The Nation.



Senate WMD Report Whacks CIA, Not Bush

By David Corn

July 9, 2004

The United States went to war on the basis of false claims. More than 800 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives because of these false claims. The American taxpayer has to pay up to $200 billion--and maybe more--because of these false claims. The United States' standing in the world has fallen precipitously because of these false claims. Two days before the war, when George W. Bush justified the coming invasion of Iraq by saying "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal" weapons of mass destruction, he was dead wrong. And when he later claimed his decision to attack Iraq had been predicated upon "good, solid intelligence," he was dead wrong.

» More

The debate is over--or it should be. According to the report released today by the Senate intelligence committee, the intelligence community--led by the CIA--"overstated" and "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced hastily and haphazardly in October 2002, the intelligence community concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program, was supporting an "active" and "advanced" biological weapons program, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver" biological weapons. All of these critical findings, the committee report says, "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

As Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, put it at a press conference, this is one of the "most devastating...intelligence failures in the history of the nation." The 500 page report repeatedly details instances when the intelligence community botched its job by ignoring contrary evidence, embracing questionable sources, and rushing to judgments that just so happened to fit the preconceived notions of the Bush Administration. If CIA director George Tenet had not said good-bye to the CIA the day before the report came out, he would deserve immediate dismissal. But the report--justifiably harsh in its evaluation of the CIA--is part of an effort to protect Bush and his lieutenants. The political mission: make the CIA the fall guy.

The report does not examine how Bush and his senior aides handled and represented the flawed intelligence. Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the committee, has delayed that portion of the investigation and other aspects of the inquiry (including the role played by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and the controversial actions of the office of Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy). The results of the committee's work on these fronts are not expected to appear until next year--that is, after the election.

But the case is already undeniable. Bush and his lot overstated the overstatements of the intelligence community. The National Intelligence Estimate said Iraq had an extensive biological weapons program. Bush said Hussein was sitting on a "massive stockpile" of biological weapons. The NIE concluded (also falsely) that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to hit the United States with biological weapons. Bush warned that Iraq already had a "growing fleet" of UAVs ready to hit the United States. The NIE noted that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program but had no nuclear weapons yet. Bush said, "We don't know whether or not [Hussein] has a nuclear weapon"--a comment suggesting he might possess one.

The Senate intelligence report indirectly indicts Bush. It notes that there was one area where the intelligence community was correct: the supposed relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda. "The Central Intelligence Agency," the report says, "reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." This means that when Bush said before the war that Saddam Hussein was "a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda," he was not basing this significant assertion on the findings of the US intelligence community. And he ignored the intelligence when he called Saddam Hussein "an ally" of Al Qaeda during his May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The Senate intelligence committee also reports that the CIA's "assessment that Saddam Hussein was most likely to use his own intelligence service operatives to conduct attacks was reasonable, and turned out to be accurate." Yet before the war the Bush White House declared there was a "high risk" that Hussein would hand over his WMDs to terrorists--presumably Al Qaeda--who would use them against the United States. What was the basis for this claim? Not the available intelligence. And the report notes that the CIA's "assessments on Iraq's links to terrorism were widely disseminated" to policymakers. Perhaps Bush neglected to read them--as he neglected to read the National Intelligence Estimate. (Don't believe that? Click here.)

Even without the Senate intelligence committee doing a single stitch of work regarding Bush's use of the intelligence, this report demonstrates that Bush hyped the threat to get his war. And weeks ago, when the independent, bipartisan 9/11 commission declared it had not found evidence of "collaborative relationship" between Hussein and Al Qaeda, Bush and Cheney insisted that there had been a "relationship." The Senate intelligence committee report is yet another reason to dismiss anything Bush and Cheney have to say on this subject.

******************************

After you read this article, check out David Corn's new weblog by going to www.davidcorn.com.

About David Corn

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. Until 2007, he was The Nation's Washington editor and is co-author, with Michael Isikoff, of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Corn's work has appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Harper's Magazine and many other publications. His books include The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (a New York Times bestseller), Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusade and the novel Deep Background.

more...

Popular Topics
Most Searched

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Blogs

» Campaign 08

How Cindy Sheehan is Putting Impeachment on the Table | A peace activist's independent campaign prods Speaker Pelosi.
John Nichols

» The Notion

Fox News Attacked by Rapper, Blackroots & Colbert | Fox's worst nightmare: Liberal bloggers and Black hip hop.
Ari Melber

» The Beat

Obama Sets the Right Middle East Peace Timeline | Like Carter, he says he would start working on inauguration day.
John Nichols

» Capitolism

Why Air Travel Sux: An Explanation | An airline expert responds to our irresponsible bashing of big air.
Christopher Hayes

» The Dreyfuss Report

Back in the USSR | Russia hinting about challenges to US in Cuba and Venezuela. Sound like the good old days?
Robert Dreyfuss

» ActNow!

Send Karl Rove to Jail | The former Bush advisor regards the law with contempt, so it's time the law and Congress hold him in contempt as well.
Peter Rothberg

» Editor's Cut

Rethinking Afghanistan | There is no easy answer but we need to think beyond the reflexive response of troop escalation in order to find sane and humane alternatives.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» Passing Through

In Youth Organizing, the Old Becomes New Again | Organizational models and institutions from the 2004 election are beginning to see a revival in 2008.
Michael Connery

» And Another Thing

McCain Opposes Contraception -- Pass It On | He's for Viagra and against the pill. Why won't the media cover this important story?
Katha Pollitt