SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCEDonald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?

New Yorker ^ | -11/17/03 | by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

[mgist]

They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans.

In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community.

These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq.

They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda.

As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question.

[mgist]

I'm debating a EU liberal in another forum. Please help me defend our pres. What do you guys make of this article.

[nuffsenuff]

It's a blatant attempt by the liberal left to scare the begesus out of the general population by implying that there is some "secret" group pulling the levers on the intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein.

I didn't read the whole thing but I'm sure there's a PNAC reference in there.

[mgist]

He/she sent me this link. So any article link providing evidence for WMD and/or evidence for war would be great.

[billbears]

Long read but good article

[Poohbah]

Point out to him that Saddam had five years to hide the stuff in a nation roughly the size of Kolly-vornia, and that there was no requirement that he hide it IN Iraq.

There's a lot of evidence that the program was in hibernation until the coast was clear.

Also point out to him that the various WMD-related resolutions did not set up an adversarial game of "gotcha," but that they required 100% cooperation from Iraq. Failure to render same--for whatever reason--is a material breach of the 1991 ceasefire.

[mgist]

"Long read but good article"

That's not going to help me debate my Bush hating euro friend.

[zarf]

Is this the same Seymoour Hersch who made accusations against Richard Perle - charges of which Perle was just recently cleared of?

[nuffsenuff]

You shouldn't even bother. You're never going to change that person's mind. Liberals have no concept of rationality or reason.

[Burkeman1]

Have not read the article yet- but whom do I believe? Hersh- a left wing ideologue from way back or Feith- a "Neocon" ideolugue (that traces its roots to both love of Fascism and communism) who had this to say about how long we would be in Iraq just this past February:

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/02/11/16672-1.html

[the Real fifi]

Yes. Law suit to follow. And it's long overdue against this slimeball, blackmailing excuse of a journo.

[ProudGOP]

This is a pretty good article

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022824/posts

I like this one because it shows that Democrats who had access to the same intelligence came to the same conclusion about Iraq and WMD. It probably won't carry much weight with your Euroweenie buddy, though.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/992795/posts

[Burkeman1]

The accusations in this article basically say that intel was force fed to Bush on Iraq WMD's, nuclear programs, and Al Queda links that was not vetted through proper intel channels. Supposing this is true what should happen?

What would we, as conservatives (well at least some of us are)have done if confronted with the same facts about Clinton during his time?

[sarasmom]

Tell them it is none of their business!
"James Bond" and the "Men in Black" are not an accurate reflection of reality.
If they really,REALLY, want to know the RAW truth, they are encouraged to apply for a position among the numerous levels and activities available in intelligence fields, swear a binding, seriously life and death level oath, and enter into a pariah career path of self inflicted constant distrust and self selected personal obscurity.
But hey, they would finally KNOW!
Or would they? Levels within levels.
ROTFLMAO!
Just a hunch, but I think you and your debate group would not meet the required standards for much beyond burning cross-shredded classified documents.
Yes, such a level exisits!
ROTFLMAO!

[billbears]

Well you know what we would do. We would be out protesting in the streets, a protest on every street corner. Saying to everyone that would listen the evidence is flimsy, that Clinton wanted to bomb another aspirin factory.

Funny how you change a few key positions in politics but not the intelligence agency that supplies the facts and the war effort is not only acceptable, to question it makes you unpatriotic

Of course that's a conservative, not Republican, point of view

[billbears]

Hold it, if the CIA is incompetent as you say, wouldn't that bring into question the statements of Democratic politicians, whose statements are waved around here like some flag, who I'm sure were basing their statements on CIA intelligence?

[Burkeman1]

If Clinton were running this war and had presented such evidence of a potential threat to us that still hadn't panned out and then changed the reason for the war to some Wilsonian fantasy in mid stream? I can't imagine the Freeper reacion that would have resulted!

During the Clinton epoch of Freeper history I came here because Clinton's administration kept me up nights as he was so corrupt and well- evil.

Bush is not evil or nearly as corrupt but when I see a wrong policy or lies to justify it I will out them. I thought other Freepers would as well. I never thought Freepers would be as blatantly as partisan as Democrats were in defense of obvious lies! It is now just a joke.

Human nature is Human nature. There are just as many liars and hypocrites among Democrats as there are among Republicans.

[billbears]

Factually, the Democrats' statements prove nothing, unless you're inclined to believe Democrats.

Factually I'm not inclined to believe either party anymore. And where would the Democrats have gotten this intelligence to make statements like that? The tooth fairy? But now we're to blame the same intelligence agency because, after review, they realize the assessment may have been, and so far has been, wrong?