[e90im]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATEREPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQCONCLUSIONSOVERALL CONCLUSIONS - WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION


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.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731/

[tek818]

sounds awfully similar to Scott McClellan's account. I suppose the White House press release tomorrow will talk about how the Senate is "just not being themselves" or they are "not the Senate we knew and loved". Can't wait till this regime is forced out. McBush '08 FTL...

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by MSNBC

updated 12:54 p.m. ET, Fri., July. 9, 2004

A four-year-old article? Why portray it like it's breaking news as you did in your thread title? Obviously deceptive since the poster above me fell for it.

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

A four-year-old article? Why portray it like it's breaking news as you did in your thread title? Obviously deceptive since the poster above me fell for it.

Part II of the report came out last week.

[WaZZZZman]

Evidently President Bush and the Republicans were not the only ones misled. Some high ranking Demarcates were as well. There is enough blame to go around if that is what you are after. Let’s put this stuff behind us and work for the future.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998


“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

[ganeil]

The actual report does NOT support the conclusion implied by the title of this thread or the spin.

Fred Hiatt wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post earlier this week which laid out the inconsistency between the spin that accompanied the release of the report and the actual content of the report. He put it this way (emphasis mine):

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by consolidated

Part II of the report came out last week.

I hadn't heard of a second report regarding prewar intelligence. The most recent document I can find on the topic is the report dated 7/7/04. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/Iraq.html
Assuming there is a 'Part II', why not link to that article instead of one that's four-years-old?

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

I hadn't heard of a second report regarding prewar intelligence. The most recent document I can find on the topic is the report dated 7/7/04. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/Iraq.html
Assuming there is a 'Part II', why not link to that article instead of one that's four-years-old?

June 6th 2008 from Time.com
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...812507,00.html

"It's fairly common knowledge by now that pre-war statements made by top officials in the Bush Administration about Iraq were exaggerated or just plain wrong, based as they were on old or faulty intelligence. In that respect, the final part of Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on Prewar Iraq Intelligence doesn't break any new ground. What it does do, however, is try to make the case that President Bush and his advisers deliberately disregarded conflicting intel and misled Americans on the severity of the Iraqi threat...."

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by consolidated

June 6th 2008 from Time.com
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...812507,00.html

"It's fairly common knowledge by now that pre-war statements made by top officials in the Bush Administration about Iraq were exaggerated or just plain wrong, based as they were on old or faulty intelligence. In that respect, the final part of Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on Prewar Iraq Intelligence doesn't break any new ground. What it does do, however, is try to make the case that President Bush and his advisers deliberately disregarded conflicting intel and misled Americans on the severity of the Iraqi threat...."

I don't read Time, so I wouldn't have gotten that info since that appears to be a column and not news, per se. Still doesn't explain why the OP touts breaking news and links to a four-year-old article. What you don't mention is that the article also says:

Originally Posted by Time

Missouri Senator Kit Bond, the ranking Republican on the committee, furiously wrote in his minority opinion, that the report was a blatant attempt by Democrats to politicize what turned out to be nothing more than bad intelligence on the part of the C.I.A. "We have been forced to waste countless man-hours to show what we and the American people already knew four years ago, that policymakers' statements turned out to be wrong after the war because the statements were based on flawed intelligence. The Committee's Phase I report, which investigated that intelligence failure and explained how it happened, was a judicious and valuable act of intelligence oversight. Distorting intelligence and misleading the public, as the current report does, it not."

Bond is so angry that he throws in some choice prewar statements that demonstrate that those in the Bush Administration weren't the only ones fooled by faulty intelligence. "I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Sadaam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks�we should authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat." — Sen. John D. Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02.

Bond goes on, excerpting statements from Senators Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, John Edwards, etc. to show that those in the Bush bubble weren't the only ones beating the drums of war.

BTW, your link's broken. This one should work - http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...812507,00.html