The Phony Scandal

Accuracy In Media ^ | August 5, 2003 | Cliff Kincaid

[walford]

Receive FREE updates by email:

The Phony Scandal

By Cliff Kincaid

August 5, 2003

Like sharks in the water, the media think they smell blood over the Bush administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence. But Fox News commentators such as Fred Barnes have declared, "There is no scandal here." Bill Kristol called it a "phony scandal." They note that while weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found, the administration’s statements have been based on or attributed to U.S. or British intelligence. One of the most ridiculous stories appeared in the Washington Post, which charged that the White House, "in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes…" The Post asserted that the charge had been "discredited." The story assumes that the White House is required to seek approval for statements from the CIA. This statement, like the one about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, came from the British. The Post indicates the charge was discredited by a British Parliamentary inquiry which found that it came from one source, and it quotes the panel as saying that "it appears that no evidence was found which corroborated the information supplied by the source, although it was consistent with a pattern of evidence of Iraq’s military capability over time." This is only a partial quote. The inquiry also stated that the British government believed the claim came from "an established, reliable and longstanding line of reporting." In any case, the inquiry found that that it was rather non-controversial, and was a re-statement of the basic fact that chemical or biological weapons, like conventional weapons, could be fired within 45 minutes. So while the threat may have been dramatized, it was not discredited. The Post assumes that the agency has an excellent record of accuracy in such matters. But Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has written an article noting that there has been "a string of intelligence lapses" under CIA Director George Tenet. Gertz noted that Tenet "is a former Democratic Senate staffer who worked in the White House as intelligence director for the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1995. He moved to CIA as deputy director in 1995 and took the top position in July 1997." The most glaring failure was the inability to help stop the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gertz said the CIA had no permanent officers based in Afghanistan before 9/11, a base for al Qaeda terrorists. Gertz noted that U.S. intelligence failed to identify Indian preparations for an underground nuclear test in May 1998, and the agency missed North Korea's reprocessing of nuclear fuel-rods, until the North Koreans admitted it. During the Kosovo war, Gertz noted, information supplied by the CIA identified a building as a weapons agency that turned out to be the Chinese Embassy. It was mistakenly bombed. Tenet was personally accused of mishandling a security investigation of former CIA Director John Deutch, who had compromised highly classified intelligence on a laptop computer. But Tenet is held in high esteem by the Washington Post. Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at aimeditor@yahoo.com | Like What You Read? | Back To Media Monitors Section | AIM Main Page |

[walford]

Having a former Clinton staffer heading the most important information gathering organization in the world seems a bit worrisome. The CIA is being attacked from all sides of the political spectrum [for different reasons of course]. This one I blame on the administration. They should have recognized that the Agency's resposibilities are too vital to leave to second-raters. The time for a house-cleaning is long overdue.

[ravingnutter]

The CIA deserves the criticism it gets...for boneheaded analysis like this...

An unsigned CIA memo on Oct. 5 advised that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts in Niger, [US Deputy National Security Adviser] Hadley said. A second memo, sent on Oct. 6, elaborated on the CIA's doubts, describing "some weakness in the evidence," such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.

Source

So...the CIA concludes Saddam was not seeking uranium based on the fact that he already had uranium? What kind of logic is that? Given the centrifuge we found in the rose garden that he needed to enrich the uranium and even the IAEA's own reports (which they misrepresented) that said he had the capability to enrich the uranium within one month...why wasn't this info put into the SOTU instead of the charge that he "sought" uranium?

[.cnI redruM]

The CIA has more wrong than just it's director. It is a designated whipping boy of Dem party nutjobs like John Kerry and Osauma Bin Deanie.

Every year Dem morons like Kerry, Graham, and Gephardt vote to hatchett it's funding and staffing levels. Then these same jack-@$$e$ wonder why the agency doesn't actually gather intelligence. Meatheads!!!!