Report Says Pentagon Manipulated Intel

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
AP Report

WASHINGTON -- A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."


The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.

The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.

Levin has asserted that President Bush took the country to war in Iraq based in part on intelligence assessments -- some shaped by Feith's office -- that were off base and did not fully reflect the views of the intelligence community.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Levin said the IG report is "very damning" and shows a Pentagon policy shop trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam.

Levin in September 2005 had asked the inspector general to determine whether Feith's offices' activities were appropriate, and if not, what remedies should be pursued.

The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion.

Asked to comment on the IG's findings, Feith said in a telephone interview that he had not seen the report but was pleased to hear that it concluded his office's activities were neither illegal nor unauthorized. He took strong issue, however, with the IG's finding that some activities had been "inappropriate."

"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," Feith said.

Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy -- the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- were inappropriate but not unauthorized.

"Clearly, the inspector general's office was willing to challenge the policy office and even stretch some points to be able to criticize it," Feith said, adding that he felt this amounted to subjective "quibbling" by the IG.

Feith left his Pentagon post in August 2005 and now teaches at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He has maintained throughout the controversy over the role of the Office of Special Plans, as well as other small groups that were created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, that their intelligence activities were prudent, authorized and useful in challenging some of the intelligence analysis of the CIA.

At the center of the prewar intelligence controversy was the work of a small number of Pentagon officials from Feith's office and the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who reviewed CIA intelligence analyses and put together their own report. When they briefed Rumsfeld on their report in August 2002 -- a period when Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were ratcheting up their warnings about the gravity of the Iraq threat -- Rumsfeld directed them to also brief CIA Director George Tenet.

Their presentation, which included assertions about links between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government, contained a criticism that the intelligence community was ignoring or underplaying its own raw reports on such potential links.

The controversy has simmered for several years. The Senate Intelligence Committee included the Office of Special Plans in its investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq, but the committee did not finish that portion of its work when it released the first part of its findings in July 2004.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it seems the PNAC armor does have some weaknesses. What Pat Roberts never finished, Carl Levin will have to.

Let the hearings begin.


 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
My tax payer bucks should go to provide HONEST intelligence---and Feith& Wolfie and those of that ilk are huge liar who should not be employed by this or any government.---I have been robbed.---so have the rest of this in a boonedoogle called Iraq.---these folks should be up for CRIMINAL CHARGES.

Or the other way to look at it---do we want a department of defense or do we want a department of war?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
Bump for all the cheerleaders around here who have been sounding like they've been in comas the last 6 years...


Manipulated = lied


Damn right.

 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I imagine Gen and PJ holding their fingers to their ears and screaming "LALALALALALALALA" at the top of their lungs :D
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
Gee, with such fervent support given to the admin over this issue so often in the past, you'd think at least one could break away from the open-season on Democratic nominees currently en vogue to sound off on this story.








 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Feith seemed to lose interest in the war right after the fall of Baghdad. He just couldnt't be bothered with the drudgery of putting Iraq back together.

He's always been a "big picture" guy. Spent a lot of time on philosophy and called it strategy.

A lot of what went to hell in a handbasket in the early days of the occupation on the military side can be laid at his feet. Was it just laziness? or he just moved on to setting a "new reality" for Iran?

It may be that he just simply hates Arabs.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who said during the Q&A session after his speech to the New America Foundation on Oct 19, 2005, that Feith was "one of the dumbest people he's ever met in his life."

The administration wasn't looking for the truth, they were looking for justification for their policy.

When the answers that came back didn't fit what they were looking for they had OSP get the raw intelligence from CIA, cherrypick the evidence and do their own analysis.

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: kage69
Gee, with such fervent support given to the admin over this issue so often in the past, you'd think at least one could break away from the open-season on Democratic nominees currently en vogue to sound off on this story.
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Expect more such investigations into the pre-war intel and more allegations of manipulation. Eventually, the self-righteous calls for proof that the Administration lied their way into the Iraq war will dwindle to nothing.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,744
40,186
136
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.


That certainly seems to be the case.

Thank goodness we have stalwart bastions of integrity and objectivity like FOX Noise to give us repeated, unending coverage of real news that really affects America - and by that I mean the death of Anna Nicole Smith and the debate over who the real father of her child is!










 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
ummm I have made about 3 posts in the last few days, been busy.
Sorry that I am missing all the fun.

This is bad news. I guess the question, and I have not read all the details, is who made the choice to manipulate the intel?
Was this a case of group think getting the best of them? "We know they are guilty, look at all this evidence and what it PROVES"
Or were they told to lie? Or maybe they thought that they were expected to lie?
(Plus intel is often wrong. Remember the aspirin factory? Or the Chinese embassy? Or the idea before Gulf War 1 that Iraq would put up a fierce fight?)

If you guys are trying to link this repost directly to Bush you still have a long ways to go.
Even if Rumsfeld came out tomorrow and said "It's my fault, I pushed them to find evidence of Iraq's wrong doings." That still does not mean Bush is guilty of anything.

Right or wrong Presidents usually get away with the misdeeds of people who work under them. Has always been the case. I doubt that will change in the future.

BTW: you will never see BOTH Bush and Cheney impeached at the same time. You MIGHT get one and then the other, or get one to resign etc. But there is no way we ditch them both and put Pelosi in charge. I think there would be a lot of Democrats who would reject the idea of getting rid of them both at same time. It would essentially be saying 'we don't care about the 2004 election' and want a Democrat in charge.
 
Sep 14, 2005
110
0
0
The purpose of the Office of Special Plans has been known for a long time. It's primary function was to generate the justification for the Iraq adventure following 9/11, regardless of where the evidence led. They were basically an officially sanctioned propaganda office that the executive branch used to sway the populace.

It's unfortunate that this information has been known for so long, well before the 04 elections, yet it takes an internal investigation before the skeptics bother to face the facts. Judging by this thread, most are still in denial.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
61
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is bad news. I guess the question, and I have not read all the details, is who made the choice to manipulate the intel?
Three guesses... From the article at the OP's link:
Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.
.
.
Gimble responded that at issue was that the information supplied by Feith's office in briefings to the National Security Council and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney was "provided without caveats" that there were varying opinions on its reliability.

Gimble's report said Feith's office had made assertions "that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community."
.
.
The 2004 report from the Sept. 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror organization before the U.S. invasion.
.
.
... Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy -- the top policy position under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld...
Who do you think "made the choice to manipulate the intel?" :roll:
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
(Plus intel is often wrong. Remember the aspirin factory? Or the Chinese embassy? Or the idea before Gulf War 1 that Iraq would put up a fierce fight?)
OMGWTFBBQ. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! It's the dreaded "CLINTON DID IT" straw man, again, and again, and again.... :roll:

and again, and again, and again.... :roll:

and again, and again, and again.... :roll:
If you guys are trying to link this repost directly to Bush you still have a long ways to go.
Even if Rumsfeld came out tomorrow and said "It's my fault, I pushed them to find evidence of Iraq's wrong doings." That still does not mean Bush is guilty of anything.
Assuming your absurd proposition is true, if Bush didn't know the info was skewed, he should be impeached for terminal stupidity.
Right or wrong Presidents usually get away with the misdeeds of people who work under them. Has always been the case. I doubt that will change in the future.
Nice to see that you support grand American tradtions such as the concept of equal justice under the law. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
BTW: you will never see BOTH Bush and Cheney impeached at the same time. You MIGHT get one and then the other, or get one to resign etc. But there is no way we ditch them both and put Pelosi in charge. I think there would be a lot of Democrats who would reject the idea of getting rid of them both at same time. It would essentially be saying 'we don't care about the 2004 election' and want a Democrat in charge.
They and the rest of their lying administration freaking criminals are guilty of the murder of every American troop who has died in their war of lies and guilty of treason for shredding the Constitutional rights of every American citizen.

Remember the bumper sticker from the early Nixon administration -- Get Spiro first!.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
ProfJohn said:

Right or wrong Presidents usually get away with the misdeeds of people who work under them. Has always been the case. I doubt that will change in the future.

In other words...just ignore it, others will still run us into war on cherrypicked false intel, no big deal?!

It's easy to forget, but in November 2003, after the Weekly Standard published a leaked summary of the Office of Special Plans's analysis of the Iraq-al-Qaeda question, the Pentagon immediately released an official statement distancing itself from the OSP's controversial findings. The central contention of the statement tracks with the positions taken in Douglas Feith and Eric Edelman's rebuttals, that whatever OSP did, it wasn't intelligence analysis.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee?s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.

Of course, digging through such raw reports to criticize the intelligence community was exactly what the OSP was charged with doing. And after the Pentagon released its statement, the Standard shot back its disbelief: "But make no mistake, contrary to what Defense now says, these are conclusions and this is analysis."

At the time, the Defense Department's statement merely seemed bizarre. Now, however, it appears to have had a subtler purpose than simply distancing the Pentagon from the OSP. By stating that OSP didn't perform analysis and "drew no conclusions," it's likely that the Pentagon was trying to forestall criticism of illegally performing intelligence work.

 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Its all so clear, been so clear for such a long time

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac_timeline.htm

PNAC members in prominent government positions:

Dick Cheney Vice President
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense
Douglas J. Feith (former) Undersecretary of Defense
I. Lewis Libby Vice President Cheney?s former Chief of Staff and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.
Aaron Friedberg Vice President Cheney?s deputy National Security advisor
Robert Zoelick US Deputy Secretary of State
Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State
Elliott Abrams Deputy National Security Adviser
Frank Gaffney Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
Fred C. Ikle Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
Eliot A. Cohen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
Henry S. Rowen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
William J. Bennett Presidential speech writer
Jeb Bush Governor of Florida
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President
John Bolton Ambassador to the U.N.
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. ambassador to Iraq

 

Arglebargle

Senior member
Dec 2, 2006
892
1
81
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Feith seemed to lose interest in the war right after the fall of Baghdad. He just couldnt't be bothered with the drudgery of putting Iraq back together.

He's always been a "big picture" guy. Spent a lot of time on philosophy and called it strategy.

A lot of what went to hell in a handbasket in the early days of the occupation on the military side can be laid at his feet. Was it just laziness? or he just moved on to setting a "new reality" for Iran?

It may be that he just simply hates Arabs.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who said during the Q&A session after his speech to the New America Foundation on Oct 19, 2005, that Feith was "one of the dumbest people he's ever met in his life."

The administration wasn't looking for the truth, they were looking for justification for their policy.

When the answers that came back didn't fit what they were looking for they had OSP get the raw intelligence from CIA, cherrypick the evidence and do their own analysis.

Yep. The war in Iraq was lost in the planning and first year. Chances of a outcome favorable to America are pretty dang poor. These guys were part of the cabal, and definitely had a particular axe to grind. They had always hoped to smack down Iraq, but couldn't do so without a Pearl Harbour.....

 

k1pp3r

Senior member
Aug 30, 2004
277
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
My tax payer bucks should go to provide HONEST intelligence---and Feith& Wolfie and those of that ilk are huge liar who should not be employed by this or any government.---I have been robbed.---so have the rest of this in a boonedoogle called Iraq.---these folks should be up for CRIMINAL CHARGES.

Trust me when i say, Iraq isn't the first time our tax money has gone to a lie. And bush is not the only president that this has happened under.

I'm in no way defending Bush, just making a point
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
That may be true... But it is the FIRST time where 3 Trillion was WASTED... and 3000+ Americans died. What other point do you have?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Paul O'Neill quotes Bush from the early days of his presidency, long before 9/11, on the subject of invading Iraq-

Find Me A Way.

Even though history, his father, and Clinton indicated the obvious folly of doing so, Dubya had his heart set on it, as did his Neocon friends and advisors. Everybody knew what Bush wanted in the wake of 9/11, and they obliged, kept the Boss happy.

Hey, the Boss knew it was dishonest, but it's what he wanted... and his subordinates knew it too, but they delivered, found a way... providing the plausible deniability required along the way...

They've been practitioners of the Big Lie for years, and Iraq was no different.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
That may be true... But it is the FIRST time where 3 Trillion was WASTED... and 3000+ Americans died. What other point do you have?
Uh, I don't believe we're anywhere near 3 trillion yet.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Well, maybe I got carried away... Wait another year I guess. Besides how can you put a price on 3000 deaths? Not only that be the thousands that came back wounded that we will be paying for ... for a very long time... Ommm, It might not be 3T but, it will be. Let's not forget about all the Iraqi deaths we have caused... I am sure for both sides the price tag will never really be known.



 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Expect more such investigations into the pre-war intel and more allegations of manipulation. Eventually, the self-righteous calls for proof that the Administration lied their way into the Iraq war will dwindle to nothing.

Would the US had invaded Iraq it the intel had not been manipulated?

Is it being "self-righteous" to ask how many people have died in this war that was justified using manipulated intel?


 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
The way I see it, Bush could not get the answers he wanted from the established intel community, so Cheney/Rumsfeld created a new agency to supply the appropriate answers.

This was then used as smoke and mirrors BS for the American people, the Congress, and the U.N..

There really should be consequences for this to provide a dis-incentive for doing it in the future.