Posted on 04/02/2005 6:19:54 AM PST by WmShirerAdmirer
SPRINGFIELD -- The United States' pre-war intelligence on Iraq was dead wrong, according to the president's Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Despite the report, Missouri's senior U.S. senator says the decision to go to war was still the right one.
Bond is a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence. In an interview here on Thursday, Bond said the bad intelligence came from an archaic system based on assumptions rather than thorough analysis and human intelligence. He also placed much of the blame on the Clinton administration.
The commission’s report says the harm done to American credibility will take years to undo.
“The intelligence community had not challenged its own assumptions, did not provide the caveats they should have about some of their sources,” said Bond.
The senator notes that the commission cleared the Bush administration of manipulating the intelligence for political purposes. He took a shot at the Democrats.
“The Clinton administration cut the intel budget by 20 percent. The Director of Intelligence got rid of spies -- human intelligence that we badly needed in the war against terror,” said Bond.
An expert on terrorism, Southwest Missouri State University political science professor Mehrdad Haghayeghi, says many Democrats and even some Republicans never would have voted for the war if the president hadn’t hyped the threat.
“Traditionally, intelligence is the foundation for policymaking. In this case, unfortunately, the Bush administration had devised the policy of intervention in Iraq and looked for intelligence that fit that policy,” said Haghayeghi.
Bond fears the new director of National Intelligence doesn’t have enough power and says his daily briefings to the president will be critical as other foreign threats emerge.
The report also says the United States knows disturbingly little about current nuclear threats. And some experts believe this report will make it harder to push for sanctions against countries that may be gaining that capability, like Iran.
Bond also isn’t sure whether the United States has good enough intelligence about Iran and North Korea.
“It's getting better but it’s not nearly as good as it should be,” he said.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, also was in the area on Thursday. He says there's enough blame to spread around all agencies in government. ----
Here's The Associated Press' report on the commission's report:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The 3 1/2 years since the terrorists' attacks on Sept. 11, 2002, have seen the creation of a new Homeland Security Department, a major reorganization of spy agencies and countless condemnations of the way things were done. Still, the $10 million presidential commission says, the nation's spies are still missing the mark.
"Our collection agencies are often unable to gather intelligence on the very things we care the most about," the President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction concluded in a bruising report on Thursday.
"Dead wrong" on Saddam Hussein's weapons, the report said. "Too little innovation to succeed in the 21st century."
Though Bush initially opposed the panel's creation, he promised immediate action at a news conference with retired Judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican, and former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia, the commission's co-chairmen.
"To win the war on terror, we will correct what needs to be fixed," Bush said.
The commission offered 74 recommendations aimed at changing the structure and culture of the nation's 15 spy agencies. It called for more clarity in the powers of the newly created national intelligence director, an overhaul of national security efforts in the Justice Department and dozens of changes in intelligence collection and analysis.
"There is no more important intelligence mission than understanding the worst weapons that our enemies possess, and how they intend to use them against us," the commission said. "These are their deepest secrets, and unlocking them must be our highest priority."
The report, approved unanimously by the bipartisan nine-member panel, followed the failure of U.S. inspectors in Iraq to turn up any weapons of mass destruction. The existence of weapons stockpiles - detailed in dozens of intelligence reports before the March 2003 invasion - was the administration's leading argument for toppling Saddam.
The report painted a picture of a clumsy intelligence apparatus struggling to penetrate Iraqi operations and wrongly concluding that Saddam had weapons capable of causing catastrophic damage. Commissioners found intelligence collectors didn't provide enough information or were deceived by discredited sources and analysts relied on old assumptions about Saddam's intentions and overstated their conclusions.
"On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude," said the report, which exceeded 600 pages.
The commission found the spy community ill-prepared to penetrate adversarial nations and terror groups. It said agencies must do a better job of preventing attacks with biological agents and learning about the spread of nuclear weapons.
"Across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors," the report said. "In some cases, it knows less now than it did five or 10 years ago."
REPORT IN BRIEF
CONCLUSION: America's spy agencies were wrong in most prewar assessments about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and know "disturbingly little" about current nuclear threats, a presidential commission said yesterday.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It recommended dozens of organizational changes and said President Bush could implement most of them without congressional action. It also urged the president to support John Negroponte, his choice to be the new director of national intelligence, in any bureaucratic turf battles ahead.
... “The intelligence community had not challenged its own assumptions, did not provide the caveats they should have about some of their sources,” said Bond.
"The senator notes that the commission cleared the Bush administration of manipulating the intelligence for political purposes. He took a shot at the Democrats."
“The Clinton administration cut the intel budget by 20 percent. The Director of Intelligence got rid of spies -- human intelligence that we badly needed in the war against terror,” said Bond.
Saw an article in the NYT just after the "Cole" incident where (unnamed) CIA agents were slamming Clinton Administration for not being interested in "foreign intelligence", cutting the Intelligence Budget, the word was being put out to "everyone" (agents included) in Intelligence, "keep a lid on" whatever comes out, "no surprises wanted" from Intelligence community because Gore was going to be running for Prez. I thought the whole situation "stunk" back then and had genuine fear for our men and women in arms since the article spoke about the Cole, the Embassy bombings and the bombings in Saudi Arabia. The article wrote of agents being fed up and disgusted with not being able to do their jobs and pointed saying Clinton was at fault. Of course nothing was done. Not even a stinging indictment written in a paper read by millions, had caused a stir in the Clinton WH, nor does it seem on Capital Hill.
As I've seen written many times, in many places, before and after September 11th, US Foreign Intelligence; Bill Clinton just wasn't interested.
The report this article is about flatly disputes this assertion.
"As I've seen written many times, in many places, before and after September 11th, US Foreign Intelligence; Bill Clinton just wasn't interested."
Agreed. I still hold the President responsible for listening to these incompetent Clintonistas though. He had a choice and chose to agree with the data provided to him by this bush-league (no pun intended!!) "intelligence community".
Also, I'm disgusted that Colin Powell is now all upset about this. He should've been disgusted 2 years ago. Coming out against Bush now just makes him look like a babbling jackass.
He better stay far away from any parks.
Does "Bond" have a first name? Apparently KY3 News doesn't have copy editors...
When Clinton did nothing after the attack on the Cole it told everybody that Clinton was an idiot.
Correction: It told only people who understood politics.
Senator Bond is Christopher "Kit" Bond.
You noticed too. I was astounded that I couldn't find it (his first name) in the first paragraph or in any others. Could he be that well known in Missouri? Any one in Missouri reading to answer this?
Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond, also a former governor of the state, is very well known here, I can assure you. Perhaps the writer is just a typical "journalist" and therefore not aware of much of anything :)
This should have been an issue in the 2000 election, but it wasn't, guess there weren't any CIA whistleblowers brave enough back then. Thought just occurred to me, maybe even CIA agents feared for their lives (remembering Vince Foster) with the Clintons still in the WH.
"Christopher "Kit" Bond"
Thank you. The only name which came to mind was Julian Bond and I knew that just couldn't be right.
Thanks for you reply and its information...it was very amusing too!
Thanks for the info. As an American (and not from Missouri) I'm glad he made those remarks.
There we go. It is all Bush's fault.
Btw, how does one get to be an "expert" on terrorism?
/sarcasm
“Traditionally, intelligence is the foundation for policymaking. In this case, unfortunately, the Bush administration had devised the policy of intervention in Iraq and looked for intelligence that fit that policy,” said Haghayeghi."
Oh, Really?
And the point of putting this stupid statement in this article that directly refutes it, is what...?
Thanks for your replies.
To Clintonites, perception is reality. Therefore, the perception of accurate intelligence IS accurate intelligence.
Clinton was good at sending messages:
To terrorists, if you kill a few of us we will cut and run (Somalia)
If you attack us we will not respond.
If you attack us enough we will send a few cruise missles
I don't need the CIA so don't send you daily brief to me because I am not interested.
I don't need the CIA so every time I need money I will take it out of CIA hide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.