News outlets failed to note recent prewar intel revelations in coverage of Hadley press conference
The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN highlighted national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley's public defense of the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence and his criticism of Democratic efforts to ensure full investigation of this matter. But in their coverage of his November 10 press conference, these outlets omitted mention of recent reports that undermine administration claims that Congress had access to the same intelligence as the administration and further support allegations that White House officials ignored dissenting views within the intelligence community in the build-up to war.
On November 6, both the Post and the Times reported on a newly declassified document proving that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had voiced strong doubts about the credibility of an Al Qaeda operative whose statements provided the basis for many of the administration's prewar claims regarding Iraqi training of terrorists. The DIA report -- produced and distributed in February 2002 -- raised serious questions about the first interrogation report on the operative and determined that "it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Both newspapers noted that administration officials, in late 2002 and early 2003, repeatedly cited the alleged chemical and biological training as proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection but never noted that the DIA considered this intelligence suspect. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who released the new materials, stated "that he could not be certain that White House officials read the DIA report, but his 'presumption' was that someone at the National Security Council saw it because it was sent there," according to the Post.
Four days after these revelations, Hadley held a press conference during which he responded to Democrats' ongoing calls for the completion of a congressional investigation into government officials' use of prewar intelligence. A November 11 Post article, a November 11 Times article, and the November 10 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight all focused on Hadley's response to the Democrats' efforts:
HADLEY: I point out that some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people.
The Post devoted an entire article to Hadley's remarks; the article also included coverage of the Democratic response. The Times noted Hadley's defense at the end of an article on President Bush's current efforts to "to shore up his credibility and cast his critics as hypocrites." Dobbs gave only a brief report regarding his comments. But despite the Post and the Times' recent coverage of the declassified DIA report -- and despite the fact that Hadley was deputy national security adviser at the time that report was disseminated -- none of these news outlets mentioned the report.
That Hadley had directly addressed the matter of dissenting opinions compounded the severity of these news outlets' failure to note the DIA report. In response to a question regarding what lessons he had learned from the handling of Iraqi intelligence, Hadley suggested that the president may not have received an adequate assessment of the intelligence community's divided opinions on certain aspects of the Iraq intelligence:
HADLEY: Obviously, what comes into the Oval Office, again, is an effort to provide a consensus judgment. But I think one of the things we've all learned from that is that it is important, also, to be clear about dissenting opinions and make sure that dissenting opinions also are given visibility; that we need more competitive analysis and to have products that come to the president. This is one view; this is another view. ... And you're beginning to see that happen in terms of how intelligence is coming to the president.
Moreover, the Post quoted Hadley as stating that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was "clear in terms of weapons of mass destruction":
Hadley yesterday offered no direct critique of the prewar intelligence and instead said that at the time it was compelling evidence that also convinced the Clinton administration and other governments.
"The intelligence was clear in terms of the weapons of mass destruction," Hadley said, citing a National Intelligence Estimate provided to Bush. "The case that was brought to him, in terms of the NIE, and parts of which have been made public, was a very strong case."
But the Post failed to mention that the NIE "key judgments" had included a lengthy dissent on behalf of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) regarding the claim that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Further, the Post's characterization of the NIE as simply "provided to Bush" ignored the fact that the document was produced only after Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee requested it in September 2002. In fact, the White House reportedly objected to the production of such an assessment at the time. An article in the September 22, 2003, edition of The New Republic described how the then-chairman of the committee, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) pushed for the NIE after reviewing a classified CIA assessment of the Iraqi threat that reportedly took "the most aggressive view of all available information":
Stunned by what they read, Graham, Durbin and others on the committee intensified their demands for [then-director of central intelligence George J.] Tenet to produce an NIE on the Iraq threat. It was not a request that Tenet could easily fulfill. "The White House didn't want it," says a source with direct knowledge of the effort. "They wanted to draw their own analytical conclusions."
Hopefully, the President will strike back at the cowards in the Senate and call them what they are, seditious traitors and liars. It's obvious to anyone that isn't in an ideological coma, there wasn't any manipulation of data.
...a comment which suggests the commentator may, himself, have been in a coma for about three years now. The evidence of intel manipulation is simply too overwhelming to ignore at this very, very late date. To write it off requires that those who have been telling us about it for over three years, including large numbers of intel pros, and perhaps hundreds of members of the press (most of whom have probably never even met), were involved in a a massive, sustained conspiracy to defraud the public. It may prove very difficult for any official investigation to document this manipulation of the IC, simply because most people don't care to ruin their careers for what they see as a lost cause (the "phase one" SSCI investigation ran into this problem). This is particularly true in the current environment, where Bush's DCI has shown himself fully willing to carry out purges against "non-believers."
This silliness has gone far enough and I for one hope the President takes the gloves off with these cowards.
I'm salivating at the prospect of Bush trying to defend his indefensible administration on these points. I hope the comments by Bush and Hadley are just the beginning.
What a liar Mr. Hadley is. He helped craft, misinterpret and disseminate the administration's dishonest intelligence assessments. The man belongs in jail along with Douglas Feith and the rest of these crooks.
What a liar Mr. Hadley is. He helped craft, misinterpret and disseminate the administration's dishonest intelligence assessments. The man belongs in jail along with Douglas Feith and the rest of these crooks.
In his press conference, Hadley fell back on some well-worn Republican talking points. For example, he hid behind UN resolutions in order to pretend that WMDs and Iraqi partnership with al Qaida weren't the grounds upon which the war was sold to the public, which amounts to an outrageous lie. He dragged out the rot about congressional Democrats saying the same thing as Bush, as if the U.S. Congress had an intelligence apparatus of its own and wasn't entirely dependant upon the executive branch for that kind of info, and as if it even mattered it it was true. His performance had exactly one merit; it gave an excuse to write about these matters, which offers an opportunity for the corporate press to abandon its traditional role as Bush defenders and apologists and finally expose this administration for what it is. Whether this opportunity will be exploited remains to be seen.
Has anyone here seen the documentary "Uncovered: The Whole Truth" by Robert Greenwald? Go to [link to www.truthuncovered.com] and check it out. Here is the synopsis.
"In his documentary feature, UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq, filmmaker Robert Greenwald chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001. The film deconstructs the administration's case for war through interviews with U.S intelligence and defense officials, foreign service experts, and U.N. weapons inspectors -- including a former CIA director, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and even President Bush's Secretary of the Army. Their analyses and conclusions are sobering, and often disturbing, regardless of one's political affiliations. "
I would also suggest going to Frontline and checking out a variety of other documentaries detailing the challenges facing this country. [link to www.pbs.org]
Sorry if this seems like an advertisement..but I am blown away by the spin in the media about pre-war intelligence when documentaries like this explicitly show we were duped into the war.
Has anyone here seen the documentary "Uncovered: The Whole Truth" by Robert Greenwald?
Yes. It's quite good for what it is, but what it is is a far-too-short, broad overview on the subject, without the details a more involved critique would require.
"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."
"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."
Again, what part don't you understand? These are the findings of the Senate Inteligence Committe. Did they "lie" too?
"these are the findings of the senate intelligence committee". that would be the republican controlled senate committe, and they were forbidden from even looking for evidence of manipulation in the first part of the investigation. and the democrats did sign on to the report, but only with the agreement that there would be a second phase to examine the allegations of manipulation. that phase has still not been done, as promised over a year ago.
ken mehlman was just on meet the press. he said there has never been a filibuster in the past on judges. wrong. the republicans filibustered supreme court nominee abe fortas in 1968. he also didn't mention the judges who never even got a hearing under the republican senate. many of the bush judges took seats that clinton had made nominations for, but the gop delayed them for years. and for the third straight week, tim russert said democrats "voted for the war". no, they voted for "use of force" if the inspectors weren't allowed in. howard dean was on at the time and he let it slip by. this should be an automatic stop sign whenever a democrat is asked this. it was six months between the use of force resolution and the invasion.
mefirst, You are very confused. The Senate resolution states the following:
The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.
Additionally, these are some of the statements in the resolution;
Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
I hope this helps to clear up your many confusions on this issue.
here's john kerry on 10-10-02: "the vote that i will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through tough new weapons inspections".
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
I hope this helps to clear up your many confusions on this issue.
by dagweer - Sunday **************************************************************
“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”
This is from the recently released DIA Report>>DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Just so we have a clear understanding about lying...there is lying by omission. This report and others were not included in the presentation to congress, or others. They are open now as Harry Reid, Carl Levin and others pulled the Rule 21 "stunt" to get Roberts who had been dragging his feet for 20 months. NOW...HAD ALL INFORMATION BEEN PRESENTED...we would have had a different picture! Selective information to form an opinon of Saddam and his so called role in 911 is outrageous and too costly to this country in terms of lives and credibilty, not to say financial. Our mission was clear OSAMA owned 911 ! this war is chameleon in affect>>>as we have gone from WMDS, Bios, chems, Nukes, imminent danger to the US, to getting Saddam, to Freeing Iraqis,the Elections, to establishing Iraqis Troops, ect. Credibility of this adminstrations goes KAPUT.
elizabeth dole just said on stephanopoulos that the un had the same intelligence on iraq that we had. no. they were saying his nuclear program had been dismantled.
Here's a point that seems critical to me, but that I rarely hear spelled out.
The Senate vote supported the UN action to reinsert weapons inspectors into Iraq, with the demand that the inspectors be given unfettered access.
By all accounts, Saddam did not obstruct the inspectors and they found nothing.
Blix pleaded with the White House to give the inspectors some direction, since the Bush people were insisting that they had solid evidence of WMDs.
But the White House refused to reveal their "evidence," saying that to do so would compromise their sources.
In the end, Bush declared that time was up, and that Saddam was violating UN resolutions because the inspectors could find no WMDs! And so the indiscriminate bombing of innocent Iraqis was begun.
Of course, we now know that there were no WMDs to be found, which proves that there was no evidence in the first place.
The overriding issue is not about the Democrats' vote in the Senate, or even what Clinton and Gore believed to be true in the '90s.
The most critical issue is why did we start bombing Iraq even though the UN weapons inspectors were reporting that the country had no WMDs.
Here's a point that seems critical to me, but that I rarely hear spelled out.
The Senate vote supported the UN action to reinsert weapons inspectors into Iraq, with the demand that the inspectors be given unfettered access.
By all accounts, Saddam did not obstruct the inspectors and they found nothing.
Blix pleaded with the White House to give the inspectors some direction, since the Bush people were insisting that they had solid evidence of WMDs.
But the White House refused to reveal their "evidence," saying that to do so would compromise their sources.
In the end, Bush declared that time was up, and that Saddam was violating UN resolutions because the inspectors could find no WMDs! And so the indiscriminate bombing of innocent Iraqis was begun.
One addition, however; the Bush admninstration did provide some information to UNMOVIC. It was nonsense they'd previously peddled to congress about Iraqi WMD facilities. UNMOVIC spent weeks documenting that the Bush allegations about these facilities were, in fact, entirely groundless. The corporate press virtually buried this story when it broke in January 2003, prior to the invasion. One UN inspector described the Bush data as "garbage after garbage after garbage." By providing it, however, the administration kept UNMOVIC tied up on a wild goose chase for weeks, then claimed the inspectors' failure to find anything just proved they were ineffective.
For more information, here's an AP article on the matter: [link to www.showmenews.com]
And a Los Angeles Times article, from January 26, 2003, archived here: [link to vredessite.nl]
Mefirst, It seems this statement from UN Resolution 1441 indicates, as Bush did, that Iraq HAD NOT accounted for his WMD's, and stand in contrast to your fantasies otherwise.
You aren't paying attention. Mefirst pointed out that those at the UN had said Iraq's nuclear program had been dismantled. All you've done is suggest that Iraq may have failed to provide the right kind of bureacratic paperwork. That's not an argument that Iraq still had a nuclear program, and it's not an argument that the UN inspectors said Iraq still had one. In fact, UNSCOM and, later, UNMOVIC were fairly confident, prior to the invasion, they'd eliminated Hussein's WMD capabilities (not just nuclear). Iraq insisted and UNSCOM confirmed that largescale unilateral destruction of these programs and materials had taken place; UNSCOM and UNMOVIC just couldn't verify whether this got it all. The best information they had suggested they'd pretty much gotten it all, and, further, that it would have been illogical for Iraq to have retained what they couldn't account for. This is reflected in the comments of those involved with UNSCOM, the IAEA, etc. Rolf Ekeus was the executive chairman of UNSCOM for six of the seven years it operated in Iraq. In an appearance at Harvard on May 23, 2000, he said, about Iraq's WMD programs, "we [UNSCOM] felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally." Scott Ritter was UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector in Iraq for nearly the whole of its operations, there. He agreed with this assessment:
"...what I and others [in UNSCOM] did... we had stated that the weapons inspectors achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of accounting for Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction programs. What this means, is that the major factories that produced weapons of mass destruction were identified and destroyed. And the production equipment associated with the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction were identified and destroyed. That the vast majority of the weapons produced by these factories were identified and destroyed. There is a certain amount, 5 to 10 percent, that is unaccounted for. But we have no evidence that Iraq has retained this material. We just can?t account for it. And that because of this we feel, that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed. This means that Iraq is no longer capable of producing biological or chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons or long range ballistic missiles." (Ritter, interview with Chronogram, April 2002)
Summing up the work of UNSCOM in an interview in the Spring 2004 issue of "New Perspectives," Ekeus said:
"By 1998, UNSCOM had discovered and destroyed 95 percent of Saddam's programs for mass destruction weapons. The remaining 5 percent involved the chemical precursors and growth medium that couldn't be accounted for. But as we said at the time, it made very little sense to make weapons stockpiles out of this and store them because they would deteriorate rapidly unless used."
The IAEA's pre-war conclusion about Iraq?
"Based on all credible information available to date,... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."
IAEA director Muhammed ElBaradei told the UN in January 2003 that "We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s," and that inspectors "should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program".
Those darned old facts keeping getting in your way!
You must be feeling rather embarassed right about now. I don't, however, feel your pain.
classic
That's a great post.
You ought to print that out and mail it to every talking head in the universe.
The entire world learned before the war began that Iraq posed no threat and yet the Bush administration attacked anyway.
There's no other issue that matters.
A prediction: next year, impeachment will be back in the news.
impeachment - wishful thinking but not totally implausible
Can Democrats possibly regain the majority in either house? Are there enough principled Republicans who are willing to take a stand against a lying president? Does Bush's low approval rating give individual GOPers the freedom to rebel from the party line?
Maybe a broader question: With Bush's poll numbers down so low, does this reflect dissatisfaction with Bush as an individual, or will the general public start to see the fundamental flaws in conservative thinking?
Will people start to recognize (as they have in the past) that the society's greater good is not served by catering to the wealthy and the powerful?