Why Can't the CIA Keep Up with the New Yorker?

The Weekly Standard ^ | 09/13/2002 | Stephen F. Hayes

[Kermit]

IN WHAT SHOULD go down as one of the most under-discussed revelations of the war on terrorism, an unnamed "senior counterterrorism official" told the Washington Post Tuesday that the CIA is aware of credible reports documenting Saddam-al Qaeda coordination in northern Iraq, but hasn't checked them out.

Someone remind me why George Tenet still has a job.

In March, the New Yorker ran an exhaustive--16,000 words--account by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing the plight of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. It was an extraordinary piece of journalism--the kind that journalism awards are created to recognize. I distributed the article to dozens of friends and colleagues. It turned Iraq doves into hawks, and skeptics about a war there into believers.

I was sure it would have a more significant impact, too, triggering immediate investigations by the intelligence-gathering agencies that exist to protect us. I was wrong.

Goldberg interviewed several prisoners held by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two rival Kurdish factions in the north. The prisoners related an intricate web of coordination between an al Qaeda splinter group and Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat.

Goldberg: "The allegations include charges that Ansar al-Islam has received funds directly from Al Qaeda; that the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with Al Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number of Al Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam; and that Iraqi intelligence agents smuggled conventional weapons, and possibly even chemical and biological weapons, into Afghanistan. If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."

Goldberg sprinkled his prose with caveats--about the possible motivations of the Kurds, about the differing agendas of Saddam and Islamic radicals. That skepticism made his account more credible. But what ultimately made the report convincing was the detail. Goldberg named the prisoners, he explained their relationships, he recreated their battles, and he described their travels. In short, his work is verifiable.

Which is why the Kurds invited him to interview the prisoners in the first place--they hoped it might arouse the interest of U.S. intelligence. "The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. haven't come out yet," reported the PUK's director of intelligence. His deputy added, "Americans are going to Somalia, the Philippines, I don't know where else, to look for terrorists. But this is the field, here."

In early July, an hour-long PBS documentary that aired on Wide Angle corroborated much of the reporting in Goldberg's piece--once again with names, dates, etc. I was sure that whatever their past failings, as the administration pointed itself squarely in the direction of war with Iraq, our revamped, refocused intelligence services would be all over this information, for while the case for removing Saddam Hussein is compelling without any direct link to al Qaeda, and sources in the Bush administration made clear months ago that this case would center on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, might it not be worth merely investigating a Saddam-al Qaeda link? Especially as our potential allies began lining up against military action?

Apparently not. As the Washington Post reports: "The Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, an anti-Hussein group in northern Iraq, says it has jailed 15 to 20 al Qaeda members and was surprised that no one from the U.S. government has come to interrogate them. One senior counterterrorism official confirmed that the CIA knew of the detentions and that U.S. officials have not interrogated the prisoners. 'We really don't know whether they are under al Qaeda or Saddam's control,' the official said. 'Ansar trained in Afghan camps. They used Afghanistan as their headquarters. It's tough to nail down the other details. It's not implausible that they are working with Saddam. His intel links into northern Iraq are very strong.'"

But it's not that "tough to nail down the other details." Jeffrey Goldberg did it. PBS documentarians did it.

Why hasn't the CIA?

Stephen F. Hayes is staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

[Kermit]

George Bush gave a brilliant speech yesterday at the UN. He's outmaneuvered his opponents at every turn. It's this lack of action in his own government that worries me the most about him. Incompetents and Clintonistas rule the roost at State, at Justice, at the CIA, at the FBI and at the EPA. When is he going to do something about this?

[GirlShortstop]

Clintonistas rule the roost at State, at Justice, at the CIA, at the FBI and at the EPA. When is he going to do something about this?

VERY good question...

I'm no Einstein, but from the get-go I've dubbed Saddam as the puppeteer; makes me wonder just how pervasive is the institutionalized stupidity in DC?

[LenS]

Tenet's still around because he's the one who pushed the plan that they used in Afghanistan. He gambled and outhawked the Pentagon who would still be waiting to invade Afghanistan if they had their way.

So in Dubya's eyes, he earned some major points. Which is probably why the Pentagon has allowed interviews with some of the soldiers from the two A-Teams that led the way in Afghanistan. Those interviews repeatedly made reference to the military's belief that the CIA's claims of good inside connections with the Taliban's opposition was grossly overstated.

Turf fights, the lifeblood of bureaucrats. *g*

[LonePalm]

To answer the question in the headline: The Torrecelli amendment.

NJ, it's time to put out the Torch!

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[DTA]

>>>>an unnamed "senior counterterrorism official" told the Washington Post Tuesday that the CIA is aware of credible reports documenting Saddam-al Qaeda coordination in northern Iraq<<<<

Whoa, what a spin! Those credible reports probably come from the same credible source that provided map of Belgrade to USAF during bombing of Yugoslavia. Even birds on the trees know that Kurds in Northern Iraq harbor Al-Qaida

An enemy of my enemy is not nrecessarily a friend.

[KarlInOhio]

Anything Kurdish is poison in Washington. One of the likely conditions for Turkey's help in the upcoming war is to not support an independent Kurdistan because the Kurds would want it to include Kurds in Turkey. If our goverment closes its eyes and plugs its ears to the Kurds, then they can ignore them. It comes down to who can provide us with more help, the Turks or the Kurds? This is part of the ugly world of Realpolitik.

[Kermit]

Okay, that's George Tenet, what about the rest of them? Why haven't they brought people back, like Robert Baer and the guy, who predicted a USS Cole type of attack and resigned that day. The losers and the wrong remain, the doers and the right leave. Not a good trend.

[Vic3O3]

ping

[LenS]

Turkey is a democracy. Sadly, the Kurds in Northern Iraq have shown more of a tendency to act like the Arabs than like the Turks. They can't even unify in Northern Iraq and have spent way too much time fighting each other.

[LenS]

Well, they got that late start on the lower appointments because of the Florida mess. And Jeffords gave the Senate Democrats the power to kill appointments, a power that they seem to be using on almost everything.

[jgorris]

But it's not that "tough to nail down the other details." Jeffrey Goldberg did it.

PBS documentarians did it.PBS documentarians?BWAHAHAHA
Why hasn't the CIA?

Stephen F. Hayes


How do you know they haven't, Steve?
The fact is, we are and have been getting boxcar loads of raw intelligence, and we have also been processing this raw material into excellent finished product. The problem has been that the micro-manager politicians like "Shag Me" Clinton and others have chosen to ignore it.

[jjm2111]

Excellent, Excellent Article. (The New Yorker One)

[robomurph]

I concur. The New Yorker article is long but well worth the time.

It sets the table for what is going to go down in Iraq next.

[jjm2111]

***** PING *****

I remember discussing the merits of the War with Iraq with you guys a couple of days ago. If you get a chance, read the link to the New Yorker. It's long, I agree, but it might affect your opinions. The reporter did do a good job, and I'm no even more convinced we have to take out Saddam. If this helps, great. If not, that's okay too. Have a nice weekend.

[Mark Bahner]

"It's long, I agree, but it might affect your opinions."

It doesn't really affect my opinion of the present situation, which is this:

The Constitution doesn't authorize a President to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war. Therefore, every President who has ever waged a war (including the most recent war on the Taliban government in Afghanistan) without a Congressional declaration of war, has violated the Constitution. It's very bad when presidents go to war in violation of the Constitution, because the presidents are usurping power. It is no excuse, in my opinion, that Congresses are filled with cowards, who don't wish to make the "tough call" on whether going to war is appropriate.

Even though I might not agree with Congressional decisions to go to war (or not to go to war), I certainly respect them. And I also trust (though Jefferson warned me about trusting elected officials!) that members of Congress have taken more time to think than I, and are privy to more information than I, regarding their decisions to go to war.

I have NO respect for cowardly Congresses that evade their Constitutional responsibility to declare war before a President wages war. And I have NO respect for Presidents that usurp that illegitimate power (though I at least sympathize with Bush on Afghanistan...unlike the half dozen previous "wars" U.S. presidents have undertaken).

And last, but certainly not least, I have no respect for citizens who don't really care that their Presidents are waging war without Congressional declarations of war. (Though I do empathize with those who remain "rationally ignorant" of what the Constitution says.)

"Have a nice weekend."

Hope you had a nice one, too.

[jjm2111]

Man, we're in the same boat with that regard. Right after 9-11 I called both senators and my congressmen and urged them to DECLARE war, constitutionally. (Not that they listen to me, however).

Mark writes: "And I also trust (though Jefferson warned me about trusting elected officials!) that members of Congress have taken more time to think than I, and are privy to more information than I, regarding their decisions to go to war."

Jefferson told you this personally? ;) I truly believe that if you randomly picked individuals from general population you would get better government than from our professional politicians, many of which are dumber than the average construction worker.

[Mark Bahner]

"Right after 9-11 I called both senators and my congressmen and urged them to DECLARE war, constitutionally."

Well, good for you! You get a gold star for citizenship! :-) About 2 weeks after 9/11 (i.e., before the U.S. went to "war") I was going to write a letter to the editor, saying how important it was that war be declared, and specifically on a government (since the Constitution only allows wars on governments). I even drafted a second letter saying Bush should be impeached if he--like all other recent presidents--went to war without a Congressional declaration. But I sent neither. I felt sympathy for *not* having a Congressional declaration of war, on account of the tricky situation with Pakistan. (But that was just fuzzy thinking, really.)

And my Congressman and Senators are both hopeless. (I guess Jesse Helms might have at least responded to me...but I didn't expect him to do anything.)

So I really did nothing. (Other than post on FR.)

"Jefferson told you this personally?"

He channels through me. ;-) It's another great Jefferson quote (the man sure could write!), so I can't resist it:

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."

"I truly believe that if you randomly picked individuals from general population you would get better government than from our professional politicians, many of which are dumber than the average construction worker."

Both my Senators (John Edwards and Jesse Helms) and my Congressman (David Price) are intelligent enough, I think. But I don't think any one of the 3 gives any thought at all to following the Constitution, or caring whether any of their colleagues do. They do what's "right" in their minds. They don't pay attention to The Law (which would restrict them from powers that they really like to exercise).

So I don't think any one of them is better than a decent construction worker, who actually bothered to pay attention to the Constitution.