On the 'Prewar' Intelligence Brouhaha

[Annie]

Way too much ado of nothing, links:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2390.php

February 09, 2007

HEH: "They Were For Dissent And Alternative Analysis Before They Were Against It." All of this focus on prewar intelligence by Sens. Levin and Rockefeller is just more of the antiwar historical revisionism that I've noted in the past, designed to give Democrats who voted for the war some protective cover between now and 2008. Though "vote for us, we're gullible" seems like a weak slogan.

UPDATE: It's a bad slogan -- but an appropriate one -- for the Washington Post, too, which seems to have been misidentifying Carl Levin's quotes as coming from the DoD Inspector General. Oops! From the WaPo correction:

References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.​

Can anyone play this game? And Stephen Spruiell observes:

As I write this, Chris Matthews is peddling the phony WaPo scoop on Hardball, prattling on about how this report proves that Doug Feith "cooked the intel" to get us into war.
​

Oops. Will Matthews apologize on his next show?
posted at 04:17 PM by Glenn Reynolds

 

[maineman]

Way too much ado of nothing, links:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2390.php

are you suggesting that the Pentagon Inspector General's report shoud be blythely disregarded?

 

[Annie]

are you suggesting that the Pentagon Inspector General's report shoud be blythely disregarded?

Nope, just should be vetted, not twisted. What do you think?

 

[maineman]

Nope, just should be vetted, not twisted. What do you think?

way too much ado about NOTHING is what you said..... and why in the world is a conservative suggesting that the Ispector General of the Department of Defense in an republican administration needs to be "vetted"?

I think that the administration sexed up the case to go to war.... I have always thought that - even when republicans were calling me a treasonous traitor for even thinking it, let alone saying it.

and make no mistake about it: I think that hyping the case for a war of CHOICE and not necessity whose opening act is an aerial onslaught against a densely populated uban area cutely entitled "shock and awe" is a freakin' crime against humanity.

Conservatives continue to want to deify George Bush and I think he should be on trial at the Hague.

 

[Annie]

way too much ado about NOTHING is what you said..... and why in the world is a conservative suggesting that the Ispector General of the Department of Defense in an republican administration needs to be "vetted"?

I think that the administration sexed up the case to go to war.... I have always thought that - even when republicans were calling me a treasonous traitor for even thinking it.

and I think that the current congressional leaders are using the missteps to hurt our national interests, for political reasons. Putting both the serving military and the nation at risk. So it does suck to be us.

 

[Annie]

and a whoops all around. Links:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006851.htm

WaPo whoops; AP blunders
By Michelle Malkin · February 09, 2007 08:55 PM

Here's a correction appearing now at the top of the website version of an A1 story in the Washington Post that ran this morning (hat tip - Allah):

wapocorrection.jpg

Here's the original headline:

wapohed.jpg

And the opening paragraphs:

Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."

An unclassified summary of the full document is scheduled for release today in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Levin chairs. In that summary, a copy of which was obtained from another source by The Washington Post, the inspector general concluded that Feith's assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a "mature symbiotic relationship" was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.

At the time of Feith's reporting, the CIA had concluded only that there was an "evolving" association, "based on sources of varying reliability."

In a telephone interview yesterday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as "inappropriate," were not unlawful. "This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' " he said. "It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance.​

Maybe next time, they won't swallow Levin's spin whole and slap it on A1 so fast. On the positive side, the Post is at least running a correction, calling it a correction, and placing it prominently at the top of the website. (Take a lesson, Associated Press.) Whether the WaPo correction will appear on the front page of tomorrow's paper, who knows?


Stephen Spruiell notes that the Post is not the only one with responsibility to make prominent corrections:

As I write this, Chris Matthews is peddling the phony WaPo scoop on Hardball, prattling on about how this report proves that Doug Feith "cooked the intel" to get us into war.

How did the WaPo screw this up so badly?​

Allah has some good questions:

1) "They’re calling it a 'correction,' but is it really a correction if you’re quoting from an entirely different document than the one you thought you were? And your story kinda sorta hinges on which one it was?"

2) "How vigorous should we expect news networks’ corrections to be once word gets out?"

Whisper, whisper, whisper.

***

Speaking of the Associated Press, it has been blundering on the story, too. I know, you're shocked. Check Fuzzilicious Thinking, Flopping Aces, Blackfive, and Power Line, where John Hinderaker sums up:

Last night, we noted an Associated Press story about a report that was to be delivered today to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The report, by the Pentagon's Inspector General, related to Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans and the intelligence analysis that it carried out for the Defense Department prior to the Iraq war. As initially reported by the AP, the Inspector General's report concluded that there was nothing illegal or unauthorized about Feith's group, but that it was somehow "inappropriate" for that group to draw conclusions from intelligence data that were different from the CIA's conclusions.

This morning, Fuzzilicious Thinking pointed out that the AP story was in a state of flux: a later version of the story, by the same reporter, included these two seemingly inconsistent statements:

Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that.

And:

A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Fuzzilicious concludes that the AP finally settled on a version of the article that was well-balanced. This raises obvious questions about the practice of putting out news stories and then changing or correcting them on the fly. Like: how are newspapers who rely on the Associated Press supposed to know when a story is actually finished and accurate?​

Perhaps newspapers should start running disclaimers that they assume no responsibility for the accuracy of AP's information.

***

Related: Jules Crittenden

 

[maineman]

and I think that the current congressional leaders are using the missteps to hurt our national interests, for political reasons. Putting both the serving military and the nation at risk. So it does suck to be us.

and it wouldn't suck so bad if this moron in the white house had not invaded Iraq when our real enemy was elsewhere....but you are right.... whatever side you are on, it sucks to be us right about now.

 

[Annie]

and it wouldn't suck so bad if this moron in the white house had not invaded Iraq when our real enemy was elsewhere....but you are right.... whatever side you are on, it sucks to be us right about now.

Can't disagree, then again it sucked under Clinton when our embassies were being bombed while we hit milk factories and empty 'camps.' Oh the humanity!

 

[maineman]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.

Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al Qaeda connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.

Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

 

[Annie]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon officials undercut the intelligence community in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq by insisting in briefings to the White House that there was a clear relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the Defense Department's inspector general said Friday.

Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al Qaeda connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies.

Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

Yeah and everything since then, from both sides. We the people are losing, the politicians are sucking all the air out, while our enemies keep right on going.

 

[maineman]

Can't disagree, then again it sucked under Clinton when our embassies were being bombed while we hit milk factories and empty 'camps.' Oh the humanity!

hitting empty camps with our own cruise missiles was a hell of a lot better try than outsourcing it to afghan warlords.

and hitting what we thought were AQ weapons factories was better than attacking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism in any way.

 

[Annie]

hitting empty camps with our own cruise missiles was a hell of a lot better try than outsourcing it to afghan warlords.

and hitting what we thought were AQ weapons factories was better than attacking Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism in any way.

On the second, because of 'faulty intelligence?' oh my!

 

[maineman]

Yeah and everything since then, from both sides. We the people are losing, the politicians are sucking all the air out, while our enemies keep right on going.

I do not entirely disagree...but I honestly believe that the folks on my side of the aisle are trying to reverse the madness, while the republicans are "staying the course" and "standing by their man" to the detriment of our nation and our troops.

 

[maineman]

On the second, because of 'faulty intelligence?' oh my!

if you are attempting to equate the cruise missile attack of one factory to the full scale invasion, conquest and disasterous occupation of Iraq, I fail to see the similarity or the humor.

 

[Annie]

if you are attempting to equate the cruise missile attack of one factory to the full scale invasion, conquest and disasterous occupation of Iraq, I fail to see the similarity or the humor.

Oh no humor was meant, total sarcasm on the hypocritical reasoning from 'your side.' We disagree on what your side is doing, regarding trying to reverse to 'keep us safe.' I don't believe it. With that said, I don't want 'my side' to keep fighting beyond hope. It's not the enemy knocking us out, but our own politics. What the long term implications of this are, I'm really unsure. My initial reactions are that we are in serious trouble. Leadership, is Reid who is looking more and more like an Illinois good old boy and Pelosi, who of her own making or not is looking like a ditz.

 

[maineman]

Oh no humor was meant, total sarcasm on the hypocritical reasoning from 'your side.' We disagree on what your side is doing, regarding trying to reverse to 'keep us safe.' I don't believe it. With that said, I don't want 'my side' to keep fighting beyond hope. It's not the enemy knocking us out, but our own politics. What the long term implications of this are, I'm really unsure. My initial reactions are that we are in serious trouble. Leadership, is Reid who is looking more and more like an Illinois good old boy and Pelosi, who of her own making or not is looking like a ditz.

well...if you think you side is fighting behond hope and my side is not trying to keep us safe, you must be in some serious need of some anti-depressants.

 

[maineman]

and being a guy who was born and raised in Moline, Illinois, I am not exactly sure how to take your "Illinois good ole boy" comment.

 

[Annie]

well...if you think you side is fighting behond hope and my side is not trying to keep us safe, you must be in some serious need of some anti-depressants.

Ah, you read me wrong or more likely I wrote it wrong. I don't think our fighting now is 'beyond hope.' I do think they are being seriously undermined and there is a push on to make them give up hope. Has the prosecution been bad? Yes, though I do not think that it was anything but unintentional. I do think what is happening now is intentional and bad for our country in all aspects. I do think it's for political gain, which is the first time in my adult life that I've seriously questioned whether or not our system of government will last.

So yea, that's pretty depressing. But one way or another we'll survive.

 

[Annie]

and being a guy who was born and raised in Moline, Illinois, I am not exactly sure how to take your "Illinois good ole boy" comment.

Well if that's the case, you know well how it was meant.

 

[maineman]

Well if that's the case, you know well how it was meant.

Harry Reid would never make it in democratic poliitics in Illinois...I know THAT.