The Price of Bad Intelligence
I’ve made it pretty clear that I think two things regarding the pre-war intelligence: it was horrible, and if there has to be a scapegoat, it should be George Tenet (‘It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President’). I have no patience for the current Democratic revisionist games (as if anything has changed recently other than Bush’s approval ratings), and those who think I’m being unduly partisan should read this excellent post by the MinuteMan.
However, there’s little doubt that the intelligence fiasco has harmed U.S. credibility, and Kevin Drum is absolutely on the money with this post:
One of the most depressing stories of the weekend was William Broad and David Sanger’s piece in the New York Times about a laptop computer captured last year that shows that Iran is actively trying to figure out how to design and build a nuclear warhead. It’s depressing because a nuclear-armed Iran isn’t exactly a comforting notion to begin with, and doubly depressing because after the Iraq fiasco the Bush administration is having trouble convincing our allies that the laptop isn’t a fake.
The Democrats have the focus exactly wrong; it’s not what Bush did with the intelligence that is most important – even if you think he misled us into war, it’s over and done now. The real issue is how we got such crappy intelligence to begin with – and what we intend to do to see that it never happens again. As such, the current theatrics of the Democratic leadership are a real disservice to the nation, distracting our focus with ginned-up claims of intelligence manipulation that their own words and deeds disprove…Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid should be ashamed…it’s a pity that shame is a quality in rare supply in political circles these days…
The thing about the Iranian lap top is it’s exactly the sort of “insider-supplied” intel that was problematic in the lead-up to the Iraq war. I would certainly like to see el Baradei be more aggressive in pursuing this information–which looks pretty damning from the Times article–but at the same time, if we want “iron clad” intel this the slow and resistant UN process that is happening is the sort of thing to which we must submit ourselves. I mean, if we were so 100% sure it weren’t a fake, the Israelis would be in Tehran right now because that warhead could hit Tel Aviv. Iron clad takes time–it would have postponed Iraq for another year, and what the consequences would have been of that delay I don’t like to think–but the intel would have been different.
That said, Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid (and please don’t leave out Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin) are indeed liars and hypocrites, and are aspiring to add traitors to that list. LOVE the White House page responding to Kennedy–have you seen it?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-6.html
AE, I wouldn’t go so far as to say traitor – that’s such a big accusation, and unfair…but hypocrite, yes, the shoe fits nicely…
And that White House page – whoa! For the setting, that’s strong indeed – and of course quite accurate…
regarding the kennedyspeak, i have always thought that those people who put whackjobs like kennedy in office are more dangerous than he.
regarding his family tree, every time i see a WWII documentary, developed by wghb(?), i believe the pbs affiliate in boston, it portrays a little too cozy opinion by papajoe of duh-fuhrer.
as for the threat posed by s/h, no one will bring this item up:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
the date of the signing of the letter/resolution is hilarious.
The day Iran tests its nuke, the world will crush their nuts on the following day.
The world is stuck in the don’t ask,don’t tell phase…it won’t last. Iran will collapse from the inside. The computer is already stating what we already know.
I do think they are trying to get one ASAP, and quite legitimately for defensive reasons. They look east and see Afghanistan, they look West and see Iraq. They don’t have a legit military or any allies. Pure self-preservation.
Saddam once held the dream of attacking Israel and making a unified Arab State. Those days are gone. The next five years will be key. Do they accept Iraq, or do they reach a point where they make the choice of Iraq remaining an enemy that will have a better trained military and support, than they will ever have?
Iran wants the nuke to prop them up against overthrow. Iran, unlike Iraq is not under sanctions imposed by the US, so even were they to obtain nukes, build chem/bio labs, a reprise of Iraq is not going to happen. We are pursuing containment, and will continue to do so.
to support AE-
http://realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/FOX_111005.pdf
Look at question 30:
“Do you think Americans who are describing US miltary action in Iraq as a mistake are helping or hurting US troops on the ground there?”
58% hurting, 16% helping.(IT’s rare to get a good split on something by the differential of 42pts…Cheney is knoxville tomorrow, look for him to continue the calling dems out)
The dems saw this number, the WH saw this number.
This is why the dems will move off of intel and onto Alito…they are killing their chances in 06/08.
I can understand why the White House wants to change the subject, but it would be wrong to do so. If true, it is hard to conceive of a worse offense than deliberately using false, incomplete, or misleading intelligence to bring the nation to war. (It certainly is far graver than the years-long investigations of Monicagate). This is far too important to be white-washed and forgotten.
In his final speech to the nation before the invasion, Bush said that there was “no doubt” that Iraq possessed WMD. Yet there was plenty of doubt. The government’s foremost nuclear expert informed Rice that the aluminum tubes which Cheney said were “irrefutable evidence” of a nuclear program were most likely used for other purposes. Bush publicly said that there were “stockpiles” of biological weapons, but apparently there was no evidence of actual weapons (and some evidence which suggested a biological program – but the existence of a program does not imply that there are actual weapons). We all know about the yellowcake. Moreover, the people on the ground closest to the evidence – Blix and El Baradei – both disputed the existence of WMD. The evidence strongly points to intelligence which was distorted to sell the war, and the Democrats (as well as the Republicans) would be remiss if they did not conduct a full investigation.
Also, to blame the Iraq war on “crappy intelligence” ignores the facts that a) some of the intelligence appeared to be accurate and b) the President is accountable for evaluating the veracity of the intelligence and acting accordingly. The buck stops with Bush, not Tenet.
Incidentally, the President’s message that the invasion was supported by Democrats in Congress is misleading. The bill which passed Congress authorized the President to wage war as a last resort. At the time, the Bush administration claimed that it needed the resolution as leverage while it pressed its case in the U.N. in its efforts to get the inspectors readmitted to Iraq. The inspectors were allowed in again, so the bill achieved its purpose. However, the bill was not a declaration of war, and the vote should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of administration policy.
I recognize that the primary focus should be to look ahead and not dwell on the past – but these two aims are not mutually exclusive. If you believe that the Bush administration misused intelligence to wage war, then the corollary is that the Republicans bought a President to impeachment for what is a far less serious offense. The GOP cannot credibly ask for this matter to be swept under the rug.
Well, peter, I was just playing along for argument’s sake, you know as well as I do that I don’t believe the President misled us into war. Many of your talking points are just flat wrong – the yellow-cake story TO THIS VERY DAY is not refuted…
only a forged documentall agree there was a document forgery, but that doesn’t mean the underlying charge is false. The evidence that Iraq did seek yellow-cake uranium is convincing and still very much agreed upon by all involved, Joe Wilson notwithstanding. You say it is the President’s job to evaluate intelligence…surely you don’t believe that. It is the President’s job to sit around in a lab poring over reports and intel and intercepts and photographs? I think not…even if he was so inclined, he would not have the time. Sure, he has to consider how believable he finds the briefings, and seek other opinions, but it’s safe to assume he did both, if one reads the reliable pre-war accounts that we have.This is much like saying it is the job of the CEO of GM to do market research…in fact, the President HAS to rely on his advisors, there is no other way he could possibly perform his job – and no one has ever disputed Bob Woodward’s account that George Tenet told Bush it was a slam dunk when Bush expressed reservations – not even Tenet himself…
I know, so I stopped short of saying they were traitors, just that the are aspiring to that status…
But I agree with MtL.
I must respectfully disagree here. True, I don’t expect Bush to pore over raw intelligence, nor do I expect Rick Wagoner to personally review GM’s market research. However, Wagoner is responsible for the profit or loss at GM, and he is accountable for results. If he has the wrong marketing people, then he is responsible for replacing them. If they misinterpret their surveys and as a result, GM sells fewer cars, then he is accountable. As a football coach (Purcells?) said, “you are what your record is.” Meaning: don’t tell me about blown calls or bad weather – the coach is accountable for the win-loss record, whatever it may be.
Similarly, Bush made the decision to retain Tenet, so he is accountable for how the intelligence was evaluated and used. I’m responsible for the people who work for me: I hired them, and if they succeed I deserve the credit and if they fail I deserve the blame. Let’s assume that you don’t like what happened at Waco. Would you excuse Bill Clinton because Janet Reno was A.G. and was running the show?
Actually, we agree more than we disagree on this aspect – I thought then and I still think now that Tenet should have been canned…and I agree on the accountability thing (this goes back to our conversation a few days back about apologies – we both think one was (is) in order, but that’s apparently not going to happen)…
The dems will be changing the subject, away from publicly stating that the War was in error.
The internals of the polls show them it is a dead issue.
The failing numbers for Bush on the war? They are also failing numbers for dems in opposing it, or not opposing it, or voting for it, but admitting they were misled, but then refuse to withdraw their votes…basically there is no coherent response for the dems to asociate to their party.
John Q Public? Doesn’t understand the war, the progress, the other reasons(except that there were Iraqi’s on the plane…). This is going to be painful for some, but most Americans have no strong reason why they vote.
Bush’s low approval? Military deaths. (redneck ‘a’ may want to kick some towelhead but, but everyday he hears that this thing will never end, and hears about somebody dying over there.) At this point, Bush does not get a good approval rating from them. Bush brings 80,000 troops home by Spring/summer of 06, calls whatever he has a victory, calls for some parades, gives some speeches-and this year was just a blip. Dems will have the choice of declaring it a US loss or a US victory…
The war is over for the dems, either way they play it, but it is still going down as a win for Bush.
One significant factor behind our generally lousy intel on Iraq, Al Qaeda, and just about everything else in the world is the regulatory straitjacket that Frank Church and the Joint Intelligence Committee imposed on the CIA in the wake of Watergate, which drastically limits the CIA’s ability to do business with unsavory characters who can be persuaded to hand over sensitive information about their government’s activities–like Aldrich Ames, only in reverse. It’s unsavory, but utterly necessary if one wants intelligence that’s better than what you read in the paper.
The paradigm the Dems implemented in intelligence reform bears a striking resemblance to the one they’re using in arguments about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere. The intelligence reforms badly damaged the CIA, compromised our national security, led to bad policy decisions and undoubtedly cost innocent lives. But they allowed the reformers to feel good about their own moral superiority, and isn’t that what it’s all about?
Well, considering that Church’s reforms were backed at the time by President Ford and Henry Kissinger, I wouldn’t blame the Democrats if you feel that they went too far. However, the context in which they were enacted was this: it had recently been revealed that the CIA had a massive spying effort aimed at American citizens. Evidence came out that, among other things, the CIA had violated Presidential orders, and also did things like give LSD to American volunteers as part of a research study without notifying the subjects. Moreover, Watergate was in the recent past, and there were numerous revelations regarding the misuse of the intelligence services for partisan reasons.
However, to my knowledge, his reforms have little or nothing to do with how prisoners at Gitmo and elsewhere are treated. Your post suggests that they restricted intelligence gathering by limiting the sources we could use. As this is, after all, the spy business, where appearance has little to do with reality, I am not sure if we know if this is true. In any event, this is a separate issue from how detainees can be treated in captivity. This is a legitimate issue, as ninety Senators recently voted to prohibit torture. So while moral superiority may have something to do with it – after all, I hope that we are morally superior to Stalin’s Russia and the other countries which practice torture – it is far from a case of wimpy liberals sabotaging the national security because of their purportedly misplaced emphasis on human rights.
“I hope that we are morally superior to Stalin’s Russia and the other countries which practice torture…”
But if we elect a democrat, then would you even think to make the comparison?
I’ll state, unequivocally, we are better than Stalin.
(As far as the black prison’s go, the practice of rendition has been around for about…eternity? Turning over a guy to a foreign country and letting them torture the prisoner while the CIA is taking notes, is any different from being the ones to do the torture? Maybe we sterilize our electrodes, and give tetanusa shots before using a ball and chain.)
It’s a very gray world.
Mark,
In his speech on Friday and again last night Bush said that, in his opinion, people who questioned his use (or misuse) of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war were “deeply irresponsible.”
Perhaps if he had a better grip on reality he would understand, as you do, that 57% of Americans believe that he misused the Iraq intelligence for the purposes of justifying his decision to go to war.
I’m aware of your contention that Bush is not desperate, but what is it if not desperation that causes a president to accuse the 57% of Americans who disagree with him of being “deeply irresponsible?”
Do you agree with the president’s characterization of 57% of your fellow countrymen as irresponsible? Do you believe that it is appropriate for a president to characterize the clear majority of Americans who disagree with him in this way?
The dems have failed to point to a single shred of evidence that Bush had, that they did not. They had the same information unless shown otherwise.
Bush is using the polling data that suggests that those who say the war was a mistake are hurting efforts on the ground. 56% believe criticism is harmful to troops on the ground, 16% believe it is not. Cheney will bring this up at Knoxville today…
There is a time and a place for criticism, the focus should be on completing the task at hand in Iraq.(a majority of Americans believe that it should be finished, and fail to see how dismissing the action is going to help complete it.) When it is done, perhaps the dems on the intelligence committee could offer up some knowledge that they lacked that would have changed the intelligence estimates. Or they can ask the intelligence community to provide the actual time at which they believed that all previous intel was in error.
The critics accuse Bush of ‘cherry picking’ and ‘stovepiping’ to make a case for war. Now they are following the same MO cherry picking and stove piping away from reality. Pot/kettle thing in full force.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051115/news_lz1ed15lied.html
This isn’t the only editorial I have seen, which is questioning the Bush lied mantra of the left…
If there is a US paper that is backing up the claims of the democratic party by calling Bush a liar, I haven’t seen it.
phil, the statement you refer to is regarding people who say Bush deliberately manipulated the intelligence to falsely lead us to war. When Bush speaks of irresponsibility, this is the charge he is referring to. He was especially careful to say that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize his policies or the conduct of the war…but to accuse a sitting President of lying us into a war that has taken the lives of over 2,000 of our fine men and women is a heavy charge, and in the event that it is not true (as I believe it is not), then yes, that’s irresponsible.
Not again, it’s not disagreement that we’re talking about, but charges of DELIBERATE deception on the road to war…
Peter, my apologies for a very late response to your comments. I was out for the evening and didn’t see your remarks until I got to work this morning. Anyway, for what it’s worth, here are a few points of clarification.
Yes, there were some real abuses by the CIA and other agencies that needed correction, and no, that wasn’t an exclusively Democratic concern. But the post-Watergate, post-Vietnam era could be characterized as a time when Congress, and particularly the congressional Democrats, were in the ascendancy and setting the agenda. In the case of the Intelligence Oversight hearings, that included some good intentions run amok.
My comments were addressed specifically to the issue of “humint”—human intelligence—where the new rules of engagement expressly forbade the use of distasteful but effective techniques like bribery and blackmail, or dealing with criminal elements. I don’t have specific cites, but over the years several former CIA agents have complained about how gravely that limits their ability to collect intelligence or conduct effective covert operations. I would argue that in this specific case, Congress imposed standards that gave Church and the other senators a sense of high morality, but at the expense of national security.
I think the comparison with Gitmo is legitimate, particularly in light of your comments. There might well be abuses that need to be corrected, but critics of the administration’s POW policy have fatally weakened their own case by the sweeping, absolutist character of their charges. I know that numbers of claimed POW deaths have included people killed while being taken prisoner, for instance. And many, probably most, critics have gotten equally worked up over the “Koran in the toilet” episode, or prisoners getting smeared with fake menstrual blood in the course of interrogation. Sorry, but that’s not torture. Of course, there were real instances of torture in Iraq. They occurred under the Baathists, and I won’t turn anyone’s stomach by going into detail, but the distinction between that and Lynndie England’s misdeeds seems pretty clear.
It’s hard to avoid the impression that many critics of Gitmo object to any form of coercion at all. Coercion may be distasteful, but it can serve worthwhile, even vital ends, saving the lives of both American troops and the far more numerous civilian victims of terrorist attacks. I would argue that putting the emotional well-being of the prisoners ahead of those goals is morally dubious.
Thanks for the reply – we are in agreement here – I think it comes down to how you define torture and where you draw the line – no one is arguing that prisoners require an air conditioned room and comfy sheets, but I think most people would agree that using pit bulls is wrong. Maybe it’s like Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography: you know it when you see it.
MC, ignore Phil. He’s posting that exact same message on multiple boards, and the posse of demented retards at Ace’s site have already argued with him over it.
(just for the record, I’m one of those “demented retards” – though very low on the pecking order)
defining torture-
Many levels:
Mental/physical pain explicitly for the purpose of causing such rxn, without any method of ceasing it. Not goal directed-just sadistic.
But-Mental/physical pain for a specific purpose to prevent pending crimes? It has its place.
a spontaneous example is a hostage situation-
the police can shoot a hostage taker, without him commiting the crime of murder. The police can’t wait for him to kill somebody, they must act spontaneously and with good judgement. The deciding factor-If I don’t shoot this guy in the head, or leg(causing death/pain equivalent to torture) innocents will suffer. I would call this ‘justifiable’ homocide.
Move away from the spontaneous event-a terrorist knows the location of other terrorists who will seek to kill innocents, just not today. If in some cases, murder/homocide is reasonable, then could there not be a case where torture is reasonable?