Feith Based Intelligence
The talk shows focused on another aspect of Iraq this weekend; a classified report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General on the work of Doug Feith and the Office of Special Plans. See the Newsweek story on this here. A summary of the classified report concludes that “the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” and “was inappropriately performing Intelligence activities of developing, producing, and disseminating that should be performed by the Intelligence Community.”
Naturally, as every blogger in the world instantly realized, this report produced innumerable headlines, all being a variant on “Feith based intelligence.” So what did Mr. Feith and critics and supporters have to say?
Over at CNN’s Late Edition Feith remains defiant:
DOUGLAS FEITH, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE: What the inspector general is criticizing is the fact that people in the Pentagon criticized the quality of the CIA intelligence. And the inspector general, I think wrongly, says that the criticism of intelligence was intelligence work, and it was inappropriate for non- intelligence people to do that.
BLITZER: But in this case, they were right and you were wrong.
FEITH: No, they were not right.
BLITZER: There was no connection that the 9-11 Commission could come up with to show there was a deliberate prewar operable connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
FEITH: Which nobody ever claims. I mean, it shows how much misinformation there is, even somebody as well-informed as you is informed on the point.
Feith also does his best to invite a lawsuit from Sen. Levin:
BLITZER: Here’s what Senator Levin said. I’m going to play a little clip for you and give you a chance to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. CARL LEVIN, D-MICH.: Intelligence relating to the Iraq/al- Qaida relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration’s decision to invade Iraq, when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: All right.. You want to respond?
FEITH: I mean, that’s as inaccurate as almost everything that the senator has said on this subject.
Over at Fox News Feith continued to deny reality:
WALLACE: And you said an alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague, in April 2001, was a known contact. Mr. Feith, all of that was wrong. Wasn’t it?
FEITH: No, not at all.. There was substantial intelligence evidence; a legal term not really appropriate here, there was a lot of information out there, intelligence is very sketchy. And it’s always open to interpretation. On the issue, there were people at the Pentagon who were giving a critical review, they were not presenting alternative conclusions, they were presenting a challenge to the way the CIA was looking at things and filtering its own intelligence.
WALLACE: I have to tell you when I read it (cross talk) — it sure sounds like conclusions.
FEITH: You’re plucking language out a briefing, the trust of which was, why is the CIA not accounting for information that it had that suggested an Iraq al Qaeda relationship, when the CIA was excluding that information from its own finished intelligence at the time. It was a criticism. It’s healthy to criticize the CIA’s intelligence. What the people in the Pentagon were doing was right. It was good government. In fact, as the Silverman Robb Commission has said, and as the Senate Intelligence Committee has said, we need more, not less, critical reading of intelligence by policy people.
WALLACE: So, you say this wasn’t wrong. Respectfully sir. The Pentagon’s inspector general says parts of your analysis were not supported by available intelligence and let me continue. Take a look at this if you will.
The 9/11 Commission says, “We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contracts between Iraq and al Qaeda ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.
The 9/11 Commission also concluded, “The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.”WALLACE: Mr. Feith, the Pentagon inspector general says some your intelligence was not supported by the evidence that came from the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission said a number for your conclusions were wrong, and the Senate Intelligence Committee also said it was wrong.
FEITH: Nobody ever claimed that what the 9/11 Commission said was wrong. In other words, we didn’t dispute. The 9/11 Commission report said that –WALLACE: They said it was you sir.
Related posts:
Devils in the Details
To the Editor
It is outrageous that the Department of Defense Inspector General stated that the actual Office of Special Plans and its activities would NOT be reviewed or discussed in his report.
Were it not for its cadre of compromised security operatives, wild-eyed ideologues and a legion of senior Hill lobbyists (not Middle East experts) hired through DOD “body shop” contractors to hide their relationship with the OSP perfidy, this den of trolls would not have been able to package falsehoods and half truths and serve them up directly to a drooling Vice President, hungry for a causus belli, rather than properly vetting this garbage through the Intelligence Community, who would have deemed it all hogwash. Well, what with Rumsfeld ordering the trashing of all records of the OSP and its band of merry fabricators and “consultants” (their identities are amazing, although still shrouded by the press), it’s no wonder the IG failed to do his job and kept the most important information hidden. Have to protect the Mother Ship from those prying folks in Congress!
And for Douglas Feith to mount a “big lie” counteroffensive this weekend to avoid liability as the body count escalates, I would not call the work of his shop and his OSP “inappropriate” — I would call it obscene.
Comment on February 12, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
From a senior DoD employee who prefers to remain anonmyous
It has not exactly been a secret, either inside the Pentagon or (at
least for those following the issue) that Douglas Feith, as Under
Secretary for Policy, was one of those continually trying to make a case
for an invasion of Iraq. The “Office of Special Plans,” headed by Abe
Shulsky, had that as its primary mandate. And the “intelligence” work
done by Michael Maloof and David Wurmser had the same objective. But
even if it is argued that those offices were simply to sift through and
analyze large amounts of information, including raw intelligence
reports, it didn’t take a reading of tea leaves for anyone to figure out
that the result that Feith and a number of others wanted was as
compelling a case as possible for war with Iraq. There was, clearly, at
Defense — as elsewhere — what might be called a suborning of resources
and personnel for an already-decided policy outcome.
Comment on February 12, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Call me self-serving if you wish, but I think the below letters, published in today’s New York TImes are relevant to this post.
David
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/opinion/l13iraq.html?pagewanted=print
February 13, 2007
Iraq Then, Iran Now: A Rising Chorus of Skeptics (10 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says” (front page, Feb. 10):
Are we to believe an administration that cried wolf when there was no wolf in Iraq? We’ve been lied to so much by the Bush crowd that it is difficult to imagine that any of them are telling the truth when they assert that Iran is supplying Iraqi Shiite factions with deadly bombs.
Perhaps it is true, but the American public — and Congress — have been set up before by false and misleading “intelligence.”
Paul R. LaRocque
Arlington, Tex., Feb. 10, 2007
•
To the Editor:
Why is The New York Times once again passing on the claims of anonymous sources as credible information? Why should we believe it when unnamed sources discount the possibility of black-market sources for weapons with Iranian components?
How do we know that some of the alleged information was not elicited by torture?
And even if the Iranian government is supplying weapons directly to Shiite militias, the “deadliest bombs” in Iraq are still American, not Iranian.
Eric Stenshoel
New York, Feb. 10, 2007
•
To the Editor:
It is not surprising that Iran is working to achieve its own ends in Iraq, potentially by supplying Shiite militias with weapons. If a Middle Eastern country invaded Mexico or Canada, does anyone believe that the United States would sit by passively and watch events unfold?
Every country, including the United States, acts to protect its perceived interests, so we should not be shocked to discover that Iran could be trying to shape the outcome of the turmoil in neighboring Iraq.
What we should be shocked by is the Bush administration’s attempts to create yet another pretext for an unnecessary war, this time possibly with Iran.
Amanda Johnson
Madison, Wis., Feb. 10, 2007
•
To the Editor:
It is laughable to accuse Iran of making the deadliest bomb in Iraq when the United States is still willing to drop 500-pound bombs on populated areas that it says are hiding insurgents.
It seems that we truly never learned the lesson from the loud, resounding drumbeat in the media that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Scare the public, close our eyes and let the bombs rip.
Christopher Voss
Ravenna, Tex., Feb. 10, 2007
•
To the Editor:
Recognizing that roadside bombs are responsible for a majority of American combat fatalities, one must wonder why our troops are still relegated to patrolling in vehicles. Their use violates a fundamental principle of infantry combat: never bunch up.
This is one reason why Gen. Eric K. Shinseki and others with military experience, following the Powell doctrine, recommended deploying overwhelming numbers of troops in Iraq. If their advice had been heeded, our troops would always have been able to patrol effectively on foot — spread out — not bunched up in easily targeted vehicles.
Even if the vehicles our troops are using are now suitably armored, it is not surprising that someone has developed a more effective roadside bomb. It is an extremely economical way to attack our troops.
Evidence that this administration is beginning to look out for our troops in this carelessly planned and executed war would be most welcome.
William H. Douglass
New York, Feb. 10, 2007
The writer was a rifle platoon commander with the Marines in Vietnam, 1967-68.
•
To the Editor:
Re “Scary Movie 2” (column, Feb. 12):
Paul Krugman states what is obvious to the rest of the world: that our country is preparing to attack Iran.
Congress must act now with a resolution stating that such conduct by the executive branch would be considered an act of war requiring Congressional approval. And it should make clear that it would deny financing in the absence of such approval.
William D. LeMoult
Warren, R.I., Feb. 12, 2007
•
To the Editor:
It’s déjà vu all over again. On the same day that “The Build-a-War Workshop” (editorial, Feb. 10) rightly criticizes Douglas J. Feith, a former under secretary of defense for policy, and his superiors for cooked Iraq intelligence, the front page shows that no lessons seem to have been learned from our last run-up to war.
The news article describes interviews with “American officials, including some whose agencies have previously been skeptical about the significance of Iran’s role in Iraq.” But the administration’s pre-Iraq war subterfuge and the politically suspect timing leave me and millions of others wanting more proof than classified reports we can’t see and too-convenient discoveries of Iranian markings on explosives.
An unwillingness to challenge the administration’s assertions led us to war four years ago. I fear that we are being led there again.
Dan Lavoie
Brooklyn, Feb. 10, 2007
•
To the Editor:
The Democratic leadership in Congress seems poised to make accountable those who were responsible for the misinformation used to justify the Iraq war.
It is my hope that the Congressional Democrats will use every legal means available to deliver the full truth to the American people. Accepting anything less than the full truth would be to ignore what the voters asked for last November.
To obtain the truth, it will be necessary to use subpoena power for records and to require those people involved in the planning and conduct of the Iraq war to testify under oath before Congress. The administration’s successful attempt to start an unnecessary war is surely one of the lowest points in America’s history.
John Murphy
Madison, Wis., Feb. 11, 2007
•
To the Editor:
You make an important point about accountability for the decision to attack Iraq. As a former senior intelligence analyst, I strongly support the conclusions of the report by the Pentagon inspector general about the actions of Douglas J. Feith.
Mr. Feith, while an under secretary of defense for policy, circumvented a process designed to prevent analytical errors from unreliable sources. He was entitled to his opinions on American policy toward Iraq, but he compromised that policy by picking reports that supported his preconceptions while ignoring caveats about unreliable sources.
That was an egregious overreach of his competence and responsibilities. Such advocacy-distorted policy interventions in the guise of “alternative analysis” deserve not just the inspector general’s criticism, but also public censure for the dangerous precedent they set for “true believers.”
Leonard B. Zuza
Lusby, Md., Feb. 10, 2007
The writer is a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst.
•
To the Editor:
The Pentagon inspector general’s report about the intelligence cooked up before the Iraq war is a gut-wrenching account of the betrayal of public trust. Equally stunning were the recommendations that neither criminal charges nor corrective actions within the Defense Department were warranted.
When President Bush recently outlined his war surge strategy for Iraq, he repeatedly mentioned the threat posed by Iran. He continued that theme in his State of the Union speech. He has ordered another aircraft carrier and supporting ships to the Persian Gulf to send a signal to Iran.
Now Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is citing serial numbers and markings on bomb fragments as “pretty good” evidence that Iran is providing weapons or technology to Iraqi insurgents.
Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has been criticized by some for dredging up a past that no one can change. But accumulating signs suggest we are being shepherded toward a military conflict with Iran.
Although the painful revelations about past errors may be too late to influence an election, they may help us avoid another tragedy.
Tyler Kokjohn
Glendale, Ariz., Feb. 10, 2007
Comment on February 13, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
The more Douglas Feith lawyers up his rhetoric about the faults of the CIA, and continues to rectify his approach in cherry picking (critiquing) intelligence, the guiltier Wolfowitz & Co. look.
The New York Times is now putting out the word, George Tenent is the guy with the false intelligence, he’s the one to blame for Iraq. For the NYTimes this might be the best strategy, it’s better than not reporting about Feith & Co. at all, which is what they’re doing.
But what is in a defense that puts Tenent at the helm?
He’s CIA.
Feith has been on a lecture/education tour explaining how the CIA was getting it wrong and that Bush needed a go between, a B-team, to get it right. Its what Feith calls good government, groups that critique it all! Sounds good, coming from a guy within a group, that was never critiqued! Untill now.
Feith blames Tenent for the bad intelligence that Bush sold to the public, which in turn forced congress’s hand in going after Saddam. How can Feith blame the CIA? It was his Iraq think tank, with the power to critique information, by using power-point presentations that make the ultimate decision maker (Bush), get it wrong!
Or did they?
Wolfowitz & Co. were this countries last defense against faulty intelligence, at least this is how they sold it. This cast of well-known Zionists got it right for Israel and wrong for America. And now they (Eric Edelman & Co) expect the us, the Americans, to thank these traitors for their service? Lets leave that to Israel and the Bush team.
Comment on February 13, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Trust is very much at the heart of this fiasco called the “Iraq War”.
Lack of trust in Intel sources leads one to create their own Intel.
A (White) house divided cannot stand. It will fall and the sooner the better.
Who is at fault? ‘The military industrial complex of gangsters who have hijacked the Nation.
God bless America and her Empire of coersed friends.
/jlb
Comment on February 14, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Klonopin….
Inject klonopin….
Trackback on October 30, 2007 @ 12:36 am