Washingtonpost.com: Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq

[Destino]

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."

Please read the article before commenting.

Click Here for the full story.

[Larry]

(OK, so I haven't read it yet.)

It's been posted, here, for some time that Bush never even asked for a NIE on Iraq leading up to the invasion. Congress demanded one, and was supposedly very surprised that it hadn't been done.

Flip side, though: Congress asked for one, got it, allegedly read it (this is Congress we're talking about), and authorised invasion anyway. So it may be a reach to jump to the conclusion that we wouldn't have invaded if Bush had read the report.

[RabidFan]

(OK, so I haven't read it yet.)

It's been posted, here, for some time that Bush never even asked for a NIE on Iraq leading up to the invasion. Congress demanded one, and was supposedly very surprised that it hadn't been done.

Flip side, though: Congress asked for one, got it, allegedly read it (this is Congress we're talking about), and authorised invasion anyway. So it may be a reach to jump to the conclusion that we wouldn't have invaded if Bush had read the report.

I don't think that was the conclusion the article was making though. I believe it was moreso that the admin was moving forward regardless of intel or advice to the contrary and that they weren't interested in the details of planning for the post sadaam occupancy as much and taking him down and its symbolism. My quick two cents.

[Kilmer17]

When's his book due to be released?

The article and claims made in it are not new. Nor are they disputed. I'd like to hear his opinion on the CIA's assesment of a "slam dunk". It's also interesting that there has NEVER been an argument made that people were claiming that they new 100% certainty that Iraq DID NOT have WMDs. It's always veiled in the context of "well they might not have them".

I know that asks to prove a negative, but that is precicely the situation we faced.

If-

A- Saddam had them. We had to go to war

B- He didnt have them. We didnt HAVE to go to war

C- We didnt know for certain either way. We had to go to war.

[Thiebear]

I knew for a fact Kobe was going to score 82 points the night he did it..

I'll let you know the next time he does it afterwards also..

[Destino]

When's his book due to be released?

Probably soon. The man just left his job, a book would probably do wonders for his cash position.

The article and claims made in it are not new.

The important thing is precisely that these claims have been made beofre. As the number of intell officials making the same claims grow, the response that their claims are merely politically motivated attacks becomes less viable.

Nor are they disputed.

Of course they are disputed.

"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.""

The accusation that the administration had decided on war and simply went looking to make its case has most certainly been disputed. It's also IMO the most serious of all accusations being made.

Then there is also the claim that the messy aftermath was expected but ignored by administration officials.

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."

I know that asks to prove a negative, but that is precicely the situation we faced.

If-

A- Saddam had them. We had to go to war

B- He didnt have them. We didnt HAVE to go to war

C- We didnt know for certain either way. We had to go to war.

Why do you say "we had to go to war"?

"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."

Please note the bolded section. The guy in charge of "coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East" is basically saying that your conclusion is incorrect.

[Predicto]

If-

A- Saddam had them. We had to go to war

B- He didnt have them. We didnt HAVE to go to war

C- We didnt know for certain either way. We had to go to war.

A - agreed

B - agreed

C - Disagree. Further investigation was in order, not immediate war.

[nelms]

This is like deja vu, all over again.

[Predicto]

Many people, of course, have suggested that this might be the case on this board before.

We are in a pickle now, as to how to respond to this thread.

If we say: "A ha! I knew it all along" then some posters will accuse us of hating America, of taking great joy in criticizing the President, of undermining the efforts of the troops on the ground, or simply of being traitors.

It's kind of a no-win situation, so I'm just going to wait and see what develops instead of commenting further.

[Kilmer17]

"Please note the bolded section. The guy in charge of "coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East" is basically saying that your conclusion is incorrect."

He is claiming that NOW.

But at the time did he?

And even if he had, others agreed with my position. Those with the power to make the decision.

[Predicto]

"Please note the bolded section. The guy in charge of "coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East" is basically saying that your conclusion is incorrect."

He is claiming that NOW.

But at the time did he?

I imagine that his book will tell us.

And even if he had, others agreed with my position. Those with the power to make the decision.

Yes, and because this is a democracy, we have the power to question their motives and the truthfullness with which they presented the case to us and to Congress.

[twa]

We entrust the president and congress to make judgement calls such as this,both agreed to use force.

Therefore unless evidence is put forth that it was intentionaly corrupted,this is simply second guessing motives.

The argument that the inteligence agencies knew what was wanted and therefore provided it is weak, and would demonstrate incompetence or treason.

[Redskins Diehard]

My question is if the whole world thought he didn't have them, why the sanctions? Seriously, those sanctions were literally killing Joe Iraqi. In my opinion, if there was no justification for the war, then there was little justification for the sanctions. Further investigation??? How long were we planning on "investigating" and "inspecting" the guy? I said this before the invasion, it was time for us to **** or get off the pot.

[Destino]

My question is if the whole world thought he didn't have them, why the sanctions? Seriously, those sanctions were literally killing Joe Iraqi. In my opinion, if there was no justification for the war, then there was little justification for the sanctions. Further investigation??? How long were we planning on "investigating" and "inspecting" the guy? I said this before the invasion, it was time for us to **** or get off the pot.

I don't think the argument was made in this article that Iraq did not have WMD. In fact the opposite was stated that agencies incorrectly came to the conclusion that Saddam did in fact have WMD.

[Destino]

"Please note the bolded section. The guy in charge of "coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East" is basically saying that your conclusion is incorrect."

He is claiming that NOW.

But at the time did he?

I think a fair reading of the bolded statement is that had you looked for a consensus it would have been either to avoid war or prepare heavily for a messy aftermath. His position is that this type of consensus or any conclusion that ran contrary to the case for war was unwelcome and unwanted.

And even if he had, others agreed with my position. Those with the power to make the decision.

That much is obvious.