Senator: Report on Iraq Intelligence 'Damning'

Reuters ^ | 03/12/04 | Tabassum Zakaria

[Pikamax]

Senator: Report on Iraq Intelligence 'Damning' Fri Mar 12, 2004 03:14 PM ET

By Tabassum Zakaria WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report about prewar intelligence on Iraq will be "tough and damning" and spread the blame around, a senior Republican senator said on Friday.

"It will be damning of some of the intelligence. I think it's going to be highly critical, it will be critical of a lot of different programs and people," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, third-ranking in the Senate Republican leadership.

The blame spreads over Democratic and Republican administrations, intelligence agencies and Congress, he said. "Nobody is without blame."

The report is expected to be issued this spring, possibly in April.

Kyl's comments came in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations aimed at countering harsh criticism of the Republican administration by Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, a week earlier to the same group.

Kennedy's case that the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence to Congress and the public to go to war against Iraq was "long on innuendo and very short on facts," Kyl said.

Administration officials had based their comments about Iraq on intelligence assessments, he said. "They did not ... distort, mislead, or misrepresent what the intelligence community said."

U.S. intelligence reports before the war said Iraq had biological and chemical weapons and was developing a nuclear weapon, but since the U.S.-led invasion last year no such banned weapons have been found.

KEY ELECTION ISSUE

Democrats say the Republican White House exaggerated the threat from Iraq to gather support for the war. Republicans say it is too early to draw conclusions because the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has not ended and the administration's comments were based on assessments by the intelligence agencies.

It has become a hot-button political issue ahead of the presidential election in November.

Kennedy, who has taken a high-profile role in the presidential campaign of fellow Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry, in last week's speech accused Republican President Bush of exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq for political gain.

"That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason -- suggesting that the president deliberately put our young men and women in harm's way for no purpose other than politics," Kyl said.

"Such a charge would not only sap the morale of the troops who are fighting even now, it would undercut our entire position on the war on terror generally and in Iraq specifically," Kyl said.

Kyl, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said congressional oversight of spy agencies was "not very good" because lawmakers serve on several committees and have limited staff so cannot devote full attention to one issue.

"You would literally have to spend all of your time on this to really be able to know what kind of questions to ask, and because you don't have personal staff you get fed the questions," Kyl said.

"I mean it is not a good oversight set up, it is not calculated to really provide oversight, and I suspect that the intelligence agencies, including the CIA, like it that way a whole lot," he said.

[StriperSniper]

.

[tractorman]

Paging the Clintons. Will the Clintons please pick up the white negligence phone!

[boxerblues]

The blame spreads over Democratic and Republican administrations, intelligence agencies and Congress, he said. "Nobody is without blame."

Some will still say Bush lied, and ignore everything else.

[auboy]

"long on innuendo and very short on facts,"

Sounds like a description of The Democrat Party to me.

[dfwgator]

Intelligence is not an exact science, you try to make a best guess based on the information you have, hindsight is 20/20.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

When you rip out the operational guts, like Kerry voted to do in the 1990s, you really do get what you pay for.

[PISANO]

The LEAST blame should befall the GW administration due to one simple fact. They were in POWER for only 7.5 months before 911 took place.

IMHO Congress is the number ONE culprit for years of GUTTING our Intelligence agencies. SECONDLY it would have to be the Clintoon Administration that ALWAYS failed to respond to any terrorist attack or threat even to the point of NOT accepting OBL when offered. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE and tell me how differnt the world would be NOW if OBL had been in custody for 3-5 years prior to 911???!!!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It has become a hot-button political issue ahead of the presidential election in November.

It's another one of those computer viruses that infect the media computers. It just won't go away! /sarcasm

[17th Miss Regt]

If it fails to pin the blame squarely on Bush, it should be denounced as a coverup, whitewash, racist, homophobic, bad for the environment, leaving all the children behind, anti-choice, tax cuts only for the rich document. Of course, accuracy of the document is only a secondary consideration.

[JohnGalt]

Chalabi and the idiots who let that phony manipulate the intelligence process need to be held accountable.

Simply dismissing it as a mistake is as pathetic as the Waco investigation.

[OneTimeLurker]

"Chalabi and the idiots who let that phony manipulate the intelligence process need to be held accountable."

If you are a friend of the administration, you shouldn't advocate this approach.

[Libertarian444]

Some will still say Bush lied, and ignore everything else.

Precisely. Does anyone really think that when this report is released that the negligence of Democrats will be highlighted?? I doubt the word Democrat will even be mentioned in most of the stories.

[familyofman]

"The LEAST blame should befall the GW administration due to one simple fact. They were in POWER for only 7.5 months before 911 took place."

I hear this argument a lot. Everytime I hear it I ask myself a very simple question - if 7.5 months is too little time for responsibility, what is a long enough period? When does a new POTUS become responsible for events that take place during his administration? With a possible new POTUS every 4 years - we could end up with no one being responsible for anything. Hell, just blame the guy who was there before you (remember to take credit for anything good though).

Just being my cynical old self again.

[camas]

you forgot the peanut farmer, carter. he started the down fall.

[JohnGalt]

Cheney has got to be held accountable and the sooner the better. I cannot fathom patriots simply ignoring this glaring problem.

[Sacajaweau]

Hindsight being 20-20, Clinton was offered Usama on a platter and refused him, even after several attacks on US interests. I believe 9-11 would have never happened and a good part of his following would have disbanded without Usama at the helm.

[EEDUDE]

"Simply dismissing it as a mistake is as pathetic as the Waco investigation."

If you haven't already done so, go to your local library and get a copy of Bill Gertz's "Breakdown".

It talks about what's really happened to our intelligence agencies since the end of the cold war.

It's a real life nightmare.

[CasearianDaoist]

The question is is why are GOP legislators aiding the Rats. They must know that this will harm Bush. I also want to know how those idiots on the Hill and their "staffs" can in in any sense of the word be competent to judge anyone in the intelligence community.

The Rats are suceeding in taking the outstanding accomplishments of the WOT away from Bush and the GOP is letting them.

[JohnGalt]

Did Gertz spend much time talking about the CIA employing elements of "radical Islam" in Bosnia during the same time period?