For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.name website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

 
CBSNews.com

Kennedy slams CIA chief

  WASHINGTON, March 5, 2004



Sen. Edward Kennedy says CIA director George Tenet will face questions about the Iraq intelligence when he appears before a Senate committee next week.  (Photo: AP)
"Did Tenet fail to convince the policy-makers to cool their overheated rhetoric? Did he even try to convince them?"
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.


Tenet says his analysts never said Iraq was an "imminent threat," and were under no political pressure.  (Photo: CBS)



FULL TEXT
The quarterly report by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission claims Iraq destroyed most of its known weapons of mass destruction long before the United States invaded last March. Click below to read the report:

UNMOVIC Report (.pdf)

In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President George W. Bush for going to war. Click below to read the entire speech:

Transcription of Tenet's speech (.pdf)
(CBS/AP) CIA Director George Tenet must come clean with Congress and explain why he waited until last month to "set the record straight" that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United State in the months leading up to the war, a leading Senate Democrat said Friday.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, in remarks prepared for delivery, said Tenet must explain why he never corrected President Bush and others in the administration when they warned of a nuclear threat building in Iraq.

"Where was the CIA Director when the vice president was going nuclear about Saddam going nuclear?" said Kennedy in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.   "Did Tenet fail to convince the policy-makers to cool their overheated rhetoric? Did he even try to convince them?"

In a speech last month, Tenet said Saddam Hussein's regime posed a danger, but that analysts had varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.   He said that information was passed on to the White House.

The analysts, said Tenet, "never said there was an imminent threat."   But while he has distanced himself from the administration's assertions of an urgent threat in Iraq, Tenet has never said the White House distorted the intelligence.

Kennedy is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Tenet is scheduled to testify Tuesday.   During that appearance, Kennedy said, the CIA director will have the opportunity to explain "why he was so silent when it mattered most — in the days and months leading up to the war."

A Democratic appointee named to the CIA post by then-President Clinton, Tenet has been on the hot seat for months as Congress has questioned the quality of the intelligence on Iraq and the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles were a major justification for the U.S-led invasion.   But in nine months of searching, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group has yet to find evidence of actual stockpiles.

In January, outgoing Survey Group chief David Kay told a Senate hearing that, "the efforts that had been directed to this point have been sufficiently intense that it is unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons" in Iraq.

Kay pointed to weapons-related programs in Iraq that violated United Nations resolutions, particularly on long-range ballistic missiles.   But he cited no evidence of any advanced program to make biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Now, the Bush administration's case for war is under investigation by a special presidential commission, the House and Senate intelligence committees and internal and external CIA probes.

A separate FBI probe is examining forged evidence on alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger.   The Justice Department is investigating who leaked the name of a CIA officer married to a former U.S. diplomat who criticized the White House case for war.

In the months since major fighting ended, several theories have emerged to explain why intelligence on Iraq was so far off target.   It's possible Saddam was bluffing to try to prevent an attack, or that his own scientists lied to him.   Iraqi defectors may have had a motive to embellish what they told U.S. intelligence.

Others note that when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, the flow of information was curtailed.   That meant there was little to offset the working assumption that Saddam would seek new weapons.

Some Democrats charge that the Bush administration exaggerated the evidence against Iraq.   The Senate Intelligence Committee has expanded its review of to examine whether the administration accurately described the information it had.

There were differences between how classified CIA reports and public presentations described Iraq's capabilities.

The CIA's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, drafted in October 2002, revealed doubts by some intelligence agencies about the extent of its nuclear program, the purpose of work its on unmanned aircraft, its doctrine for using WMD and the circumstances under which Saddam might partner with al Qaeda.

Administration officials rarely, if ever, hinted at those doubts.

And when Mr. Bush and aides in January 2003 mentioned an allegation that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa, it flew in the face of repeated efforts by the agency to keep the charge — which was not substantiated — out of the case for war.

A report this week from United Nations inspectors indicates that Iraq destroyed most of its known chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles years before the United States invaded last March.

It says that during inspections in late 2002 and early 2003, "No evidence of either current or recent development or production of proscribed munitions was uncovered."

However, inspectors did see some weapons of mass destruction munitions that it knew about, or that the Iraqis showed them.   And there were also small batches of items that may have been related to weapons of mass destruction; those are under review.

That means that "residual munitions from the former Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program may be found in the future," the report notes.

During last year's inspections, inspectors destroyed several Al Samoud missiles because they violated range restrictions and got rid of a handful of chemical weapons shells and biological growth media, which Iraq had previously declared.

U.N. inspectors left Iraq shortly before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.   The report notes that because inspectors were forced out, "the disposition of 25 additional missiles, 38 warheads, six launchers, six command vehicles and 326 missile engines designated by UNMOVIC for destruction remains unknown to UNMOVIC."



©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.







National
Journal Group

Iraq, Niger, And The CIA
Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006

The campaign against Joseph Wilson continued even after the CIA concluded that Iraq had not tried to buy uranium from the African nation of Niger.
Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials.

The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.

CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."   The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad."

Despite the CIA's findings, Libby attempted to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been sent on a CIA-sponsored mission to Niger the previous year to investigate the claims, which he concluded were baseless.

Previous coverage of the CIA leak investigation from Murray Waas

The campaign against Wilson led to the outing of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA officer — less than a month after the CIA assessment was completed.   Libby resigned as Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser on October 28, 2005, after he was indicted by a federal grand jury on five counts of making false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice for concealing his role in leaking Plame's identity to the media.

Tenet requested the previously undisclosed intelligence assessment in large part because of repeated inquiries from Cheney and Libby regarding the Niger matter and Wilson's mission, although neither Cheney nor Libby specifically asked that the new review be conducted, according to government records and to current and former government officials.   Tenet also asked for the assessment because information about Wilson's mission to Niger had begun to appear in the media, and Tenet thought that the press or Capitol Hill might raise additional questions about the matter.

The new disclosures raise questions as to why Libby and other Bush administration officials continued their efforts to discredit Wilson — even as they were told that claims about Iraq's having procured uranium from Niger were most likely a hoax.

The answer may lie in part with the already well-known misgivings about the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and other senior Bush administration officials.   At one point during that period — the summer of 2003 — Libby confronted a senior intelligence analyst briefing him and the vice president and accused the CIA of willfully misleading him and the administration on Niger.   Libby was said to be upset that the CIA, in his view, had routinely minimized the extent to which Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction and was now prematurely attempting to distance itself from the Niger allegations.

Libby had also complained about the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control.   WINPAC, as the center is known, scrutinizes unconventional-weapons threats to the United States, including the pursuit by both foreign nations and terrorist groups of nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons.

Libby, according to people with knowledge of the events, said that he and Cheney had come to believe that WINPAC was presenting Saddam Hussein's pursuit of such weapons in a far more benign light than Iraq's intents and capabilities reflected.   Libby cited CIA bureaucratic inertia and caution and his view that many of WINPAC's analysts were aligned with foreign-policy elites who did not support the war with Iraq.

Libby and others in the office of the vice president apparently were even more suspicious because they mistakenly believed that Plame worked for WINPAC, according to these sources.   When they also learned that Plame possibly played a role in Wilson's selection for the Niger mission, their suspicions only intensified.

One indication of Cheney's personal interest in the subject was that some of Libby's earliest and most detailed information regarding Plame's CIA employment came directly from the vice president, according to information contained in Libby's grand jury indictment.

"On or about June 12, 2003," the indictment stated, "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division.   Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."

It would not have been improper or illegal for Cheney to discuss Plame's CIA employment with Libby or other government officials with high security clearances.   No public evidence has emerged during the two-year grand jury probe by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Libby acted at the vice president's behest in leaking details of Plame's CIA employment to the press, or that Cheney even knew that Libby was doing so.

Contemporaneous notes of Libby's that were obtained by federal investigators in the CIA leak case indicate that Cheney had originally learned about Plame from then-CIA Director Tenet.   Tenet has confirmed that Fitzgerald interviewed him, but Tenet has refused to make public any details of what he told investigators.   He declined to comment for this story.

Sources said that Tenet may have discussed Plame with Cheney because of requests from Cheney, Libby, and other administration officials for more information about the Niger matter and Wilson's mission.   Cheney's and Libby's interest in Niger was apparently rekindled after New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote on May 6, 2003, that the CIA had sent an unnamed former ambassador to the African nation in February 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger.   Kristof wrote that the ex-ambassador reported back to the CIA and the State Department that the allegations were "unequivocally wrong" and "based on forged documents."

The column led Cheney and Libby to inquire about the then-still-unnamed ambassador and his trip to Niger.   On May 29, 2003, Libby asked then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information about the mission.   Grossman in turn assigned the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the matter.   Cheney's and Libby's interest in the issue led Tenet to seek more information as well.

On June 11 or 12, according to the grand jury indictment of Libby, Grossman reported back that "in sum and substance Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and the State Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip."

Also on June 11, 2003, according to the indictment, "Libby spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip."   On the very next day, June 12, the indictment said, Cheney more specifically informed Libby that Plame worked at the CIA's "Counterproliferation Division."

Tenet received the highly classified memo on Niger from his analysts on June 17, 2003, five days after Cheney and Libby spoke with each other about Plame's working for the CIA.   Sources familiar with the matter say that both Cheney and Libby were informed of the findings in the June 17 memo only days after Tenet himself read and reviewed it.

In the memo, the CIA analysts wrote: "Since learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad."

The memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations.   It was that past intelligence that had led CIA analysts, in part, to consider the Niger claims as plausible.

But the memo said that after a thorough review of those earlier reports, the CIA had concluded that they were no longer credible.   Indeed, the previous intelligence reports citing those claims had long since been "recalled" — meaning that the CIA had formally repudiated them.

The memo's findings were considered so significant that they were not only quickly shared with Cheney and Libby but also with Congress, albeit on a classified basis, according to government records and interviews.

On June 18, 2003, the day after the new Niger assessment was sent to Tenet, Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, briefed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the findings.   And on the following day, June 19, 2003, Walpole briefed members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence as well.

Six days after the memo was sent to Tenet, on June 23, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and — as part of an effort to discredit Wilson — passed along to her what prosecutors have said was classified information that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, according to allegations contained in Libby's indictment.

On July 6, 2003, Wilson himself went public with his allegations that the Bush administration had misused the Niger claims to make the case to go to war.   Wilson made his arguments in an op-ed in The New York Times and an appearance that same morning on NBC's Meet the Press.

On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller met again.   During a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, according to testimony Miller gave to the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Libby first told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Office.

Around the same time, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and at least one other senior Bush administration official leaked information to a number of journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission.

Columnist Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003, published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and alleging that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.

The disclosure did little to discredit Wilson.   Instead, it had unintended and unforeseen consequences for Libby and the Bush administration: A special prosecutor would be named to investigate the leak; Judith Miller would spend 85 days in jail for refusing to testify regarding her conversations with Libby before ultimately relenting; and a federal grand jury would indict Libby on charges that he obstructed justice and committed perjury to conceal his own role in the leak of Plame's CIA status to the press.

As Libby awaits trial, one of the unresolved mysteries is why Libby insisted in interviews with the FBI and during his grand jury testimony that he learned about Plame's employment from journalists, when investigators already had Libby's own copious notes indicating that he had first learned many of the details of Plame's CIA employment from Cheney and other senior government officials.

One possibility examined by investigators is that Libby was attempting to cover for Cheney because of the political or legal fallout that might occur if it was determined that the vice president had been involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said, "The prosecutor's implicit inference before the jury may well likely be that Libby lied to protect the vice president.   Even in a plain vanilla case, a prosecutor always wants to be able to demonstrate a motive."

That Cheney was one of the first people to tell Libby about Plame, and that Libby had written in his notes that Cheney had heard the information from the CIA director, Gillers said, might make it more difficult for Libby to mount a credible defense of a faulty memory.   "From a prosecutor's point of view, and perhaps a jury's as well, the conversation [during which Libby learned about Plame] is the more dramatic and the more memorable because the conversation was with the vice president" and because the CIA director's name also came up, Gillers said.

The disclosure that Cheney and Libby were told of a CIA assessment that the agency considered the Niger allegations to be untrue, and that Tenet requested the assessment as a result of the personal interest of Cheney and Libby, would "demonstrate even further that Niger was a central issue for Libby," said Gillers, and would "make it even harder, although not impossible, to claim a faulty memory."


Murray Waas is a Washington-based journalist.



© National Journal Group Inc.      Murray Waas      Feb. 2, 2006    







 Some Iraqi analysis 'wildly inconsistent,' Tenet admits
 
Wednesday, March 10, 2004

 
WASHINGTONGeorge Tenet, the CIA director, on Tuesday faced some of his sharpest questioning yet over flawed prewar intelligence on Iraq, and conceded that analysis on whether Iraq had sought African uranium was "wildly inconsistent."

He also acknowledged that he learned only last week that in the run-up to the war a secretive new intelligence office in the Pentagon was providing direct briefings to the office of the vice president and the National Security Council.

Tenet's appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee came a day after Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was an inappropriate subject for election-year debate.

"We shouldn't be having a political debate over issues like that," he said on Fox News.

The hostile questioning Tenet faced Tuesday from Democrats — in contrast to supportive Republican words, such as Senator John Warner's comment that Tenet's Iraq judgment had been based on "years of irrefutable facts" — seemed to show that the Bush administration can expect no such pass on that sensitive subject.

Another Republican, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, suggested that U.S. intelligence agencies were being overly investigated, with 14 "inquiries or probes or investigations" into the Iraq war and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the panel, spoke of a U.S. "intelligence fiasco" over Iraq; prewar assessments on Iraqi weapons had proved "wildly off the mark," he said. Levin seemed particularly interested in the work of the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, created the year before the Iraq war, and how it had interacted — or bypassed — the CIA.
Some Democratic critics have suggested that that office served as a sort of parallel intelligence bureau meant to marshal data to support an administration already determined to launch war. Douglas Feith, head of that Pentagon office, was a chief proponent of the war.

Analysts in Feith's office reviewed existing intelligence for possible links between Iraq and terrorists and concluded that such connections existed. The CIA, which had developed some of the intelligence Feith's office used, had found insufficient evidence to assert such a link, The New York Times has reported.

Levin, referring to at least one prewar briefing by Feith's team to the National Security Council and the vice president's office, asked Tenet whether he had known about it.

Tenet said that last week was the first time he had learned that Feith's office had provided direct briefings to those entities.

Levin asked if it was standard procedure for an intelligence analysis to be presented to the National Security Council and the vice president's office without Tenet's knowledge."

Was the administration listening to the Office of Special Plans rather than the intelligence community?" he asked."

I'm the president's chief intelligence officer," Tenet said plainly. "From my perspective, it is my view that prevails." Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Tenet has provided daily briefings to President George W. Bush.

Levin also sought to explore differences between intelligence the CIA and other agencies provided privately, and the arguments the administration made publicly for war.
Asked to reconcile varying classified and public pronouncements from the administration about alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Africa — culminating in Bush's State of the Union reference to such attempts, which the White House later was forced to withdraw as unsubstantiated — Tenet conceded that "we were wildly inconsistent."

Tenet declined to say exactly what efforts he had made to dissuade the administration from making assertions he found unjustified.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, asked Tenet whether he did not have a responsibility to counter what he called "superheated" and "warmonger" talk coming from the administration."

You have to have confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence," Tenet replied, "I said something about it."

Senators also pressed Tenet on the threat of civil war in Iraq if the interim government formed ahead of the scheduled June 30 handover of sovereignty is seen to lack legitimacy.

He declined to speculate on that matter, but warned that former Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign terrorists "continue to pose a serious threat," as illustrated by the devastating bombings last week in Baghdad and Karbala."

They hope for a Taliban-like enclave in Iraq's Sunni heartland that would be a jihadist safe haven," he said, with the ultimate goal of creating "an Islamic state."


International Herald Tribune


Copyright © 2004 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved











          
CIA: Pentagon lied in run-up to war
Wednesday 10 March 2004
 
Tenet is the third-longest-serving director in CIA history
CIA director George Tenet has revealed that a senior defence official leaked a false intelligence report before the US-led invasion of Iraq, ignoring agency advice.

Answering questions before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Tenet confirmed that an article in November's Weekly Standard was written by Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith.

The magazine claimed to have obtained a leaked top-secret document, but the CIA chief admitted the third highest Pentagon official wrote it specifically for publication.

Vice President Dick Cheney then cited the leaked unapproved document as "the best source of information" on cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

Question time

Michigan's Senator Carl Levin asked the CIA director: "Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?"

"Senator, we did not clear the document. We did not agree with the way the data was characterised in that document."

Senator, we did not clear the document. We did not agree with the way the data was characterised in that document.

George Tenet,
CIA director



Tenet added that the Pentagon had also disavowed the Feith document.

He had planned to speak to Vice President Cheney about the matter.

But in an hour of questioning, Tenet said other officials also chose to ignore agency advice.

Embarrassing revelations

Speaking to Senator Edward Kennedy, Tenet said there had been instances when he warned administration officials they were overstating the threat posed by Iraq.

Tenet had personally told the vice president he was wrong to say that two trailers recovered in Iraq were "conclusive evidence" that Hussein had a biological weapons programme.

Nevertheless, Cheney made the assertion in a 22 January 2003 interview with National Public Radio.

Nearly all analysts now believe the "mobile biological-weapons facilities" were in fact used for making hydrogen gas to fill weather balloons.





               Agencies







Posted on Wed, Mar. 10, 2004
Tenet

CIA says Cheney was wrong
Facts misread, Tenet contends
By JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers


“I'm not going to sit here and tell you what my interaction was … and what I did and didn't do, except that you have to have confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it.”
George Tenet, director of central intelligence
WASHINGTON — CIA Director George Tenet on Tuesday rejected recent assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq had cooperated with the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Tenet also rejected Cheney's statements that the administration had proof of an illicit Iraqi biological warfare program.

Tenet's comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee were expected to fuel friction between the White House and intelligence agencies over the failure to find any of the banned weapons stockpiles that President Bush, in justifying his case for war, charged Saddam Hussein with concealing.

Tenet at first appeared to defend the administration, saying that he did not think the White House misrepresented intelligence provided by the CIA. The administration's statements, he said, reflected a prewar intelligence consensus that Hussein had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear bombs.

But under sharp questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, Tenet reversed himself, saying there had been instances when he had warned administration officials that they were misstating the threat posed by Iraq.

“I'm not going to sit here and tell you what my interaction was … and what I did and didn't do, except that you have to have confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it,” Tenet said. “I don't stand up publicly and do it.”

Tenet acknowledged to Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's senior Democrat, that he had told Cheney that the vice president was wrong in saying that two truck trailers recovered in Iraq were “conclusive evidence” that Hussein had a biological weapons program.

Cheney made the assertion in a Jan. 22 interview with National Public Radio.

Tenet said that U.S. intelligence agencies disagree on the purpose of the trailers. Some analysts think they were mobile biological weapons facilities. Others think they may have been for making hydrogen gas for weather balloons.

Levin also questioned Tenet about a Jan. 9 interview with the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, in which Cheney cited a November article in The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, as “the best source of information” on cooperation between Hussein and al-Qaida.

The article was based on a leaked top-secret memorandum. It purportedly set out evidence, compiled by a special Pentagon intelligence cell, that Hussein was in league with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It was written by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, the third-highest Pentagon official and a key proponent of the war.

“Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?” Levin asked.

“Senator, we did not clear the document,” Tenet replied. “We did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document.”

Tenet, who pointed out that the Pentagon, too, had disavowed the document, said he learned of the article Monday night, and he planned to speak with Cheney about the CIA's view of the Feith document.

In building the case for war, Bush, Cheney and other top officials relied in part on assessments by the CIA and other agencies. But they concealed disputes and dissents over Iraq's weapons programs and links to terrorists that were raging among analysts, U.S. diplomats and military officials.

They also used exaggerated and fabricated information from defectors and former Iraqi exile groups that was fed directly into Cheney's office and the Pentagon. Those groups included the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader, Ahmad Chalabi, was close to hawks around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the White House, but who was distrusted by the CIA and the State Department.

Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the military's intelligence arm, said that “some” information provided by defectors had checked out, but that they also gave material that was “fabricated or embellished.”

Bush has appointed a bipartisan commission to investigate what the CIA and other intelligence agencies knew about prewar Iraq, but would not permit the commission to examine how the White House and the Pentagon used the intelligence. Information from Iraqi defectors and exile groups, who contended that Hussein was a great threat, also was ruled off-limits.

Politics pervaded Tuesday's hearing. Democrats sought to prove that Bush and his top aides overstated prewar intelligence assessments of the threat Hussein posed. Republicans insisted that the administration's arguments reflected the CIA's judgment, the views of most lawmakers and those of the Clinton administration.

“Members of this committee, members of the Senate, as well as past and present administrations reached the same conclusions: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction,” said the panel's chairman, Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who is the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, and other critics are linking the issue to Bush's credibility as the election campaign heats up and the toll of dead and injured U.S. soldiers rises.



Copyright © 2004 the Kansas City Star








 
 

























































State of the Union — USA





Trailers





        That question best addressed in closed session





        Cheney: Assessment done by department of defense





     Iraqi rebels turning to defeat United States     

      I am ready to sacrifice the rest of my family to defeat America. 

  And God willing we will defeat her      






Unspeakable grief and horror





Depleted Uranium, its effects being seen





Photos April 6, 2004





       Cluster bombs killing injuring, Iraq, Lebanon        
        US new generation of landmines called Spider        






       Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million     
            —  ORB, a British polling agency, September 2007          






China EU countries Russia Japan lending money to US to the tune of $2 billion (2,000,000,000.00) daily
— Bleeding Bush strategy






US Debt





Am I going insane?     Photos of start of war





Flames of war spread into Pakistan





Your hearts and minds, or else





Murder, though it hath no tongue.






 
 





 
For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.name website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.