CIA Insider, Tyler Drumheller, Says Administration Ignored Iraq Intelligence

Ill-informed indeed, koji_K. These are not unintelligent people with highly paid unintelligent advisors. So you have to wonder how someone would think this lie would float? And with that in mind, who, with America's best interests in hand, would give the go ahead for war in Iraq with all the conflicting reports on the table? Forgive me, but you would have to be an utter idiot or have an agenda to make a decision such as what has been made against Iraq , supposedly on America's behalf, and not have reasonable doubt given the prior intel. And now we are left with an economy on a perilous perch. Thanks! Time for some civil "unrest"...we've been resting long enough. Turn the switch back on!

[edit on 24-4-2006 by antipigopolist]

Originally posted by antipigopolist
Muaddib...the point of this thread is that the current administration ignored certain intelligence. I think the most pertinent of which came directly from the IAEA report
.................

Did you even read the story I gave? That information which we got was acquired from the Italians, who passed it to the French, who then passed it to the British, who finally gave it to U.S. officials. The question remains as to whom would have made such easy to debunk documents...

We had almost exactly the same discussion as this a few months ago and one of the things that came out in that discussion was the NIE and its reference to the Niger "Yellow Cake". As I recall, the Intelligence conferences & meetings convenied to sort through the issues (and there were a great many) finally decided the Niger information should probably not be used; however, when the official results of those meetings were published by the CIA, no mention of such an agreement was made. Further, when the White House inquired about using the information (in oblique form) in the President's speech the CIA agreed to its use.

The Senate report on this matter concluded the CIA was simply inept and was responsible for approving the statements made by the President in his speech. If the CIA or DIA objected to the remarks included in the President's speech they had ample opportunity to say so, yet they did not.

Originally posted by antipigopolist
Maybe you could address how the IAEA's report delivered 2 weeks prior to invasion fits in with your "Hindsight is 20/20" logic? How soon they forget.

Sure thing, antipigopolist, as soon as you get around to addressing these?
CIA Director Tenet defends Iraq WMD intelligence
Intelligence war: Pentagon faults CIA finding on Iraqi WMD
Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk': Says Bush didn't solicit Rumsfeld, Powell on going to war
Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details: Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?

"How soon they forget."





seekerof

Originally posted by Muaddib
Did you even read the story I gave? That information which we got was acquired from the Italians, who passed it to the French, who then passed it to the British, who finally gave it to U.S. officials. The question remains as to whom would have made such easy to debunk documents...

Yes I did, Muaddib. And I agree with your source that Zahawie's visit should raise a red flag but I would fall short of using it as a pretext for war given the amount of time and resources it would take for Saddam and his regime to produce weapons-grade nuclear material capable of mass destruction proportions. And it appears to quite a few people that this war was already set partially in stone which puts an even darker cloud over this administration. My point is...again...conflicting intel should be a basis for reconsidering a move for war. Anyone that does not see the logic in this is not thinking clearly would you not agree?

Originally posted by Astronomer70

The Senate report on this matter concluded the CIA was simply inept and was responsible for approving the statements made by the President in his speech. If the CIA or DIA objected to the remarks included in the President's speech they had ample opportunity to say so, yet they did not.

What Senate report was that? Would you mind providing a link?

I personally think you guys are flogging a dead horse. The Senate investigated this matter thoroughly and found no fault with the President. Read their report--it's quite lengthy, but very revealing of exactly what happened and in what order.

Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq -- Google up the roport and read it.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by Seekerof
as you get around to addressing these?

As ronald regan would say, "Here we go again".

I see no compelling reason address why anyone here needs to address reruns of the propoganda you have attached to your links. It the president, the highest ranking public servant, that must address the publics concerns. It is his duty to do so. He's not "the decider", he is "the employee", "the employee" of the american people and he should be acting like "the employee" and provide us with accurate information concerning the WMDs in iraq.

As for ya'll "faux patriots", you continually use the same tactics of obcuring the issue at hand. This time by providing a bunch of garbage links. If you think your freaking links are so damn important, I suggest that you write something to go along with each link that gives me a compelling reason to read any of your article links, rather than "carpet linking" threads with manure.

Originally posted by df1
As for ya'll "faux patriots", you continually use the same tactics of obcuring the issue at hand. This time by providing a bunch of garbage links. If you think your freaking links are so damn important, I suggest that you write something to go along with each link that gives me a compelling reason to read any of your article links, rather than "carpet linking" threads with manure.

df1, your rhetoric is tiresome, cheap, and pointless.
Your a prime example of 'pot calling the kettle black.'
Just who in the hell are you anyways to be telling me or anyone else what you "suggest" they should do?
You do know how to "freaking" read?
If so, start clicking instead of attempting to lecture me or anyone else, for that matter.

But since it appears that your are impaired in some way, I will simply say that the point of the links, since you have failed to grasp why they were linked, was that if the Bush Administration simply ignored Iraqi intelligence, the fault would be the CIA, since it was they that mainly provided the conflicting intelligence reports to the President and his advisors that ultimately determined to go to war with Iraq.

Lets see here:
CIA Director, at the time, Tenet defends the Iraqi WMD Intelligence the Administration used to make their ulitmate decision, which he called a "slam dunk." The Pentagon blames the CIA for giving faulty intelligence given to the administration, again to ultimately go to war. And Saddam's foreign minister gave the CIA the correct information, yet the CIA did not heed it.

Oh, btw, while your attempting to think of something more venomous to respond back to me with, you might want to heed what Astronomer70 mentioned concerning the "Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq" (key conclusions quoted below) before you, as with others, go back to asserting that Bush and the administration lied about Iraq's WMDs and 'cherry-picked' the intelligence associated with their ultimate decision.

(U) Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

(U) Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

(U) Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community (1C) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized.

(U) Conclusion 4. In a few significant instances, the analysis in the National Intelligence Estimate suffers from a "layering" effect whereby assessments were built based on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of the underlying judgments.

(U) Conclusion 5. In each instance where the Committee found an analytic or collection failure, it resulted in part from a failure of Intelligence Community managers throughout their leadership chains to adequately supervise the work of their analysts and collectors. They did not encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, accurately characterize the intelligence reporting, or counsel analysts who lost their objectivity.

(U) Conclusion 7. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in several significant instances, abused its unique position in the Intelligence Community, particularly in terms of information sharing, to the detriment of the Intelligence Community's prewar analysis concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

(U) Conclusion 8. Intelligence Community analysts lack a consistent post-September 11 approach to analyzing and reporting on terrorist threats.

(U) Conclusion 9. Source protection policies within the Intelligence Community direct or encourage reports officers to exclude relevant detail about the nature of their sources. As a result, analysts community-wide are unable to make fully informed judgments about the information they receive, relying instead on nonspecific source lines to reach their assessments. Moreover, relevant operational data is nearly always withheld from analysts, putting them at a further analytical disadvantage.

Conclusion 10. The Intelligence Community relies too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests.

Conclusion 11. Several of the allegations of pressure on Intelligence Community (IC) analysts involved repeated questioning. The Committee believes that IC analysts should expect difficult and repeated questions regarding threat information. Just as the post 9/11 environment lowered the Intelligence Community's reporting threshold, it has also affected the intensity with which policymakers will review and question threat information.

More conclusions:
Full text: Conclusions of Senate's Iraq report

Intelligence community--CIA, etc--failures to the hilt. The same intelligence community that gave their conflicting intelligence to the President and his administration to be used in ultimately determing whether to go to war with Iraq. The failure and blame is self-evident, regardless of political affiliation or agenda.





seekerof

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Let's have a look...

Originally posted by Seekerof
as soon as you get around to addressing these?
CIA Director Tenet defends Iraq WMD intelligence

Thursday, February 5, 2004
"They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it."

Intelligence war: Pentagon faults CIA finding on Iraqi WMD

This is a 2004 story on the possible transfer of Iraq weapons to Syria... I'm not sure how that applies here.

Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk': Says Bush didn't solicit Rumsfeld, Powell on going to war

Monday, April 19, 2004About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.

This supports what we're talking about in this thread... bad data making its way to the top for a preconceived reason.

Iraqi diplomat gave U.S. prewar WMD details: Saddam’s foreign minister told CIA the truth, so why didn’t agency listen?

March 20, 2006
In the period before the Iraq war, the CIA and the Bush administration erroneously believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding major programs for weapons of mass destruction. Now NBC News has learned that for a short time the CIA had contact with a secret source at the highest levels within Saddam Hussein’s government, who gave them information far more accurate than what they believed. It is a spy story that has never been told before, and raises new questions about prewar intelligence.

This was one of the major issues discussed by Drumheller and supports his position that credible information for solid sources that refuted the WMD desires was ignored by the administration.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Sure thing, antipigopolist, as soon as you get around to addressing these?

You first, Seeker! But seriously, would you have completely disregarded the IAEA's report? The articles you reference pretty much compartmentalize the blame squarely on the CIA. That sort of flys in the face of the reports coming out that the administration was planning to go into Iraq for some time and were just looking for intel to justify it.

Anyway...about that 20/20. I still think you are wrong about your assertion. s.o.r.r.y.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Intelligence community--CIA, etc--failures to the hilt. The same intelligence community that gave their conflicting intelligence to the President and his administration to be used in ultimately determing whether to go to war with Iraq. The failure and blame is self-evident, regardless of political affiliation or agenda.

seekerof

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, keep in mind that the Pre-War Intel Report was only the first phase of a two-phase report. The first phase, the report you are citing from, specficially deals with the faults of the intelligence community. The second phase specifically will deal with the faults of policymakers in their use of the intelligence community and its product. That report hasn't come out yet.

It is impossible to use the Pre War Intel report as proof of the intelligence community's failure in contrast with those of policymakers, when the role of the policymakers has not yet been examined as part of that very same invesitgation... In other words, the Pre War Intel Report will only fault the intelligence community because it is an investigation solely of the intelligence community itself and its possible failures. So far, all we have are comments of high ranking CIA insiders like Pillar and Drumheller to shine light on the role and faults of policymakers as regards that same process. Before you use the report to attribute blame to the intel community, keep in mind that the blame to the policymakers has not yet been apportioned by that same Committee, and intelligence community failures may not necessarily come at the exonoration of the policymakers. Indeed, the policymakers may have ultimately been responsible for those failures, or at the least have multiplied their effects and damage.

This is exactly the issue those people, Drumheller and Pillar, have spoken out over.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by koji_K]

Originally posted by antipigopolist
But seriously, would you have completely disregarded the IAEA's report?

Why not? Apparently the CIA and the intelligence community did.

The articles you reference pretty much compartmentalize the blame squarely on the CIA. That sort of flys in the face of the reports coming out that the administration was planning to go into Iraq for some time and were just looking for intel to justify it.

Yes, it does fly in the face of those reports, but they did not prevent the Senate Intelligence Committee from doing its investigation and giving their subsequent conclusions.

Anyway...about that 20/20. I still think you are wrong about your assertion. s.o.r.r.y.

No "s.o.r.r.y" needed, antipigopolist.
You have every right to state your opinion and beliefs.





seekerof