THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006; A01



The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

White House officials did not respond to a request to comment for this article. They have vehemently denied accusations that the administration manipulated intelligence to generate public support for the war.

"Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a White House briefing in November. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

Republicans and Democrats in Congress continue to argue over whether, or how, to investigate accusations the administration manipulated prewar intelligence.

Yesterday, the Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a statement to counter what it described as "the continuing Iraq pre-war intelligence myths," including charges that Bush " 'misused' intelligence to justify the war." Writing that it was perfectly reasonable for the president to rely on the intelligence he was given, the paper concluded, "it is actually the critics who are misleading the American people."

In his article, Pillar said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results. "Such attempts are rare," he writes, "and when they do occur . . . are almost always unsuccessful."

Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."

The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."

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."

In an interview, Pillar said the prewar assessments "were not crystal-balling, but in them we were laying out the challenges that would face us depending on decisions that were made."

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."

That assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerrilla war or civil war. It was leaked to the media in September in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bush, who had told voters that the mission in Iraq was going well, described the assessment to reporters as "just guessing."

Shortly thereafter, Pillar was identified in a column by Robert D. Novak as having prepared the assessment and having given a speech critical of Bush's Iraq policy at a private dinner in California. The column fed the White House's view that the CIA was in effect working against the Bush administration, and that Pillar was part of that. A columnist in the Washington Times in October 2004 called him "a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism."

Leaked information "encouraged some administration supporters to charge intelligence officers (including me) with trying to sabotage the president's policies," Pillar wrote. One effect of that, he said, was to limit challenges to consensus views on matters such as the Iraqi weapons program.

When asked why he did not quit given his concerns, Pillar said in the interview that he was doing "other worthwhile work in the nation's interest" and never thought of resigning over the issue.

Pillar suggests that the CIA and other intelligence agencies, now under Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, remain within the executive branch but "be given greater independence."

The model he cites is the Federal Reserve, overseen by governors who serve fixed terms. That, he said, would reduce "both the politicization of the intelligence community's own work and the public misuse of intelligence by policymakers."

(10) 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;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

I think he does that because some members here just can' quite get it through their heads. It's like they read the letters, but fail to understand the words.

When posters don't try to mangle reasons for the US going to war, then he can stop making those posts. Perhaps you can instead busy yourself observing why he has to re-post the same information.

We understand the words, just disagree with the sh*tty logic. We've argued why back and forth for more than a year. He refuses to listen to anyone that doesn't support his world-view that going to war in Iraq was the correct thing to do, despite any WMD.

There is no why he has to post the information, other than the fact that he's a stubborn old SOB who doesn't want to see the fact that he was lied to about a lot of things.

Cycloptichorn

<Yawn>

Believe it or not, it is possible for two intelligent people to start with the same information and come to different conclusions.

Being tedious, however, is definitely a character flaw.

DrewDad wrote:

<Yawn>

Believe it or not, it is possible for two intelligent people to start with the same information and come to different conclusions.

Being tedious, however, is definitely a character flaw.

One person's tedium is another person's persistance. Failure to be persistent when one knows from a preponderance of valid evidence -- not merely opinion -- one is right, is a more serious character flaw.

The tedious repetition of posts that allege that the only valid reason that could have justified invasion of Iraq was the falsely alleged Iraq possession of WMD, is a clear and tedious contradiction of reality.

Afghanistan did not possess WMD -- and no one claimed it did -- at the time of its invasion. The valid and sufficient reason for invading Iraq is identical with the valid and sufficient reason for invading Afghanistan.

13. Joint Resolution of Congress: Passed September 14, 2001. To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

Iraq election results confirmed

The final certified results of Iraq's election have been announced, almost two months after votes were cast.

Electoral Commission head Adil al-Lami said 128 seats were won by the conservative Shia coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.

It will be the dominant party in the new assembly, but failed to get an outright majority.

The figures confirm the provisional outcome announced last month. The new assembly must now meet within 15 days.

UN representative Ashraf Qazi welcomed the results.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We understand the words, just disagree with the sh*tty logic. We've argued why back and forth for more than a year. He refuses to listen to anyone that doesn't support his world-view that going to war in Iraq was the correct thing to do, despite any WMD.

There is no why he has to post the information, other than the fact that he's a stubborn old SOB who doesn't want to see the fact that he was lied to about a lot of things.

Cycloptichorn

Let me see...where do I start?
1) Just because the logic does not fall into lockstep with yours does not make it, as you put it 'sh*tty'. It makes it different from yours...try to learn the difference. Logic has many variables and it would serve you well to remember that.

2)When you speak of arguing back and forth and then bellyaching that ican711nm doesn't listen to people supporting his view; you might want to take a step back and look at yourself since you engage in the same manner of behavior from the other side. If you feel it is okay to keep screaming your views and expecting the entire universe to agree with you then he is entitled to those same rights. Deal with it Cyclo.

3)Speaking of stubborn...invest in a mirror. You too have been lied to Cycloptichorn...again and again by your Democratic buddies. Why is it that you fail to see the true ugly nature of your own pals? Must have something to do with your own innate ignorance. Since ignorance is bliss, I would imagine you must be quite happy.

...
In your opinion. Which is what makes it tedious. TTFN.

...

Actually if you go back and read on the previous thread of Iraq you would see that for the most part, the "other side" has quit going back and forth with Ican, yet still he keeps posting the same already argued information as though it has never been argued here on both sides from every conceivable angle. We think his is bogus and he thinks ours is bogus, but we have stoped going on about it other than to comment about his going on about it because he hogs up the thread with this repeated stuff day and after day. Those are just the facts of the matter.

TWO VALID AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ

Of the 23 "whereases" (i.e., reasons) Congress gave in its resolution, “Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,” only these following six were subsequently completely verified. Of these six verified reasons, reason (10) and reason (11) were each an individually independently sufficient reason for invading Iraq (boldfaced numbers in the following inserted by me to simplify reference):

Congress wrote:

(10) 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;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Reference 14: Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114)
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

I vote that we rename this thread' THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD' to the 'I know it all and you don't know dick' thread'.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We understand the words, just disagree with the sh*tty logic. We've argued why back and forth for more than a year. He refuses to listen to anyone that doesn't support his world-view that going to war in Iraq was the correct thing to do, despite any WMD.

There is no why he has to post the information, other than the fact that he's a stubborn old SOB who doesn't want to see the fact that he was lied to about a lot of things.

Cycloptichorn

Let me see...where do I start?
1) Just because the logic does not fall into lockstep with yours does not make it, as you put it 'sh*tty'. It makes it different from yours...try to learn the difference. Logic has many variables and it would serve you well to remember that.

2)When you speak of arguing back and forth and then bellyaching that ican711nm doesn't listen to people supporting his view; you might want to take a step back and look at yourself since you engage in the same manner of behavior from the other side. If you feel it is okay to keep screaming your views and expecting the entire universe to agree with you then he is entitled to those same rights. Deal with it Cyclo.

3)Speaking of stubborn...invest in a mirror. You too have been lied to Cycloptichorn...again and again by your Democratic buddies. Why is it that you fail to see the true ugly nature of your own pals? Must have something to do with your own innate ignorance. Since ignorance is bliss, I would imagine you must be quite happy.