Politics: A new beginning

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Being contrarian, I guess I'd want to know his basis for that belief/decision/choice.

Well, OK.

In the other Pollack article in the Atlantic, he goes into the issue in a bit more detail.

Below are excerpts describing what the intelligence community encountered when dealing with the Administration, and how the Administration selectively chose what to go forward with. (It's long, but perhaps Not Me can avert em's eyes, or simply blurt out "Syria!" if it seems to help.)

Strikes me that this is a relatively objective source, but I've also got a request in to Rumsfeld to come on to the board and say "Bilmore, Pollack is right." Absent that, I don't know what else I can do to help assuage your contrarian impulses to defer to the Administration's "trust us" mantra.

The intelligence community's overestimation of Iraq's WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year. The other part involves how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence. Throughout the spring and fall of 2002 and well into 2003 I received numerous complaints from friends and colleagues in the intelligence community, and from people in the policy community, about precisely that. According to them, many Administration officials reacted strongly, negatively, and aggressively when presented with information or analysis that contradicted what they already believed about Iraq. Many of these officials believed that Saddam Hussein was the source of virtually all the problems in the Middle East and was an imminent danger to the United States because of his perceived possession of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism. Many also believed that CIA analysts tended to be left-leaning cultural relativists who consistently downplayed threats to the United States. They believed that the Agency, not the Administration, was biased, and that they were acting simply to correct that bias.

Intelligence officers who presented analyses that were at odds with the pre-existing views of senior Administration officials were subjected to barrages of questions and requests for additional information. They were asked to justify their work sentence by sentence: "Why did you rely on this source and not this other piece of information?" "How does this conclusion square with this other point?" "Please explain the history of Iraq's association with the organization you mention in this sentence." Reportedly, the worst fights were those over sources. The Administration gave greatest credence to accounts that presented the most lurid picture of Iraqi activities. In many cases intelligence analysts were distrustful of those sources, or knew unequivocally that they were wrong. But when they said so, they were not heeded; instead they were beset with further questions about their own sources.

On many occasions Administration officials' requests for additional information struck the analysts as being made merely to distract them from their primary mission. Some officials asked for extensive historical analyses¡Xa hugely time-consuming undertaking, for which most intelligence analysts are not trained. Requests were constantly made for detailed analyses of newspaper articles that conformed to the views of Administration officials¡Xpieces by conservative newspaper columnists such as Jim Hoagland, William Safire, and George F. Will. These columnists may be highly intelligent men, but they have no claim to superior insight into the workings of Iraq, or to any independent intelligence-collection capabilities.

Of course, no policymaker should accept intelligence estimates unquestioningly. While I was at the NSC, I regularly challenged analysts as to why they believed what they did. I asked for additional material and required them to do significant additional work. Any official who does less is derelict in his or her duty. However, at a certain point curiosity and diligence become a form of pressure. If your employer asks you every so often about your health and seems to take an appropriate interest in the answer, you probably feel that he or she is kind and considerate. If your employer asks you about your health every ten minutes, in highly detailed, probing questions, you may have a more nervous reaction.

As Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.

Most problematic of all, the OSP often chose to believe reports that trained intelligence officers considered unreliable or downright false. In particular it gave great credence to reports from the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader was the Administration-backed Ahmed Chalabi. It is true that the intelligence community believed some of the material that came from the INC¡Xbut not most of it. (In retrospect, of course, it seems that even the intelligence professionals gave INC reporting more credence than it deserved.) One of the reasons the OSP generally believed Chalabi and the INC was that they were telling it what it wanted to hear¡Xgiving the OSP, in a kind of vicious circle, further incentive to trust these sources over differing, and ultimately more reliable, ones. Thus intelligence analysts spent huge amounts of time fighting bad information and trying to persuade Administration officials not to make policy decisions based on it. From my own experience I know that it is hard enough to figure out what the reliable evidence indicates¡Xand vast battles are fought over that. To have to also fight over what is clearly bad information is a Sisyphean task.

The Bush officials who created the OSP gave its reports directly to those in the highest levels of government, often passing raw, unverified intelligence straight to the Cabinet level as gospel. Senior Administration officials made public statements based on these reports¡Xreports that the larger intelligence community knew to be erroneous (for instance, that there was hard and fast evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda). Another problem arising from the machinations of the OSP is that whenever the principals of the National Security Council met with the President and his staff, two completely different versions of reality were on the table. The CIA, the State Department, and the uniformed military services would present one version, consistent with the perspective of intelligence and foreign-policy professionals, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Vice President would present another, based on the perspective of the OSP. These views were too far apart to allow for compromise. As a result, the Administration found it difficult, if not impossible, to make certain important decisions. And it made some that were fatally flawed, including many relating to postwar planning, when the OSP's view that Saddam's regime simultaneously was very threatening and could easily be replaced by a new government prevailed.

...

As best I can tell, these officials were guilty not of lying but of creative omission. They discussed only those elements of intelligence estimates that served their cause. This was particularly apparent in regard to the time frame for Iraq's acquisition of a nuclear weapon¡Xthe issue that most alarmed the American public and the rest of the world. Remember that the NIE said that Iraq was likely to have a nuclear weapon in five to seven years if it had to produce the fissile material indigenously, and that it might have one in less than a year if it could obtain the material from a foreign source. The intelligence community considered it highly unlikely that Iraq would be able to obtain weapons-grade material from a foreign source; it had been trying to do so for twenty-five years with no luck. However, time after time senior Administration officials discussed only the worst-case, and least likely, scenario, and failed to mention the intelligence community's most likely scenario. Some examples:

* In a radio address on September 14, 2002, President Bush warned, "Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

* On October 7, 2002, the President told a group in Cincinnati, "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

* On November 1, 2002, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told the Second Global Conference on Nuclear, Bio/Chem Terrorism, "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material¡Xwhether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile-material capability¡Xit could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

* Vice President Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press on September 14, 2003, "The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States, and they had a high degree of confidence in it."

None of these statements in itself was untrue. However, each told only a part of the story - the most sensational part. These statements all implied that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within a year unless the United States acted at once.

Some defenders of the Administration have reportedly countered that all it did was make the best possible case for war, playing a role similar to that of a defense attorney who is charged with presenting the best possible case for a client (even if the client is guilty). That is a false analogy. A defense attorney is responsible for presenting only one side of a dispute. The President is responsible for serving the entire nation. Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the U.S. government¡Xand withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
still yes on all reasons*. the cool thing is the kicker of Libya coming clean, perhaps in part because W called bullshit. I once offered that as a possible outcome (generically, not specific to Libya), but I didn't really think it would happen. A lot of the humanitarian arguments that have popped up lately were due to you guys trying to dance on Dean's Bosnia good war/ Iraq bad war distinction.

*notably I do have foxnews for my homepage, so I am probably grossly misinformed.

Thanks, Hank, for confronting the issue. So, you're essentially supporting the Bush position, let's hit my real question then:

Do you see any downside for Bush in a debate when a Democrat turns to him and says, "So, where are the WMD?" (I'm trying to simplify and go in steps here so Bilmore can follow along and get past the first sentance).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Thanks, Hank, for confronting the issue. So, you're essentially supporting the Bush position, let's hit my real question then:

Do you see any downside for Bush in a debate when a Democrat turns to him and says, "So, where are the WMD?" (I'm trying to simplify and go in steps here so Bilmore can follow along and get past the first sentance).

Which Democrat? Kerry- no downside, he was for the war. Dean- no downside, he has no credibility on the issue. See, its beautiful.

the actual answer to the question, "the world, even the UN, even France were pretty sure he had WMD, and he was acting like he did, so fucking sue me" would handle it, and I'm pretty sure you'll hear something to that effect when asked.

But your question gets procedurally derailed. Gore kept trying to ask questions, and W ignored him. A debate has rules, and I'm pretty sure letting a candidate ask the other candidate a question won't be one of the rules.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(I'm trying to simplify and go in steps here so Bilmore can follow along and get past the first sentance).

Sonny, when you take that dishonorable approach to begin with, I really lose all desire to follow your steps at all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sonny, when you take that dishonorable approach to begin with, I really lose all desire to follow your steps at all.

Lighten up, Francis.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Lighten up, Francis.

did you catch the "9/11 wasn't a crime" theme. Do you think someone from the WH speech writing dept. is a long time lurker here?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Which Democrat? Kerry- no downside, he was for the war. Dean- no downside, he has no credibility on the issue. See, its beautiful.

the actual answer to the question, "the world, even the UN, even France were pretty sure he had WMD, and he was acting like he did, so fucking sue me" would handle it, and I'm pretty sure you'll hear something to that effect when asked.

But your question gets procedurally derailed. Gore kept trying to ask questions, and W ignored him. A debate has rules, and I'm pretty sure letting a candidate ask the other candidate a question won't be one of the rules.

Some debates do, but, you're right, the question will likely come from a member of the press, who didn't vote on the war.

Still the same? You dismiss Dean on credibility grounds (so presumably Bush answers the question by dissing Dean) and you remind Kerry he voted for the war?

Doesn't Kerry say, if I were Prez I would have handled intelligence more professionally? Does Kerry dare say that he voted on the war based on White House misrepresentations (make him look a little gullible)?

Does General Wes come off better?

Sorry for the complex set of questions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Some debates do, but, you're right, the question will likely come from a member of the press, who didn't vote on the war.

Still the same? You dismiss Dean on credibility grounds (so presumably Bush answers the question by dissing Dean) and you remind Kerry he voted for the war?

Doesn't Kerry say, if I were Prez I would have handled intelligence more professionally? Does Kerry dare say that he voted on the war based on White House misrepresentations (make him look a little gullible)?

Does General Wes come off better?

Sorry for the complex set of questions.

do you work for the White House?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did you catch the "9/11 wasn't a crime" theme. Do you think someone from the WH speech writing dept. is a long time lurker here?

Give Atticus credit for the right answer, and give the WH speech writers credit for not using "petty".

You don't think Club works at the WH?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you work for the White House?

Insert Shermanesque.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Give Atticus credit for the right answer,

what was "the right answer?"

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
All true, but . .. California?

This is like quibbling over whether David Duke is polling at 48% or 49% amongst Black Muslims.

Not really, which was the point of my comment on military families and also probably shows GOP strength among Latino voters.

If you had those poll results for Massachusetts, then I'd agree.

Anyway, we'll see how it holds up.

S_A_M

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

From the onion: http://www.theonion.com/4003/opinion1.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Not really, which was the point of my comment on military families and also probably shows GOP strength among Latino voters.

If you had those poll results for Massachusetts, then I'd agree.

Anyway, we'll see how it holds up.

S_A_M

If California is in play, there is no need to have an election. You'll see 45 states for Bush. If you don't realize, Mass. and its Jabba-like representative (I'm surprised the camera has never caught him eating live rodents) is one of the best thing we have going.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, OK.

In the other Pollack article in the Atlantic, he goes into the issue in a bit more detail.

Thanks. Actually, though, I've read that one, too, and it strikes me as sort of internally contradictory. He can't decide if "the intelligence community" was getting it wrong, or was merely deeply split, or was getting it right but the admin was getting it wrong, or the admin was getting it right and then trying to cover up the right for the desired.

It's a pure hindsight view that, when you don't distinguish between all of the above choices, leaves you the weasel room to say . . . whatever the fuck you want to say.

When he says things like "The intelligence community's overestimation of Iraq's WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year", and then goes on to say, not that the admin used wrong info, but that the admin "cherrypicked the info", (implying that there were reports and analyses supporting their view), he concedes the point somewhat - he grants that there were differing views withint that intelligence community, and his biggest point now is, Bush picked the wrong horse. That's entirely different from the theme that you seem to want us to take from his writings, of intentional dishonesty.

I can see his point about the role of defense counsel v. prosecutors (not just advocacy, but justice), but that has to be seen in context with the well-founded deep distrust in which Bush holds many of the State/Intell holdovers (who tend to dominate the ranks). If, as an inssue in deciding which analyses to believe, Bush basically mistrusts the holders of one point of view, it's a bit unsurprising that he would give more weight to the others.

I think he makes a good hind-sight argument. But, that's not that hard to do, and really doesn't tell us anything about the underlying issue of, were we lied to? I don't think he makes that case at all.