Congressional Republicans blame CIA

[Sayhey]

It appears that it was all the CIA's fault. That is the conclusion of the Senate Committee looking into why the estimates of Iraqi WMDs and ties to al Qaeda were so far off the mark.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing a blistering report on prewar intelligence on Iraq that is critical of CIA Director George J. Tenet and other intelligence officials for overstating the weapons and terrorism case against Saddam Hussein, according to congressional officials.

The committee staff was surprised by the amount of circumstantial evidence and single-source or disputed information used to write key intelligence documents -- in particular the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate -- summarizing Iraq's capabilities and intentions, according to Republican and Democratic sources. Staff members interviewed more than 100 people who collected and analyzed the intelligence used to back up statements about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, and its possible links to terrorist groups.

Like a similar but less exhaustive inquiry being completed by the House intelligence committee, the Senate report shifts attention toward the intelligence community and away from White House officials, who have been criticized for exaggerating the Iraqi threat. At stake as the presidential political season approaches, said committee sources and intelligence figures, is who gets blamed for misleading the American public if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq -- the president or his intelligence chief.

washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9230-2003Oct23?language=printer)

This should be read in tandem with the article by Seymour Hersh entitled "the Stovepipe" in the New Yorker. It gives a good case for the opposite conclusion.

New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact)

[zimv20]

i guess it didn't matter that the WH secured its own means of intelligence gathering, nor that cheney pressured the agency into reporting only along the lines of the WH's agenda.

or that the UN's intelligence was the best of all. the organization that bush elected to ignore.

hell, it's probably my fault, too.

[Desertrat]

Looking at comments from people in both parties on Captiol Hill, plus the desires of the Administration, there was a real climate of "He's got WMDs!" inside the Beltway. So, they only heard what they wanted to hear. All of'em.

The CIA was selective as to what it told; the listeners were selective as to what they heard. And so, "Hey, ho! Hey, ho! It's off to Baghdad we go!"

Sorta weird to think of an issue where Hillary and Trent Lott were in bed together. :D

'Rat

[Sayhey]

'Rat,

I'm as critical as the next guy toward Congressional Democrats who buckled under to give Bush a free rein on his adventures in Iraq. However, the idea that it is all equivalent just doesn't wash. It was the Bush administration that pushed the phony intelligence to further their previously established goals. It was the Bush administration that led us into this quagmire. It would take a substantial rewrite of history to make it look like it was everybody's fault. That rewrite is under way in the form of Rumsfeld's memo and Bush's recent statement that "of course there was no al Qaeda/Saddam connection." It is hard for me to believe intelligent people will forget the last two years of Bush propaganda, but with the way some folks are mimicking the latest line from "Big Brother" George perhaps it is possible folks will fall for this "newspeak."

[Desertrat]

sayhey, I follow your point, but I'm not sure I agree. To pick just two, for the moment: Sen Hillary on October 10th, last year, and Sen John Kerry on January 23rd, this year, spoke quite strongly about the need to remove Saddam, and about his efforts toward WMD.

When you have that sort of stroke right in there at full cry with the hawks, I'd say it's legitimate to claim there was a bi-partisan atmosphere of "Cry havoc!".

Now, as far as rewrite, spin and weasel, I'm in accord with you. I said back when I first started meddling on this board that there was no need for the Bushies to do all that BSing about WMD. But I ain't into giving free rides to the other side of the aisle, just because now they're as big a bunch of "Me no Alamo! Me no Goliad!" lying SOBs as anybody else.

'Rat

[mactastic]

I wonder how Bush 41 feels about how his son's administration appears to be scapegoating his former agency. And how this will affect relations between the administration and the intel people. If the WH passes their buck to the CIA, there's gonna be some pissed off people at that agency, and we might not get honest intel ever again.

Sooner or later people who were there will tell their stories. Some have started already. None of them have been good for the WH.

[yamabushi]

Scapegoat needed...scapegoat found.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Scapegoat needed...scapegoat found.

Will only hold up if it's not really scapegoating and the CIA really did cheese the intel. If the WH messed around at all it will come out eventually. I hope that if it is the WH's fault, that the evidence will come out sooner rather than later.

[yamabushi]

Of course the CIA made mistakes - they always do. This shouldn't have been a surprise. In this case, there is documentation to show that they did warn WH staff members about the possibility of unreliable information regarding at least a few points. We will likely never know the true extent of the quantity and quality of information they had. The White House probably has a very good idea of what is known by the CIA, so their finger pointing is out of line.