U.S. assertions go beyond its intelligence By John Diamond, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is expanding on and in some cases contradicting U.S. intelligence reports in making the case for an invasion of Iraq, interviews with administration and intelligence officials indicate. Administration officials accuse Iraq of having ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and of amassing weapons of mass destruction despite uncertain and sometimes contrary intelligence on these issues, according to officials. In some cases, top administration officials disagree outright with what the CIA and other intelligence agencies report. For example, they repeat accounts of al-Qaeda members seeking refuge in Iraq and of terrorist operatives meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials, even though U.S. intelligence reports raise doubts about such links. On Iraqi weapons programs, administration officials draw the most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence. Although the Bush administration made significant progress last week in generating international and domestic support for a campaign against Iraq, some lawmakers and diplomats question the evidence being assembled by the U.S. and British governments. Hans Blix, the chief United Nations arms inspector, said satellite images of Iraq show no evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was rebuilding an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that in secret intelligence briefings, administration officials were presenting "embellishments" on information long known about Iraq. A senior Bush administration official conceded privately that there are large gaps in U.S. knowledge about Iraqi weapons programs but insisted that the only prudent course is to suspect the worst. To give Iraq the benefit of the doubt, officials argue, would be naive and dangerous. Last week, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice boiled the administration's case down to a single line that evoked both the uncertainty and the risk associated with Iraq: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The differences between the administration and intelligence officials may be, in part, institutional. The CIA tends to be cautious in its predictions and estimates and careful not to overinterpret a situation based on incomplete information. Some agency officials say privately that they do not want to be pushed into going beyond the facts to provide justification for a war. Not only the facts are in dispute, but also the interpretation of those facts. CIA analysts have reported that Saddam wants weapons for prestige and security, not for an attack on U.S. interests that would almost certainly bring a devastating U.S. response. Bush administration officials warn that once Saddam develops his arsenal, he must be considered a risk to use it. Conversely, the CIA says the U.S. military should assume that Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons against American invaders if the survival of his regime were at stake. Bush's top advisers view this risk as manageable. One of the administration's key arguments is that the intelligence on Iraqi weapons may be wrong. Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recall that inspections after the 1991 Persian Gulf War found Iraq much closer to fielding a nuclear weapon than the CIA had estimated. Now the administration warns that the latest CIA estimates — that Iraq may be years away from building a nuclear weapon — could be based on incomplete intelligence and wishful thinking. Administration officials cite two problems facing U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq: Because of the absence of U.N. arms inspectors since 1998 and Saddam's ability to conceal his activities from technical intelligence assets such as U.S. spy satellites, the evidence against Iraq is, at best, dated and circumstantial. Because of Saddam's insistence, on pain of death, on unwavering loyalty from his inner circle, little is known about whether he plans to use weapons of mass destruction or merely hold them to enhance his standing in a dangerous region. Cheney and Rumsfeld question the CIA's insistence that it can find no link between al-Qaeda terrorists and Saddam's regime. They accept reports from Czech diplomats that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. Administration officials speculate that the pair were discussing the Sept. 11 attacks, or possibly plotting to bomb the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters in Prague, which is regarded as one of the most likely terrorist targets in Europe. Subsequent investigations, however, found that the Iraqi officer met regularly with a friend, a used car dealer, who closely resembles Atta. Inquiries also suggested that the source of the Czech information came from Prague restaurateurs trying to impugn a competitor whose establishment was used for the supposed meeting. More recently, the CIA, under pressure from Cheney and Rumsfeld, could not confirm that al-Qaeda members are hiding in Iraq with Saddam's blessing. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice have accepted these reports as accurate.
This is pretty funny. Now we have the executive branch criticising the info from the CIA - their own source of information. Is it much of a surprise that the speeches the public hears are exaggerated? That is true worldwide - especially when trying to conjure up support for war. This is the most important part of the whole thing (not just article). There has to be an understanding of why Iraq really wants nukes. The obvious reason is protection. Saddam is a very smart guy and knows his hold is tenuous. Having nukes means that no one really will invade him, allowing him more freedom. If anyone thinks he wants to develope them to attack, that defies all point. Nukes as an attack weapon are pretty useless in modern warfare. If he launches, he is detected immediately - how many US nukes do you think will immediately be fired in response? How many from other countries? Boom, he is dead. If he gets invaded, though (after he has nuke technology), and his back is against the wall - then that might provoke a launch...but the administration can "handle" that part? Now, regardless, this can still be seen as justification to oust him...it just irks me when the gov insults my intelligence and tells me Saddam is going to shoot one down our throats as soon as he gets the technology.
Wasn't there a thread in here a week or so back about how bad the propaganda was in the Middle East, and we how we, the enlightened and well-informed West, should, in our benevolence, share with them from our vast holdings on the truth? It would seem that, mother of all surprises, our own government is just as capable of misinformation, exaggeration, and calling inference and supposition 'intelligence'. WHo'd a thunk it? This would, I assume, put to rest the " The US has information that's for sure...they just can't reveal it. But it's enough to go to war on, you can bet your dominoes on that." argument once and for all...if this article is accurate. Even if there is no consensus from the CIA, isn't that enough to quash a pre-emptive war based on unknown intelligence reports stance?
macbeth, insult to injury... if we go and attack a sovereign nation w/o having been injured, are we (insert overacting character's voice at the end of an Oliver Stone movie) nooo bettter than theeeyyeye are.
Given the record of our intelligence community over the past few years, it's always wise to trust them. They always get it right, and never let anything bad happen.
The CIA certainly has screwed some things up, but the Whitehouse isn't an intelligence gathering agency at all. They have no capacities for such stuff. The CIA certainly isn't perfect, but do they have a better idea of what's going on than people with no intelligence gathering capabilities? I think so.
They absolutely don't always get it right. But what makes you think Bush and Cheney are better spies or have better spies? The CIA is the number one place they get their intelligence from. The admin's said they have intelligence they will share to justify the attack. Their own Central Intelligence Agency seems to be saying that's not so. If true, it's troubling.
why do i have a feeling this quote is taken completely out of context or is an incomplete statement? see below....
B-Bob: see what a quote does when i leave the next sentence out??? or i don't put it in its proper context?? entirely different meaning than the author intended...
We can disagree as to whether Bush's verbal gaffes are meaningful, but surely you're not suggesting they're just taken out of context?
i'm not suggesting they all are, no...of course, i don't think they would be much different for any of us were we always under the microscope of the media everytime we opened our mouth... but the quote posted...what does that even mean?? what was the context?? what was the preceding and following sentence?? was it a complete sentence??
First, of course it would be different. Second, most of us aren't president. Bush isn't just a regular joe in this regard, making gaffes any of us might make. He is a below average contemporaneous speaker. As an elected official, he is a severely below average contemporaneous speaker. As president, he is the number one, worst contemporaneous speaker ever. And many of his gaffes occur during scripted speeches. They're not all because the media's following him around with microphones. I'm not saying that verbal gaffes are necessarily the sign of a bad president either, though effective communication is certainly part of the job. I just find it hard to believe you're questioning the context of one of his gaffes. Of course it doesn't make sense. So many of his gaffes don't. Sometimes you can tell what he meant to say, and sometimes you just have no idea. The funny thing is that it is when he is most confused that he uses the strongest language, spicing up indefinite statements with words like "absolutely," "definitely," etc. And it probably wasn't a complete sentence, as he generally doesn't use them. Like father, like son. You could apply the criticism of the quote to any of those found at the infamous Complete Bushisms. There's a new one almost every time he speaks. Here's the link in case you've lost it: http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=76886
