there was any doubt at all. Sadddam has WMD and that's that! That was the Bush admin line and they never strayed from it. The truth, as they knew at the time, was that there was a lot of doubt. But the Bush admin told the American people over and over again that there was no doubt and that they, in fact, knew exactly where the WMD was located.

Now, do you think the American people would have liked to have known that? Do you think the American people would have liked to have known that, in fact, there was substantial doubt throughout the intel community that Saddam Hussein had any significant arsenal of WMD. You know, Dave, I think they would have liked to have known that. Instead of being told that there was no doubt about the WMD and that the amounts were gigantic and posed a mortal and immediate threat to the safety and security of the United States, I think the American people would have preferred to be told that many people didn't agree with that assessment and the reality could actually be much different.

Here is what the Bush admin said: Saddam Hussein has vast amounts of WMD and the ability to attack the United States with them.

Here is what the Bush admin should have said: We're not sure about the WMD issue. It is possible Saddam has WMD and, if he does, we need to deal with it.

The first was false. The second would have been the truth. So, what's wrong with the truth? Why is the President of the United States required to tell the truth if it involves a blow-job from a 21-year-old woman, but is not required to tell the truth if it involves thousands of 21-year-old American soldiers getting their brains blown out all over the sand?

[RedskinsDave]

Now, do you think the American people would have liked to have known that? Do you think the American people would have liked to have known that, in fact, there was substantial doubt throughout the intel community that Saddam Hussein had any significant arsenal of WMD. You know, Dave, I think they would have liked to have known that.

Yes but the American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free.

[Keino]

Yes but the American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free.

Oh I see, so because the American People are largley stupid, they don't need to know the truth. Well I guess that makes lying ok then :rolleyes:

[CNYSkinFan]

Yes but the American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free.
Translation: The American People oinly need to know enough so they can support the conclusions the President and VP came up with before they saw the intel.

[Spence]

Can't add anything to that. If Dave is going to acknowledge that rank cynicism is the most notable characteristic of the Bush administration, far be it for me to argue. On the contrary, permit me to congratulate him on his insight and honesty. Too bad the Bush administration isn't similarly forthright.

[BurgundyNGold]

We should name this horse Jesus.

[Agrawog]

I think this article brings to light just another example of how Americans need to be convinced to go to war rather than accept it as a part of nationa policy. I don't know if support for war would have been sufficient if Bush had leveled with the people in 2002 or not. There are many reasons to go to war and he could have made his case with the evidence and history of Saddam Hussein.

However, this is America. We need a bad guy and a crisis before we go to war - so he gave us one. There is no doubt that his advisors wanted to get Iraq from the moment they walked into the WH. 9/11 gave them the most tenous of connections and they developed the excuse (reason!).

I really can't see any other explanation. The point about Tenet getting the Medal of Freedom is classic. The man most responsible for the screw up that has gotten us into a second Vietnam (supposedly entirely his Agency's fault) and he gets the medal. Bush could have said he would not make a scapegoat out of the guy and not fire but a medal? :banghead:

[VTBob]

In my opinion the American people wouldn't have bought into going into Iraq if Bush wasn't SURE there were WMD's, so his administration bored into our heads for two years until after the fact of invasion and changed tracks - "whoops, we were wrong...but WE'RE SPREADING DEMOCRACY SO ITS ALL GOOD..."

...if more of these CIA people would've spoken up earlier, rather than sticking to the administration company line of palliation and whitewashing, I think Iraq might've been avoided - or at least put off until a better justification for deposing Saddam would've come up...I for one think if we went into Iraq on the line of Saddam's past crimes against his people, we would've garnered popular support. Instead, our nation is mired in a hellhole that results in more military deaths every day, along with billions in spending.

[Ibleedburgundy]

...not to mention the Downing Street Memo. When GWB said he would not nation-build in 1999, he knew darn well that he intended to nation-build. 9/11 just gave him an excuse to pull off the biggest flip-flop since his daddy raised taxes.