Replies

Did INR Director Greg Thielmann change his story, and if so, why?

Greg Thielmann, the former director for strategic proliferation and military affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), seems to stand in the center of every journalism piece documenting how the Bush administration distorted Iraq intelligence. Thielmann told CBS that "contrary arguments were ignored." He told The New Republic that the administration dismissed INR intelligence on those infamous aluminum tubes -- tubes that Colin Powell claimed could be used for an Iraqi nuclear program. And perhaps most critically, Thielmann told Seymour Hersh that he was eventually excluded from intelligence meetings with John Bolton, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Thielmann alleged that Bolton bypassed the entire intelligence vetting process. Bolton himself explained his actions to Hersh: "I didn’t want [the intelligence] filtered. I wanted to see everything—to be fully informed. If that puts someone’s nose out of joint, sorry about that."

Some of this is corroborated in the Senate report. On page 278, an unnamed INR analyst is quoted as saying that Bolton's office was not listening to INR, but receiving information only from the CIA. After that, however, the report gets very interesting. Presumably, Thielmann is the unnamed "Former INR Office Director" quoted on page 279. As the Committee reports, Thielmann testified that "he did not feel pressure from the Secretary [Colin Powell], the Under-Secretary [Bolton], or Director of INR on Iraq WMD issues."

Really? If this speaker is indeed Thielmann -- as it seems to be -- why did he do a complete about-face from his earlier allegations? Did the Senate Committee at all explore the ramifications of his previous statements? Why or why not?

http://tinyurl.com/d8urk