Thursday, October 24, 2002
CIA being pressured for Iraq evidence
USA Today
Maintain CIA's independence
By James Bamford for USA TODAY
24 Oct 2002
As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.
"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.
This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war," the news service reported recently. "They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary."
In the case of Iraq, the consequence of a serious manipulation of the truth could be the loss of thousands of American lives. Fortunately, CIA Director George Tenet has apparently managed to keep the CIA on the straight and narrow during the debate over Iraq.
Although close to President Bush, Tenet has, nevertheless, maintained a degree of independence. One example is the letter he recently sent to the House-Senate committee looking into the 9/11 attacks. In it, the CIA argued that it is unlikely Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological attack against the USA, unless he is first provoked by an American military strike.
Not exactly the message the White House was trying to send.
When asked earlier by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., what intelligence he had that necessitated a quick vote on whether to go to war, Tenet answered honestly. "He didn't have anything new," Byrd said later.
Some in Congress worry about the schizophrenic view of Iraq they hear described by members of the administration. On the one hand, there are the breathless public pronouncements by the White House that Iraq appears on the verge of attacking the United States with horrendous weapons of mass destruction. But in secret sessions, the CIA apparently expresses the opposite view — that Iraq, while worrisome, is largely contained and poses no direct or immediate threat to the country.
"It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "There's more they should share with the public."
Among the examples of the administration's less-than-forthright pronouncements:
The ability of Congress to receive independent, unbiased intelligence is essential. But that may soon be put in jeopardy. The administration is pushing a plan that would largely shift control of the intelligence community from the director of Central Intelligence to a new Pentagon intelligence czar.
Although about 85% of the intelligence community already comes under the Pentagon's umbrella, the CIA director still largely maintains control of the final estimates and analysis. Creating a powerful new intelligence czar under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could shift this delicate balance away from the more independent-minded Tenet and increase the chances that intelligence estimates might be "cooked" in favor of the Pentagon.
As Bush's "strike first, ask questions later" doctrine continues, with the prospect of endless wars and endless terrorism in retaliation, the need for honest intelligence reports becomes paramount. But if the Pentagon runs the spy world, the public and Congress will be reduced to a modern-day Diogenes, forever searching for that one honest report.
James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Maintain CIA's independence
By James Bamford for USA TODAY
24 Oct 2002
As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.
"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper.
This confirms what Knight-Ridder reporters found: "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war," the news service reported recently. "They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary."
In the case of Iraq, the consequence of a serious manipulation of the truth could be the loss of thousands of American lives. Fortunately, CIA Director George Tenet has apparently managed to keep the CIA on the straight and narrow during the debate over Iraq.
Although close to President Bush, Tenet has, nevertheless, maintained a degree of independence. One example is the letter he recently sent to the House-Senate committee looking into the 9/11 attacks. In it, the CIA argued that it is unlikely Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological attack against the USA, unless he is first provoked by an American military strike.
Not exactly the message the White House was trying to send.
When asked earlier by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., what intelligence he had that necessitated a quick vote on whether to go to war, Tenet answered honestly. "He didn't have anything new," Byrd said later.
Some in Congress worry about the schizophrenic view of Iraq they hear described by members of the administration. On the one hand, there are the breathless public pronouncements by the White House that Iraq appears on the verge of attacking the United States with horrendous weapons of mass destruction. But in secret sessions, the CIA apparently expresses the opposite view — that Iraq, while worrisome, is largely contained and poses no direct or immediate threat to the country.
"It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements made by the administration," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "There's more they should share with the public."
Among the examples of the administration's less-than-forthright pronouncements:
- In his Oct. 7 address to the nation, Bush warned of Iraq's attempts to import hardened aluminum tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." But David Albright, a physicist and former United Nations weapons inspector, told The Guardian that it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for such a purpose. He also said skeptics at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves.
- In his latest attempt to link Iraq and al-Qaeda, Bush referred to a "very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." But the administration has given no indication that Abu Musab Zarqawi collaborated with senior Iraqi officials.
- Bush also charged that "Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases." Former CIA officer Robert Baer, who spent years following al-Qaeda, told The Guardian that there were contacts between Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi government in Sudan in the early 1990s and in 1998. "But," he added, "there is no evidence that a strategic partnership came out of it. I'm unaware of any evidence of Saddam pursuing terrorism against the United States."
- Bush mentioned for the first time that the Iraqi regime was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — drones — that "could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." He warned, "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." But these have a maximum range of only a few hundred miles and in no way could be flown halfway around the world.
- Bush cautioned that if Saddam managed to acquire radioactive material no bigger than "a softball," he could build a nuclear weapon. Even if that were true, he has no way to deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. His ability to build sophisticated, skyscraper-size intercontinental ballistic missiles, along with launch platforms and control facilities, is at least decades away.
The ability of Congress to receive independent, unbiased intelligence is essential. But that may soon be put in jeopardy. The administration is pushing a plan that would largely shift control of the intelligence community from the director of Central Intelligence to a new Pentagon intelligence czar.
Although about 85% of the intelligence community already comes under the Pentagon's umbrella, the CIA director still largely maintains control of the final estimates and analysis. Creating a powerful new intelligence czar under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could shift this delicate balance away from the more independent-minded Tenet and increase the chances that intelligence estimates might be "cooked" in favor of the Pentagon.
As Bush's "strike first, ask questions later" doctrine continues, with the prospect of endless wars and endless terrorism in retaliation, the need for honest intelligence reports becomes paramount. But if the Pentagon runs the spy world, the public and Congress will be reduced to a modern-day Diogenes, forever searching for that one honest report.
James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
All articles in this archive are used under "fair use" as they are important to the national discussion of whether or not the people of this country are being deceived by their government. These articles are used as evidence in that discussion.
