They Were For Dissent And Alternative Analysis Before They Were Against It

Captains Quarters ^ | February 9, 2007 | Ed Morrissey

[OESY]

The acting Inspector General of the Defense Department has issued a long-awaited report on the intelligence analysis provided by Douglas Feith during the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. According to Thomas Gimble, Feith and others did not violate laws or policies at the Department of Defense, nor did they mislead Congress -- but Gimble still concludes that their activities were "inappropriate":

"A Pentagon investigation into the handling of prewar intelligence has criticized civilian Pentagon officials for conducting their own intelligence analysis to find links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but said the officials did not violate any laws or mislead Congress, according to Congressional officials who have read the report.

"The long-awaited report by the Pentagon’s acting inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, was sent to Congress on Thursday. It is the first major review to rebuke senior officials working for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the way intelligence was used before the invasion of Iraq early in 2003.

"Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” the report concluded. Excerpts were quoted by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who has long been critical of Mr. Feith and other Pentagon officials.

"The report, and the dueling over its conclusions, shows that bitter divisions over the handling of prewar intelligence remain even after many of the substantive questions have been laid to rest and the principal actors have left the government.

"In a rebuttal to an earlier draft of Mr. Gimble’s report, Eric S. Edelman, the under secretary of defense, said the group’s activities were authorized by Mr. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz. They did not produce formal intelligence assessments, and they were properly shared, the rebuttal said."

It's difficult to understand the objection of the IG. If the activity broke no laws and violated no policies, what is inappropriate about having competing sets of analysts looking at intelligence to get alternative viewpoints? One of the criticisms made by Bush administration critics is that the White House relied on stovepiped intel analysis for the WMD question -- which came from the official CIA analysts and directed by George Tenet.

In this case, the Secretary and Undersecretary of Defense wanted an investigation of intel to determine whether Iraq had operational ties to al-Qaeda, a reasonable question given the circumstances. The CIA -- which the Democrats believe got it wrong on WMD -- didn't believe that radical Islamists would cooperate with the supposedly secular Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz authorized Feith to review the intelligence to see if evidence existed for a different conclusion, and Feith found enough contacts between Saddam and AQ to at least challenge the notion that they would have never considered a partnership.

Instead, the IG scolded Feith for not following the consensus, and then not following the procedures for "rare" disagreement. That differs rather dramatically from the scolding given to the intel communities by the 9/11 Commission and enthusiastically supported by the same elements in Congress that now want a piece of Douglas Feith for daring to disagree and to do so publicly. Back then, dissenters got celebrated as visionaries who had the courage to try to wake up the decisionmakers. Now Congress wants to punish someone who essentially did what Congress demanded during those reviews.

None of this has anything to do with the war or its intel analysis. Feith and Wolfowitz have served as targets for Democrats for years, and now that they have returned to power, they want to use whatever they can to finish them politically. Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller can't wait to start holding hearings on the matter, even though the IG explicitly states that no laws were broken and the effort was properly revealed to Congress. This is just another venue for political payback, and nothing more.

[Freee-dame]

This is just another venue for political payback, and nothing more.

What isn't these days?

[PISANO]

After our nation was attacked on 911 it would have been the HEIGHT of STUPIDITY for ANY POTUS to IGNORE 12 years of data that showed an enemy was HIDING WMD, an enemy that USED WMD in the past against [IRAN] and it's OWN PEOPLE and who was at the time ACTIVELY supporting TERRORISM with 25k payments to the families of suicide bombers and who tried to assassinate a former President of the United States and lastly a nation who for 12 years systematically violated the Articles of Surrenders from GW I.

The MSM uses hindsight [of mistakes made by Republicans] as though every member of the GOP was born with the ability to see the FUTURE!!

[NonValueAdded]

Jeez, sounds like Rummy & co. did the right thing. All we heard about in the 9-11 Omission hearings was about stovepiped and "fixed" - fixed, mind you¹ - intelligence. So what was the Omission's recommendation? Glom it all together so only one opinion could emerge, who cares if it's right. Can't buck the consensus, don'tcha know. If 2,500 scientists say global warming is man-made, who are you to try and independently confirm that?

¹ Interesting how Kerry made such a big stink about using the Downing Street Memo to slam GBW about fixing (as in American English - tampering with) intel until someone explained to him that the Brits use that word differently. Somehow that warning penetrated the hat and Kerry wisely decided to let it fade down the memory hole.

[WesternPacific]

I don't understand. There was Sarin gas found in 2004, my son's unit found it. There have been other finds. Why is it still reported that WMD were not found?

[Thrownatbirth]

That's all they need to see.

[SoFloFreeper]

Who is the Inspector General? What's her name? I want to know.

[Tarantulas]

First link no workee. Actual link:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009126.php

[OESY]

Funny, I couldn't pick up my laundry either. Thanks!

[Richard Axtell]

Democrat politicians and leftist pundits have "settled" the issue of whether or not there were any "connections" or "operational cooperation" between Saddam's regime and Osama's Al Qaida long ago... before the 2000 election that put those scheming warmongers the Neo-Cons in power. They decided that there were such connections, thus we had the "Regime Change Resolution of 1998" due to the potential of a WMD possessing state cooperation and the already accepted ongoing threat posed by the Iraqi regime itself.

All that changed in 2000 with the election of George Bush. Suddenly, none of what was accepted earlier... mattered at all. Now, all these politicians and pundits are "... have always been against this illegal and unnecessary war of choice", even though in print and on audio/video tape they said quite the opposite... back then, before the election of 2000.

Folks, what we have here is real evidence of the reality of "Time Travel", as it is clear that reps or operatives of said Democrats have gone back in time and altered the historical record... or at least told their clients that the did. Clue to Democrats: "YOU CAN'T REALLY CHANGE HISTORY". But you can fool a bunch of people(voters) and even yourself into thinking that you have.

[ScaniaBoy]

A good post by the Capt'n on Feith and the report by the Inspector General of DoD. However note that Michelle Malkin writes that WaPo has had to back track on the original AP story - they quoted the wrong document! LOL!

http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/6188

The reason for pinging you, though, are the many excellent links on AQ/Iraq connections found in the comments section on Ed Morrissey's story.

[Peach]

Saddam was so secular he wrote the Koran in his own blood. It took him three years.

[ScaniaBoy]

Peach,

Did you see the link to NYT posted by a drive by troll, trying to denigrate Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al, but which contained the follwong:

Spy Games Inc.

24 October 2002

The New York Times reports today (number 1 hit on the Early Bird) that Secretary Rumsfeld has stood up a small team to datamine the array of information on Iraq and the Middle East provided to his staff by professional intelligence producers.

This is old news; the article points out that this team stood right after 9-11-01.

Pentagon supporters of this fantastic intelligence innovation say, "Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, and Mr. Feith are consciously challenging 'cherished beliefs and assumptions' they believe prevent intelligence analysts from focusing on certain information."

Was this ever discussed on the Able Danger threads? Can't remember.

PS: I assume "stood up" means that they started, formed, put together a team, and that it has nothing to do with the past tense of a failed date.

:^)

[Fedora]

Thanks for the ping!

[Enchante]

"alternative" views and noble "dissents" are only permitted for left-wing morons, or don't you people understand that yet? :^(

The left thinks a "vigorous exchange of ideas" means forcing far-left babble upon everyone else. Anyone who dares to question scumbags like Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller, and their counterparts in the intel agencies is a dangerous "inappropriate" threat to the moronic leftist consensus.....

[Peach]

I didn't see that, ScaniaBoy, and don't this any of this was discussed on the Able Danger threads, but that was a while ago and my memory isn't too hot :-)

Thanks for the ping to this.