Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee: News will break on Saddam's weapons program

Drudge Report ^ | 07/03/03 | Matt Drudge

[hchutch]

PArtially double-checking, and part of it might be trying to make sure we've got the stuff someplace that is secure.

[finnman69]

15 nuclear bimbs

"Yeeez I said bimbs"

[Smogger]

That information needs to REMAIN Classified until closer to the election. We need more Democratic candidates to commit to the "Bush is a liar. Saddamn never had WMD" track.

[DeepDish]

Maybe Bush is sitting on information in the hope that the nine dwarves (Kerry
et al) make irrecoverable asses of themselves. Things got quieter right after
they found the gas centrifuge parts and plans.

Sure, like everyone, I would like to know what they find in the way of WMDs
as soon as they discover it. Also I don't like the idea that Bush may be
timing the release of news on this subject, but he did not start the politi-
calization of this issue and so the dems can now pay the price.

[TomGuy]

Fox News report:

Analyst: Intelligence Agents Did Not Exaggerate WMD Findings

Thursday, July 03, 2003

WASHINGTON — Current, reliable information on Iraq's weapons efforts was sometimes lacking but U.S. intelligence analysts did not exaggerate their findings under pressure from Bush administration officials trying to build a case for war, says Richard Kerr, who is heading the intelligence community's internal review of its prewar performance on Iraq.

The analysts cataloged some uncertainties about the data in intelligence reports but still generally concluded Iraq had active weapons of mass destruction (search) programs, Kerr, a retired senior analyst and former deputy director of central intelligence, said in an Associated Press interview.

Some Democrats in Congress say those doubts never were made public. In the two months since the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (search), U.S. and British forces have not validated many of their prewar claims, including those that said Iraq had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

Critics have accused the administration of exaggerating or mishandling intelligence to convince Americans and the world that it was necessary to invade Iraq.

Kerr is leading a team of three other retired intelligence officers in a review of the performance of the CIA and other agencies. They have submitted an initial report to CIA Director George Tenet (search), who has vigorously defended the agency's efforts on Iraq.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the contents of Kerr's report. The official said it was part of a self-evaluation of the intelligence community's prewar performance that was proposed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in October 2002.

In discussing the report, Kerr primarily described his finding that the integrity of the intelligence process was maintained. Efforts to gauge the accuracy many of agencies' prewar predictions will have to wait until a more thorough search of Iraq is completed, he said.

The foundation of the U.S. information on Iraq's weapons programs was discoveries after the 1991 Gulf War, Kerr said. But after U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, much of the information dried up, leaving the U.S. government to discover what it could from satellite images, intercepted communications and spies and refugees.

Solid information was sometimes lacking from those sources. However, what the intelligence agencies did learn seemed to confirm their conclusions that Iraq indeed had active programs to make chemical and biological weapons and to develop nuclear weapons, said Kerr.

"There was, in some areas, a dearth of hard, detailed intelligence," he said. "That presents a real problem for intelligence analysts."

Still, he said, "it would have been very hard for an intelligence analyst to determine that there were no weapons of mass destruction programs. There was a lot of information over time."

In the run-up to the war, intelligence analysts faced intense pressure from Bush administration officials seeking information to prove Iraq was a threat, Kerr said.

"While there was an awful lot of pressure to try to support various positions, that's always the case," he said. "People are going to prod the intelligence community to try to make them more precise but also to convince them they're right."

But a review of the prewar findings shows the analysts didn't change their position, Kerr said.

"They were pretty consistent over a considerable period of time," he said.

Kerr predicted that more evidence of weapons programs would yet be found in Iraq but acknowledged the search might be fruitless. "It's a set of judgments," he said. "It may be wrong. It may not be completely accurate."

Congressional intelligence oversight committees are conducting preliminary inquiries.

Critics have raised a variety of questions: Was bad information collected and wrongly believed? Were the analysts wrong or inappropriately influenced? Did the Bush administration not accurately reflect the real intelligence in its statements to the public and United Nations?

Prewar intelligence reports also note uncertainties and acknowledge gaps in U.S. knowledge, Kerr said.

But many of those uncertainties, qualifications and caveats never reached the public, congressional Democrats say. Statements by Bush administration officials rarely expressed doubts about Iraq's weapons programs.

"When discussing Iraq's WMD, administration officials rarely included the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence community's judgments," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, during a House debate last week. "For many Americans, the administration's certainty gave the impression that there was even stronger intelligence about Iraq's possession of and intention to use WMD."

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said some uncertainties about Iraq's alleged weapons programs were glossed over in the run-up to the war.

"These are our best judgments," he said. "The public sometimes receives them as gospel, when in fact they're our best judgments. Our intelligence is good, but it's not infallible."

In recent weeks, the Defense Intelligence Agency (search), the CIA's counterpart at the Pentagon, declassified part of a prewar report on Iraq's weapons. Its language suggests some uncertainties that Bush administration officials ignored in public statements.

"Although we lack any direct information, Iraq probably possesses CW agent in chemical munitions, possibly including artillery rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs and ballistic missile warheads," the report says.

[Cousin Eddie]

This whole flap over the search is a joke.

If memory serves, I believe there were 30,000 litres of one type of WMD, a couple of tons of something else, etc. 30,000 litres is roughly 8,000 gallons. What is that, maybe one or two tanker trucks. One more semi could carry the rest of the stuff if it only weighs a couple of tons.

I heard someone on the radio put it perfectly. We know they had this stuff in 1998. The UN found it, every nation in the world acknowledges this. Now, I'm going to give you two tanker trucks and a semi. Furthermore, I'm going to tell all 30 million+ residents of California to close their eyes for five years! During those 5 years, you can hide your three trucks anywhere in the state (or even take them out of the state and give them to a friend for that matter). Mojave desert, the Sierras, Imperial or San Jouquin valleys, the coastal regions, you pick. Bury it, break it into smaller pieces. Whatever you want. Then I'm going to tell the 30 million Californians to open their eyes and find the stuff. And if you've given it to a friend in Nevada or Arizona, tough luck for the Californians -- they're not allowed to look there. How long is going to take the 30 million Californian's to find the stuff?

Heck, it took us 5 months to find Laci & Connor and we knew exactly where to look.

[Wright is right!]

I should have indicated that I was posting in Clousseau Mode. You do that, BTW, with the following HTML tag:

<clousseau mode=on>

Text to be clousseaued

<clousseau mode=off>

Of course, that doesn't work for just anybody...

Michael

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

[William McKinley]

I always used the more standard <clousseau> and </clousseau> tags.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Great analysis! I think you are correct. One thing everyone has to acknowledge (except Dems, of course) is that President Bush takes the safety of the nation and soldiers as the first priority. Allowing this type of information out before securing, destroying or making the WMD's non-viable is more important that who gets the scoop!

[William McKinley]

If memory serves, I believe there were 30,000 litres of one type of WMD, a couple of tons of something else, etc. 30,000 litres is roughly 8,000 gallons.

Some details

[Pukin Dog]

I predicted a couple of weeks ago, that the administration did indeed find WMD's and that they have probably been systematically cataloging and classifying every thing they find, so that when it is all released, it will hit the Democrats like thunder from heaven.

I think that Roberts was advised to leak today, so that it will dominate the weekend news cycle, instead of all the coming media attacks on Howard Dean.

I can think of nothing better than for Bush to be left to run against a totally discredited Dean who can do nothing but nip at his heals when not backing away from civil unions and the death penalty. It must suck to be a Democrat today.

[arichtaxpayer]

Bring it on!!!!!!

[Howlin]

In case you missed it.

[BlessedByLiberty]

You're exactly right. Also, it was the Dems who continually complained that Pres Bush would politicize the war, patriotism, etc., but as usual it is the Dems/Libs who are doing it. It is remarkable that the more they attempt to bring him down, the more it reflects on them - like holding a mirror to Medusa.

[alloysteel]

Then don't pass any of this information to Patrick Leahy.

[TomGuy]

Trace Gallagher on FoxNews had a report a little while ago about the LA Times and an article they are running.

Unrest in Iraq Poses Political Threat to Bush.

Gallagher indicated that this article, along with similar reports from the liberal media/alphabetsoupnetworks, were far from what the "person on the street" seems to think.

Gallagher ran brief interviews on the street. The people on the street have better sense about Iraq and the current aftermath (only 2 months after the march to Bagdad) than the newsmediaites seem to have. One lady even called "them" "idiots". LOL.

[ClancyJ]

Good points and so true.

[VRWC_minion]

I have been saying this all along. This idiot ought to kepp his mouth shut. He isn't doing anybody any favors.

[VRWC_minion]

What is the logic in purposefully letting this drag out so long, I don't see it

No political reason. Tell me. how much information does your local police give out when investigating a crime ?