codeorama Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 CIA review faults prewar plans By John Diamond, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq. Policymakers worried more about making the case for the war, particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than planning for the aftermath, the report says. The report was written by a team of four former CIA analysts led by former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr. "In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right," they write. White House spokesman Fred Jones said Tuesday that the administration considered many scenarios involving postwar instability in Iraq. The report's assertion "has been vehemently disputed," he said. Then-CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report after the invasion of Iraq. The authors had access to highly classified intelligence data and produced three reports concerning Iraq intelligence. Only the third has been released in declassified form. It is published in the current issue of Studies in Intelligence, a CIA quarterly written primarily for intelligence professionals. The report was finished in July 2004 just as Tenet was ending his tenure as CIA director. The report determined that beyond the errors in assessing Iraqi weaponry, "intelligence produced prior to the war on a wide range of other issues accurately addressed such topics as how the war would develop and how Iraqi forces would or would not fight." The intelligence "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda; calculated the impact of the war on oil markets; and accurately forecast the reactions of ethnic and tribal factions in Iraq." The postwar struggle pitting Sunni Arabs against Shiite and Kurdish factions has led some analysts, including Saud al-Faisal, foreign minister of neighboring Saudi Arabia, to conclude Iraq is at risk of splitting into three pieces. Kerr's report agrees with other government reviews in concluding that prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty. Costly U.S. spy satellites were of little help, providing "accurate information on relatively few critical issues." Intelligence analysts, the report says, failed to question their assumptions that Iraq had maintained chemical and biological weapons and had reactivated nuclear weapons development. Doubts about the intelligence received little attention, "hastening the conversion of heavily qualified judgments into accepted fact." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-11-cia-iraq-report_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Hmm... no interest in this, eh? More liberal media propoganda, I suppose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 So we should listen to the CIA now, but we should have ignored them when they told Bush that WMDs were a "slam dunk". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I just love these "pick & choose" stories that continue the "Bush Bad" mantra. No new ideas... no solutions... just... "Bush bad" crys. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I just love these "pick & choose" stories that continue the "Bush Bad" mantra. No new ideas... no solutions... just... "Bush bad" crys. :laugh:You refuse to acknowledge mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Nothin to see here. . . Move along now, move along. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 I think one of the points in the article was that Bush and company were only interesed in anything that justified the war, rather than the truth. That's what I find concerning at least. It seems that Bush and company wanted to go to war, for what ever reason, and then only wanted to hear any intelligence that back up that plan. There were many posts here that suspected as much a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 The intelligence "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda" Things that make you go Hmmmmmm..... I need to read the public version for more info. (edit: Cant find the full CIA article this story is drawn from. If anyone can find it, please post. The wording there is intriguing and ssems to indicate some links were found. Otherwise It should read "supposed" or "lack of". Frankly, I'm surprised I'm the only one to comment on this line and I find it to be horible that nothing more was said of this in the article.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Don't you giys get it? From the moment this man took office, it has always been about Iraq. He was going to find a reason to invade that country no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Things that make you go Hmmmmmm..... I need to read the public version for more info. (edit: Cant find the full CIA article this story is drawn from. If anyone can find it, please post. The wording there is intriguing and ssems to indicate some links were found. Otherwise It should read "supposed" or "lack of". Frankly, I'm surprised I'm the only one to comment on this line and I find it to be horible that nothing more was said of this in the article.) __________________. Only you could read that entire article, read about how they were wrong on BOTH accounts (Pre-war intel & post-invasion handling), read about how they focused on the wrong part of their intel, and ignored the right intel (ie the aftermath) and come out with the impression that Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda are "interesting" :doh: "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda; You do realize that "preceptive analysis" could also infer that there was NO working relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda don't you??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Only you could read that entire article, read about how they were wrong on BOTH accounts (Pre-war intel & post-invasion handling), read about how they focused on the wrong part of their intel, and ignored the right intel (ie the aftermath) and come out with the impression that Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda are "interesting" :doh:You do realize that "preceptive analysis" could also infer that there was NO working relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda don't you??? Only you would ignore ANY posibility that there was a link that could have been a great threat to the United States. :jerk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Only you would ignore ANY posibility that there was a link that could have been a great threat to the United States. :jerk: And only you would treat an obscure possibility without a shred of evidence as a credible theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 And only you would treat an obscure possibility without a shred of evidence as a credible theory. What do you call that mural in his sig pic then??? That's all we need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Thread 123 on the invasion and reasons... Guh-reat! The intelligence "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda; calculated the impact of the war on oil markets; and accurately forecast the reactions of ethnic and tribal factions in Iraq." Not to be rude to the man that should have been fired.. Raise your hand if you COULD NOT have predicted: The impact of the war on oil markets and forcast the ethnic and tribal reactions to each other in Iraq... :dunce: :dunce: It like predicting that Prison inmates are not happy about being in Jail.. I hope they didnt spend a lot of time and effort on those theories or its just another fraud waste and abuse of time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 It like predicting that Prison inmates are not happy about being in Jail.. I hope they didnt spend a lot of time and effort on those theories or its just another fraud waste and abuse of time... Actually, the studies I enjoy best are the ones the religous right use to justify using federal law enforcement to try to get rid of porn, because they've got these studies that say that people in jail like porn, therefore obviously porn causes criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Actually, the studies I enjoy best are the ones the religous right use to justify using federal law enforcement to try to get rid of porn, because they've got these studies that say that people in jail like porn, therefore obviously porn causes criminals. To be fair, feminists on the left want to get rid of porn because of their won studies showing it's exploitative of women and encourages violence to and objectification of women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Only you would ignore ANY posibility that there was a link that could have been a great threat to the United States. :jerk: And only you would rush to start a war based on any possibility of a threat without making sure.... no wait, Bush would do that too. Well, that makes two of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.