In an April 30 article, Knight Ridder staff writer Matt Stearns purported to undermine a recent article by National Journal reporter Murray Waas alleging that Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) had leaked sensitive intelligence shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Stearns characterized as “unlikely” the contention that a speech given by Roberts may have hindered U.S. efforts to locate Saddam Hussein and asserted that “it probably wasn't Roberts' speech ... that put Saddam on notice.” But in casting doubt on the story, Stearns quoted only Republican supporters of Roberts, who universally claimed that Waas's sources were politically motivated. Moreover, in attempting to cast Roberts as only one of many officials disclosing this information at the time, Stearns highlighted evidence that contradicted his argument.

Waas's April 25 article highlighted a speech Roberts delivered to the National Newspaper Association on March 20, 2003 -- one day after the first U.S. air strikes on Iraq. In the address, Roberts disclosed that President Bush and the National Security Council, after learning of “human intelligence that indicated the location of Saddam Hussein and his leadership in a bunker in the suburbs of Baghdad,” had on March 19 ordered a surgical strike on the site. But in making public this information, Roberts undermined the intelligence community's efforts to track the Iraqi dictator, according to Waas's unnamed intelligence sources:

[T]hree years ago on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States.

[...]

Whether or not Roberts' comments were inadvertent, former intelligence officials said, they almost certainly tipped off the Iraqi dictator that there were spies close to him. “He [Roberts] had given up that we had a penetration of [Saddam's] inner circle,” says a former senior intelligence official. “It was the worst thing you could ever do.”

What repercussions, if any, occurred in Baghdad as a result of Roberts' comments could not be determined, according to sources.

Waas went on to quote a Republican congressional aide who “said that Roberts' comments were a 'mistake' and a 'dumb act,' and 'not done with bad intent.' The aide suggested that Roberts might have been carried away by the moment, or acted out of 'self-aggrandizement.'”

In his April 30 article, Stearns wrote, “As unlikely as it seems, Roberts' is the latest name in the seemingly endless drip, drip, drip of who leaked what to whom in the Capitol's bitter war over intelligence.” After recounting the charges leveled by Waas's sources, he asserted: “But if it's true that Saddam learning that the United States had spies on the ground hindered efforts to capture the Iraqi leader, it probably wasn't Roberts' speech to a fairly obscure trade association that put Saddam on notice.” Stearns explained how he had come to rule out this possibility: Roberts “was only one of many people talking openly about 'human intelligence' in Iraq and Saddam's whereabouts during that time.” He then cited several news reports between March 20 and March 22, 2003, that included quotes from unnamed officials discussing the March 19 strike targeting Saddam.

But in attempting to downplay Roberts's comments as delivered to an “obscure trade association” and as part of a larger chorus of similar leaks, Stearns instead highlighted the fact that the senator's speech was quoted in a March 21, 2003, Washington Post article as evidence that human intelligence had led to the attack. In fact, of the various reports Stearns listed, only the Post attributed this claim to a named source -- Roberts -- whose position of authority would appear to lend credibility to the reports. From the March 21, 2003, Post article, by staff writers Walter Pincus, Bob Woodward, and Dana Priest:

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said yesterday that “what we call human intelligence ... indicated the location of Saddam Hussein and his leadership in a bunker in the suburbs of Baghdad.”

Other officials said the CIA had gathered highly sensitive and reliable electronic and other information, using a wide range of assets -- from humans in some proximity to the compound to image-snapping satellites miles above.

Nonetheless, in keeping with his earlier assertion that the allegations in Waas's article seemed “unlikely,” Stearns went on to report without attribution that Roberts “is known to be discreet to the point of frustration when it comes to intelligence matters.” Stearns went on to quote two Republicans who support Roberts, each of whom claimed that Waas's article had been nothing more than “a planned piece of payback”:

Bill Duhnke, staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that “while anonymity seems to have given some former intelligence officials the courage to attack the chairman, it didn't give them the wisdom to acknowledge their own shortcomings. Chairman Roberts led the committee to issue a unanimous report that was very critical of the intelligence community's prewar assessments on Iraq's WMD programs.”

Duhnke added: “During the committee's examination of prewar intelligence I was told by a senior intelligence official: 'If you (the committee) criticize us (the CIA), we are going to take it personally.' Apparently, they still are. When you don't the like the message, attack the messenger.”

Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, a Republican who serves on the Intelligence Committee, also scoffed at the National Journal report, noting that it was based entirely on anonymous sources: “That's great. You can really go to the bank with those.”

He called the article part of a politically motivated campaign by Democrats and liberals -- including some in the CIA -- to undermine Roberts:

“There's no question that Sen. Roberts is under attack by Democrats who believe ... that using intelligence ... to score political points is their highest objective.”

But while Stearns noted that Waas had not responded to an email seeking comment, he gave no indication that he had discussed the issue with any Democratic lawmakers or staff members.