January 31, 2004
GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT:
No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Data: Probers Say Analysts Remained Consistent (Dana Priest, January 31, 2004, Washington Post)
Congressional and CIA investigations into the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism have found no evidence that CIA analysts colored their judgment because of perceived or actual political pressure from White House officials, according to intelligence officials and congressional officials from both parties.Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading the CIA's review of its prewar Iraq assessment, said an examination of the secret analytical work done by CIA analysts showed that it remained consistent over many years.
"There was pressure and a lot of debate, and people should have a lot of debate, that's quite legitimate," Kerr said. "But the bottom line is, over a period of several years," the analysts' assessments "were very consistent. They didn't change their views."
Kerr's findings mirror those of two probes being conducted separately by the House and Senate intelligence committees, which have interviewed, under oath, every analyst involved in assessing Iraq's weapons programs and terrorist ties.
The panel chairmen, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), and other congressional officials said in recent interviews that they found no evidence that analysts shaded their findings to more closely fit the White House's known desire to create the strongest, most urgent case for war with Iraq.
The conclusion that analysts did not buckle under political pressure does not answer the question of why the intelligence reports were so flawed. Nor does it address allegations -- made by Democrats in Congress and Democratic presidential candidates -- that top Bush administration officials misused intelligence and exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq.
The problem isn't that the intelligence services were politicized but that they're incompetent. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 31, 2004 6:03 AM
I keep waiting for somebody in the press to connect some dots re: the shackles placed on the CIA over the last 25 years. In particular, the rules introduced by Clinton - "no hanging out with bad guys", forcing reliance on electronic sources of intel instead of boots on the ground; and the Church Committee, slapping their hands for doing their jobs.
And I keep waiting for somebody in the press to recognize that their beloved UNSCOM was leading the charge on just how many WMD Saddam Hussein had but never proved destroyed. Does that mean Bush lied about that too, or would that be Clinton, then? And what about Annan, was he lying too? How about Ritter? Or was he telling the truth before, and then started lying after he was paid $400k to do a pro-Saddam documentary? It's so darn confusing!
Back to the CIA ... their entire reason for existence is to penetrate foreign governments and movements deemed a threat to our vital interests. It's their freaking job. Pretending this can be done via innocuous means is a joke.
And so, here we are, wondering why they can't do their jobs when we spent the last 25 years telling them not to do their jobs.
OJ, I'd say they are incompetent largely because of the politicization - the leftward, politically correct, feelings-based lurch - of their mission over the last 25 years. Same with the FBI. We have become uncomfortable with getting our hands dirty, and so we back away from dirty jobs. It's why we ran away from Somalia after taking 18 casualties, why we left Saddam in place in 91 to please the UN and Europe. It's all due to the same attitude, in my mind. And it is all about politics - the politics of the "peace and love" 60s. That's the view from here at 8:15 on a Saturday morning after two big cups of coffee, anyway. ;-)
US version of the Hutton report absolving Bush?
As OJ notes it's nice they weren't politicized but that doesn't help if they are incompetent.
Jeff is right - for a variety of reasons they aren't doing the job. Bush needs to revamp them now.
Thanks AWW - and I agree, complete revamp is required, starting at the top of both CIA and FBI. And State and INS.
Top two (or three) management layers, gone!
Sheesh, Jeff. The FBI never worried about getting its hands dirty under Hoover and it was worse than incompetent then.
I recommend a book called "The Sigint Secrets" for a good discussion of how intelligence is developed.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 31, 2004 1:46 PMHarry - there are indeed other causes of incompetence besides being over-regulated, as you point out. Today's FBI and CIA, though, are run by risk-averse lawyers, and so that is what we have, risk-averse organizations. Not exactly what the doctor ordered ....