Senate report on pre-war intelligence

[SecDef]

The full report is here.

Some interesting tidbits for the impatient:

The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

So, once again, it wasn't faulty intelligence, it was the fault of an administration without intelligence.

 

[Benonymous]

Time for denial

If the Republican party lovers can bring themselves..... we need some denial here folks. Lay it on thick because you need to convince us that over four thousand dead and a cost of over half a trillion dollars and counting was worth invading a far distant country. Here's the count so far.

No WMD
No connection with 9/11
Cost: Over 500,000,000,000 dollars
29,000 US troops wounded
4000+ dead
Over 20 dictatorships in other countries unchallenged
No clear path to victory
No plan for victory
Over five years of conflict
Multiple tours/deployments of exhausted troops
Massive profiteering by military contractors
Government mercenaries deployed and able to murder at will

This is so depressing I cant go on! What a total and utter WOFTAM!
But let's get some denial going here! Thats what the situation truly needs.

 

[GoSlash27]

And in other news, the Senate committee on natural resources has concluded that the sky is blue and rain is wet.

I don't think the administration operated with a lack of intelligence. They just really wanted this war.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

And the Democratic Party lover's denial machine is astonishing.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

 

[TheBluesMan]

Democrats that I know just *hate it* when they're off on one of their anti-Bush rants, and I ask them "Why haven't the democrats, who are in control of congress, cut off funding for the conflict in Iraq?" It's not like he's a king and there are no checks and balances...

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on the pre-war intelligence issue. It is quite possible that those in command had faulty intelligence. What bothers me is that once they realized that their intelligence was faulty, they did nothing about it. Their strategy in the middle east didn't change and hasn't changed since. And all the points in Benonymous' post are true as much as it pains me to admit.

But do not fall victim to the democrat's anti-war schtick now that it's fashionable to be anti-war. Look at their voting records on issues related to the Iraq conflict. Both Dems and Repubs got us into this. Nobody deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore.

 

[JWT]

A rehash of old news in the interest of making political gain. The Dems and Reps had insight to the same intelligence info and and voted to proceed with the war accordingly.

 

[yettoblaster]

I doubt it was ever about anything except the neo-conservatives idea that to unite the country against a perceived foe would be a fine agenda for keeping the powers that be in power.

 

[SecDef]

But do not fall victim to the democrat's anti-war schtick now that it's fashionable to be anti-war. Look at their voting records on issues related to the Iraq conflict. Both Dems and Repubs got us into this. Nobody deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore.

I'm not trying to say this march to war wasn't a path taken by both sides of the aisle. Just pointing out that the guys leading the march, and the ones taking it to the public had it wrong.

The dems have shown repeatedly that they don't have the guts to stand up to a bully. However, equivocation doesn't make things right.

 

[TwoXForr]

Ah Benonymous

Over 20 dictatorships in other countries unchallenged

This is a weak point. What other dictators around the world would you approve of going after with military force? If we went up against the North Koreans would you approve? Or maybe Iran. Give me a clue here as to what dictatorships we should have gone after.


As for the cost: What President ever knows the cost of sending troops in harms way. Did Roosevelt, Did Truman, Did Bush Sr.? Where those wars worth the cost of the troops, treasure and time. (Retorical question, no need to reply to that, just something to think about)

One question though:

Did Saddam have links to other terrorist groups, and if so, did those terrorist groups ever once kill Americans or target Americans?

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Democrats that I know just *hate it* when they're off on one of their anti-Bush rants, and I ask them "Why haven't the democrats, who are in control of congress, cut off funding for the conflict in Iraq?" It's not like he's a king and there are no checks and balances...

The sad truth is two-fold. First, Bush is guility of lying up an excuse to take this nation to war and any one but the most fervent of Bush apologists will agree to this. Second, while Bush has been practically caught with his hand in the cookie jar, the Democrats are too weak and spineless to do any thing about it.

As mush as I disdain Bush, I believe the Dems are just as guility for their continued allowance of this war.

 

[GoSlash27]

CHL,
Nice retort; the Dems are just as bad.
Is that the new rallying cry? "Vote Republican! We're just as bad as Nancy Pelosi !"?

So what you're saying is that Dubya acted just like a liberal throughout this debacle. In that case, I agree with you.

 

[johnbt]

"This is so depressing I cant go on!"

And then you do.


"They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war."

Read that part again, the part about "by the Intelligence Community"

John

 

[johnbt]

I agree with this too.

"The Dems and Reps had insight to the same intelligence info and and voted to proceed with the war accordingly."

 

[tube_ee]

Interesting...

the intelligence services gave all of the information they had, pro and con, to the policy makers.

The policy makers gave all of the "pro" information to the Congress and the public, and kept the "con" information to themselves.

The "con" information turned out to be correct.

Ergo, it's the intelligence services' fault.

Nope, sorry... can't connect those dots.

--Shannon

 

[toybox99615]

did they really have the same access or

did the administration provide selective information to the congress. We''l probably will not ever know the full truth about what was given to congress compared to what was available when and who had the first look to establish the base for spin.

What we do know is the white House get a lot more info daily than all the congressional delegates get daily. Most congressional delegates are far from the loop when nit come to daily intelligence on strategic military issues.

The only sure thing is the general public, the American citizen) was certainly spoon feed a lot of misinformation. The source to the American voters was the White House and allied administration support staff.

 

[SecDef]

The Congress: "Hey, White House, did we have the same information as you?"

White House: "Executive Privilege"

TC: "Ok"

WH: "Oh, and ignore Scott's new book, please."

TC: "Done and Done!"

WH: "XXOO"

TC: "Back atcha!" [pistol wink]

 

[Fremmer]

The War continues because Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the democrats continue to fund the War. The democrats have continued to fund the War because they want our troops to remain in Iraq. The democrats have provided the funding for the War during the last two years. Thus allowing the democrats to complain about the War for the last two years.

 

[SecDef]

"The War continues because Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the CONGRESS continue to fund the War."

Fixed that for you.

 

[Fremmer]

You just "fixed it" to remove the emphasis on the democrats. The democrats are the majority party in congress. They could stop the funding for the War if they wanted to. Instead, the democrats continue to fund the War. Because the democrats want to continue the War.

Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, all of the democrats have made sure to fund the War so that it can continue:

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.

"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Yet Obama has voted for all of the president's war funding requests since coming to the Senate, and is poised to vote in favor of the latest request when it comes to the Senate floor this spring. Liberal groups have demanded that lawmakers cut off funds for the war as a way to force its end, but Obama has joined most Democrats in the House and Senate in saying he would not take such a move.

 

[Benonymous]

It's a no-win, no-win situation

To answer your question TwoXForr

This is a weak point. What other dictators around the world would you approve of going after with military force? If we went up against the North Koreans would you approve? Or maybe Iran. Give me a clue here as to what dictatorships we should have gone after.

Answer: NONE.

The arguments in this thread are all well considered and factual. Neiter the Democrats or the Republicans wish to end the war that they both approved starting.

What a thoroughly corrupt political sytem America has.

But here's a bit of fun. I saw a Republican spokesperson on TV tonight extolling the good of the current situation. Lowest casualties in four months and the Iraqi army in control of Basra.
All this progress in what was a completely stable country prior the American invasion.
They never had it so good!
Shock and Awe!!!!!!