About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Moran called Powell's WMD claims "a total intelligence failure at the CIA"

May 22, 2006 1:13 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On ABC's Nightline, co-anchor Terry Moran characterized "the U.S. claim that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction" as "a total intelligence failure at the CIA." In fact, while much of the intelligence produced by the CIA before the Iraq war was indeed faulty, many of the Bush administration's most dramatic prewar claims had been called into question by the CIA or other intelligence agencies.

18 Comments

On the May 18 broadcast of ABC's Nightline, co-anchor Terry Moran characterized "the U.S. claim that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction" as "a total intelligence failure at the CIA." Moran specifically highlighted then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, assertion to the United Nations Security Council that "[w]e know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more." But while much of the intelligence produced by the CIA before the Iraq war was indeed faulty, many of the Bush administration's most dramatic prewar claims -- including many of those cited by Powell in his U.N. speech -- had been called into question by the CIA or other intelligence agencies.

Media Matters for America has documented several such claims from Powell's speech.

From the May 18 broadcast of ABC's Nightline:

MORAN: So much has changed. Osama bin Laden got away. And then came Iraq and the U.S. claim that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction.

POWELL [video clip]: We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more.

MORAN: It was a total intelligence failure at the CIA.

Nuclear reconstitution

In his U.N. speech, Powell claimed: "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. ... Since 1998, his efforts to reconstitute his nuclear program have been focused on acquiring the third and last component, sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion."

Similarly, Bush claimed in an October 7, 2002, speech, "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney said of Saddam: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Cheney later said he "misspoke" and had intended to say "weapons capability" rather than "weapons.")

Though Powell and the rest of the administration did not say so, the State Department's own Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) disputed the claim -- advanced by the majority of intelligence agencies in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) -- that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

As Media Matters has noted, Tyler Drumheller -- a 26-year CIA veteran who served as chief of the agency's European operations during the lead-up to the Iraq war -- said on the April 23 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes that by the fall of 2002, the CIA had recruited an Iraqi official in the "inner circle of Saddam Hussein" to provide intelligence on Saddam's weapons programs. Drumheller said that the Bush administration "stopped being interested in the intelligence" when the CIA reported that the Iraqi official -- whom 60 Minutes identified as then-foreign minister Naji Sabri -- revealed that Iraq "had no active weapons of mass destruction program."

Drumheller's account is largely consistent with separate media accounts of what Sabri told the CIA before the war. In a March 23 article citing "former intelligence officials," The Washington Post reported that Sabri informed the CIA that Saddam "had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active."

In its final report in September 2004 (also known as the Duelfer Report), the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) concluded that "Iraq did not possess a nuclear device, nor had it tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991."

Aluminum tubes

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush claimed, "Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

In fact, while the majority of intelligence agencies agreed in the October 2002 NIE that the aluminum tubes were intended for uranium-enriching centrifuges, both INR and "technical experts" from the Department of Energy (DOE) argued that the tubes were "poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment." INR stated that the tubes were probably meant for a conventional weapons program, "most likely the production of artillery rockets."

National Journal investigative reporter Murray Waas reported on March 2 that in October 2002, Bush was informed in a one-page "President's Summary" of the NIE that INR and DOE believed the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons."

In October 2003, Greg Thielmann, who was in charge of assessing Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs for INR before the war, told CBS News that in 2001, he had "reported to Secretary Powell's office that they [INR] were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program."

Yet in his U.N. speech, Powell claimed: "Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed." He added, "Most U.S. experts think they [the tubes] are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium." Powell acknowledged that "[o]ther experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher," but Powell did not reveal that this view was held by his own intelligence agency. Powell then cast doubt on INR's assessment, stating that "it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets."

In its 2004 report, the ISG found that "Baghdad's interest in high-strength, high-specification aluminum tubes ... is best explained by its efforts to produce 81-mm rockets."

Unmanned aerial vehicles

In his U.N. speech, Powell explicitly linked Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) program to its supposed chemical and biological weapons, claiming: "The linkages over the past 10 years between Iraq's UAV program and biological and chemical warfare agents are of deep concern to us. Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or if transported, to other countries, including the United States."

As Media Matters has noted, on February 6, 2003, Bush stated, "Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."

It is true that in the October 2002 NIE, most intelligence agencies agreed that "Baghdad's UAV's could threaten Iraq's neighbors, US forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into the United States, the US Homeland." However, the Air Force -- which controls most American UAVs -- dissented from the majority view, arguing that Iraq was not "developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents."

According to the Robb-Silberman Commission's final report to the president, a separate NIE, published in January 2003, dealt specifically with the suggestion -- later advanced by Powell and Bush -- that Iraq might use its UAVs to target the United States. The commission reported that in the NIE, the Air Force, Army, and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had stated that Iraq's acquisition of "mapping software" -- upon which the claim was initially based -- was "not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the US homeland."

Moreover, the commission found that just "days before the March 19 invasion of Iraq," the CIA "advised senior policymakers" that the CIA "[had] no definite indications that Baghdad [was] planning to use WMD-armed UAVs against the U.S. mainland."

In 2004, the ISG found that the "evidence available" indicates that Iraq's UAV programs that were active at the time of the invasion "were intended for reconnaissance and electronic warfare."

WMD training for Al Qaeda

In his U.N. Speech, Powell said that a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist" who had been "responsible for one of Al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan" but had since been detained told interrogators about "Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000." Bush apparently made reference to the same claim in his October 7, 2002, speech, asserting, "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

Media Matters has noted that according to a November 10, 2005, web-exclusive article by Newsweek investigative correspondents Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, "the principal basis" for these claims was a series of statements made to investigators by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured Al Qaeda commander.

In a November 6, 2005, article, Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus noted that "in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information." But Pincus reported that in February 2002 -- eight months before Bush reportedly referred to al-Libi's bogus claims and a year before Powell's U.N. speech -- the DIA produced a document in which it concluded that it was "likely" that al-Libi was "intentionally misleading" his interrogators.

Isikoff and Hosenball reported in their article that "[a] DIA official confirmed to NEWSWEEK" that a copy of the DIA report "would have been sent" to the Bush administration's National Security Council. Isikoff and Hosenball also reported that the CIA produced a document containing similar conclusions about al-Libi in January 2003. Isikoff and Hosenball noted that "[a] counter-terrorism official said that while CIA reports on al-Libi were distributed widely around U.S. intelligence agencies and policy-making offices, many such routine reports are not regularly read by senior policy-making officials."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by peet (May 22, 2006 1:51 pm ET)
         

      It never ceases to amaze me how the major (mainstream) news orgs STILL hold hope that these faulty claims will one day be believed by you and me...

      In light of the current administrations exceedingly poor poll numbers, the lack of popular support for the Iraq war, illegal wiretapping, etc... it seems logical that, perhaps, a meek or intimidated news corps would now find the strength to report the facts -- i.e. the public WANTS IT. Since we still hear the same tired diatribes and faulty logic, I can only surmise that they too are in on the take. Our 'news' is a sham = Added confirmation of our decline as a democracy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sasami (May 22, 2006 6:54 pm ET)
           

        .. Because then it will become obvious that it was those same news organizations that lied to us in the first place. Better to keep believing the lie.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by peet (May 22, 2006 6:54 pm ET)
           

        After hearing Mr. Gonzales' threat today... I'm not sure. Perhaps the bullying by this Bush regime is more than we'd like to believe.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by rixhex56 (May 22, 2006 7:24 pm ET)
             

          ...contradict what they said about Hussein later.

          Hey,

          If you guys want something to really chew on, go to this link:

          [link to www.thememoryhole.org]

          Check out the video of both Powell and Rice, before 9/11, denying that Hussein has ANY potentiality as a threat militarily.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by LL-TIME (May 23, 2006 9:25 am ET)
           

        Are these the "faulty claims" that B+H Clinton, Boxer, Gore, Kennedy and others made concerning WMD's in '01 (and before)??

        In my opinion, when liberals complain about "the big lie" of WMD's in Iraq, they need to remember that those "big lies" were coming out of the chief liberals too!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by rixhex56 (May 23, 2006 1:47 pm ET)
             

          The “faulty claims” are those that blame the pre-war intelligence reports. The problem was not that the intelligence reports were bad; it was that the intelligence of the highest-ranking people in the administration was bad. Rather than using the intelligence reports to formulate good policy, this Bush administration used only those parts of the intelligence reports that fit the policy they were already set on, and they ignored the parts of those reports that did not tell them what they WANTED to hear.

          The faulty claims are those that blame someone else for the lies these high-ranking officials reported. The media needs to step up and hold these people accountable for these lies. Nobody believed Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, or that he was attempting to acquire them, or that he had stockpiles of chemical weapons – there was ample evidence available to debunk all of those claims. The Bush people simply ignored that intelligence, and instead relied on their own stupidity and “faulty claims”.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (May 22, 2006 3:15 pm ET)
         

      a ton of articles in the british press at the time that cast doubts on these claims as they came up. and the chief of british intelligence came away from a couple days visit with the clear impression that the evidence for wmd was "thin" and the facts were being "fixed around the policy". the "failures" were by the bush administration to actually look at the evidence available. it's why this talk of reform at the cia is a crock.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by spintronic (May 22, 2006 4:07 pm ET)
         

      A lot of this sounds like "dogpile on the CIA"

      "Yeah, let's fabricate reasons to attack another country and if it goes badly we can pass the blame on to the intelligence gathering sector"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (May 22, 2006 4:32 pm ET)
         

      Don't they worry that the CIA could strike back? Hmmm....

      Easy refute to the "faulty intelligence" arguement (or the "everyone else thought so too") is that other than the UK, none of the major nations (including Muslim nations) participated in the "Coalition of the Willing". Where were Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, etc... What did they know that we didn't?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rixhex56 (May 23, 2006 12:16 am ET)
           

        ...which was that Iraq had no WMD, and you can go to this link

        www.thememoryhole.org

        to see that in 2001 Powell and Rice were stating exactly what we knew: Saddam Hussein had no WMD, we knew it, and after 9/11 Bush changed his story to accommodate his desire to invade Iraq to avenge his father.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (May 22, 2006 7:38 pm ET)
         

      A new methodology has emerged in television journalism over the last couple of decades. The plan now is to state Republican talking points & keep repeating them until they have been completely debunked. Once that occurs, wait a few weeks & then start repeating them again. By then, most people can't remember what turned out to be true & what didn't. They'll simply believe the latest version that's been presented to them by th MSM.

      At least, that's what the MSM HOPE will happen. Poll results, however, are now suggesting that more & more people are no longer trusting what they hear. There is a growing influx of people turning to the internet as their main source of news & information.

      Common sense dictates that, if these MSM outlets want to hang on to their market share, they had better stop spinning the issues in favor of thr pugs & jump back into the 'reality-based' community.

      But I ain't gonna' hold my breath waiting.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by j0hnwi11iams (May 22, 2006 7:54 pm ET)
         

      Because for Republicans, NO news is GOOD news.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (May 22, 2006 8:32 pm ET)
         

      Iran is a lot closer to a nuclear device than our intelligence says. Who is correct here?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dougsomers (May 23, 2006 3:19 am ET)
           

        and Fox News will tell you!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by sasami (May 23, 2006 4:57 am ET)
           

        ..because Israel has no interest whatsoever in seeing the Iranian government overthrown.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by jbhfour (May 23, 2006 1:21 pm ET)
           

        That's for sure. Assume the opposite of what they say- if they say Iran is *this* close, then it's years away. They DEFINETLY have "a dog in the hunt" and don't mind manipulating the US to accomplish thier goals.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by charlesbhoff8864 (May 23, 2006 1:14 am ET)
         

      Any nation that want nuclear weapon doesnot enrich uranium as you need 50 to 60 kilogram of U-235 to make one nuclear bomb. One mertic ton(1000 kilogram) have only 3% U-235 or 30 kilogram so you need to enrich 2 metric ton of Uranium. All nation that make nuclear weapon turn U-238 into Pu-239 in which you only needed 6 to 10 kilogram to make than nuclear weapon and by adding trition(H-3) you can increase the nuclear yeild of Pu-239 by 10 time. The maxium yeild of Pu-239 is 50 kiloton of TnT compass to the maxium yeild of U-235 of 15 kiloton of TnT. Iran didnot have to use nuclear weapon against Iraq as it was winning the war and the real enemy of Iran was the USA.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by skidancin8332 (May 23, 2006 1:15 am ET)
         

      With the IAEA recently claiming to have found traces of highly enriched uranium in Iran, the Israeli case could well be bolstered, unless the IAEA confirms that the source was from outside of Iran, somehow, as it speculated could be the case.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • ABC
    ABC News
    ABCNews
    7 W. 66th St.
    New York, NY 10023