CIA Director Defends Intelligence on Iraq

[nodehopper]

Tenet falling on the sword for BushCo again...


CIA Chief Says Analysts Didn't See Imminent Threat
Tenet Defends Agency's Work Before Iraq War

WASHINGTON (Feb. 5) - In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

Tenet said analysts had varying opinions on the state of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House. That report summarized intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.
Analysts ''painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests, '' he said in a speech at Georgetown University, his alma mater.
''No one told us what to say or how to say it,'' Tenet said. </snip>.




more here:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040205063109990005

[warrior1]

1. Liar for bush

.

[Barrett808]

2. Non-AOL link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-05-tenet_x.htm

[ze_dscherman]

3. Reuters link:

CIA Chief Defends U.S. Intelligence on Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA chief George Tenet defended U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq on Thursday, denying his agency tailored information to build a case for war: "No one told us what to say or how to say it."
"When the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong," Tenet told a gathering at Georgetown University.

He said analysts differed on several important aspects of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, but added, "They never said there was an imminent threat."




http://news.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4293074

[Sinistrous]

9. I read these comments as a virtual "bombshell" laid in *'s lap.

Tenet just denied that "his agency tailored information to build a case for war:" He then added: "No one told us what to say or how to say it." Then he trots out "They painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

"Programs", again. I thought we were told he had "weapons". Ya know, big green things that go BOOM.

But we know that These points were not the ones that came out of the White House during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. So, the intelligence reports were OK going in to the White House, but thoroughly cooked by the time they came out of the White House.

This seems to narrow the place, time, and perpetrators of the screw up to the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

What am I missing?

[wabeewoman]

24. Just the fact that everybody is still blowing

smoke except Teddy Kennedy. People need to quit trying to 'find' or verify the source of the 'faulty intelligence.' We know good and well that bush and crew made up their intelligence to sell the war to the american people. Bush wanted war and made it happen. It amazes me that bush gets to define the argument and noone questions it. He preemptively attacked a country he knew was no threat. Just like the effort to get the UN involved. They tried threats, bribery and everything else but it was presented as something else. I'm disappointed but not surprised the CIA couldn't say it a bit more clearly.

[Sinistrous]

41. Sen. Kennedy already has company on this,

and the party is just getting started.

[salin]

28. that he apparently said that HE and ONLY HE was the person

to give intel to the president. Not into the wh but to the president. That he rationalized the findings (as their own - not in conflict with what the WH said).. positioning the CIA to defend the intel that was spouted by the WH rather than pit the CIA against the Whitehouse... and that he apparently denied any knowledge of the existence of the OSP.

[Sinistrous]

40. Not sure which account of Tenet's remarks you read, but

the Reuters account

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=I3JWZVVUSQE5CCRBAELCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=4296327

does not support your assertion that Tenet said that the findings did not conflict with what the White House said. I read that the very tactfully distanced himself from the White House accounts, and defended the findings of the CIA.

I am also not sure how his role in delivering the inteligence reports himself to *, and his claim of ignorance about the OSP affect my (and elad's and John Kerry's) conclusion that:

"Today, the CIA Director, George Tenet, admitted that the intelligence agencies never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat," Sen. John Kerry who is running for president said. "But that's not what the Bush White House told the American people," he said.

[nolabels]

38. Just like with Tony Blair , it is all too secret for even * to know.

These people crack me up, they are not even good liars. Anybody seen Dick lately? Listening to a fly on the wall inside view of what goes on from the former Secretary ONeil, should it really matter what went into the ears of * ?

* just utters the words the cabal needs said by *. other than that, looking for redemption from any actions from * is such a waste of time.

[SoCalDem]

4. Can you see FDR, ending with "Let's beat Villanove tonight?"

Because *that's what it's really all about", isn't it...

blah,blah,blah....................wmd......blah,blah,blah.......CIA......blah, blah,blah........

rinse & repeat :(

[Just Me]

5. Second verse, same as the first,...

"WE NEED MORE TIME."

Behind the smoke screen: "We have found that we no longer have to have substantive evidence to justify pre-emptive war BEFORE we go,...we simply market our little product of war to the people and, afterwards, demand more time to create justifications,...bwahahahahaha."

Incredibly skilled propaganda!!!

Man, I sure hope that at least the intuitive red flags are waving within the typical American citizen. The broken record of rhetoric is surely making people say to themselves,...now, wait a minute,...how come I keep hearing the same thing over and over and over?

[donsu]

6. sounded like Blather to me

stopped listening and went to sweep up leaves

[madmom]

7. Tennet

If they were so good at finding all the other "dangers" to the civilized world' why did they miss the boat so bad on Iraq????

[einniv]

8. Mostly as expected.

Maybe a tad more friendly than I personally expected but pretty close.

Anyway, the real issue is this. When is the Office of Special Plans , setup by Rumsfeld going to become the primary focus of this "issue" that it needs to be.

With that one piece of information most Americans will finally be able to piece it all together and make a coherent picture.

It is simple. Just let them know Rumsfeld setup an "intel" agency of his own within the Pentagon to pick and choose what real intel was considered and presented to the American people.

When is someone(besides Dennis .. i mean meida-wise) going to make the OSP a commonly known fact?

[Frances]

12. A student asked Tenet about the Pentagon group

and Tenet said that Bush got his info from Tenet. He dismissed the Pentagon group's influence.

Tenet ended by saying he was at Villanova.

There was a banner behind Tenet saying Georgetown University.

If Tenet doesn't know the difference between Villanova and Georgetown, then how can we trust him on intelligence about Iraq?

On edit, corrected typo.

[einniv]

16. Whether Bush got his info from Tenet makes no difference.

A lot of people are wondering why it is they personally thought Iraq had weapons. It was the OSP who was the one spreading the propaganda to the people. They are the reason for many people's misconceptions.
Once people understand that piece of it they will "get it". I personally think they will dismiss the idea that George didn't know that false info was being spread on purpose from Rummy's office. But I supposed they could conclude that Rummy was doing it behind his back and he didn't catch it. Either way it is the same old story with this bunch. Either you believe that Bush is lying or you believe he is not competent to control his own administration and what they are doing. Either way = boot Bush so I don't really care which of the conclusions most will reach but I think they will see the lie for what it is.

[underpants]

18. No Tenet went to Georgetown and they play Villanova tonight

in basketball. He made a rah-rah go team comment.

[maggrwaggr]

10. "We at the CIA take zero responsibility for anything"

"we never said that". "we may be wrong" "we may be right" "we still don't know"

Talk about non-commital. Falling on his sword my ass.

Does anybody involved with Shrubco take responsibility for anything they do?

[SpiralHawk]

22. That's the story in a nutshell, Magg

nice precis. you should go into the new biz...cuts through all the BS and just lays out the facts. Sgt. Joe Friday would be proud of you.

[librechik]

11. this bunch just keeps repeating the same discredited crap

over and over. Is Chimpie the only one who doesn't read the papers? Guess not.

[remfan]

13. Pathetic

"painted an objective assessment for our policy makers (there should be a period here...what follows is PR mumbo-jumbo and reflects the WH talking points) of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests,"

"No one told us what to say..." Yeah, right. These people make me sick.

[librechik]

14. Well folks, this is just a preview of the "independent investigation"

of Iraq intelligence. Just about what we thought: a gutless whitewash

[EarlG]

15. Hang on...

In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat... "No one told us what to say or how to say it."

So if the CIA never said that Iraq was an imminent threat, that means that Bush & Co. just made all this up:

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

...

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

...

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

- Bush, 2003 State of the Union

The question is, if the CIA never said that Iraq was an imminent threat, and the Bush administration still came up with the crap above, where were they getting the information from?

Sounds like a job for the Office of Special Plans...

[underpants]

19. When asked about the OSP Tenet said:

The President gets his briefing (intelligence) from one and only one person and that is me. We have always done it that way and we do it every day. About this other thing (OSP) I don't know about it.

Something like that.

[dennis4868]

21. Sounds like Reagn....

wheh asked about the arms for hostages in the Iran contra scandal...he said the same thing...."I don't know about it." He said this even though he was clearly in the meetings and gave the okay according Bush 41's notes....haha....Tenet is a long time friend of the Bush's.....do you think he is going to blame Bush or the WH for this mess?

[salin]

29. It sounded like he was saying that HE was the source

of ALL intel the president saw (and thus used). His case was defending the types of intel (eg setting up that it was from the CIA - not pitting CIA as more careful and the WH as more loosey goosey)... strengthens that argument by suggesting that he didn't know of OSP (eg it doesn't exist). If he had been more cagey about defending the intelligence rather than rationalizing that the intel used was based on reasonable items... then I would agree that he might be setting up some wiggle room. But it sounds like he was taking ownership of the intel - USED BY THE PRESIDENT (he rationalized the "mobile labs", the "reconstitution of bio weapons", the "aluminum tubes for nukes" etc.) I do not read this as a set up by Tenet, but as a samarai move.

[nolabels]

35. I love that sig underpants

I wonder if I can that for a iron-on-transfer to put on some of my Hanes.

P.S. no one better tell me this Mr. Tennant is some kind liberal Democrat again, this fella is jumping in head first into big liars club

[Sinistrous]

20. Pardon my shameless self-promotion, but

did any body see post #9, above?

[dennis4868]

17. What about this statement?

"Tenet said analysts had varying opinions on the state of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate"

Varying opinions? Hell, the WH did not tell us their were varying opinions. They kept saying words like "no doubt" "we know"

To me this is a bombshell that will go pretty much ignored in the media who are lazy intellectually....

By the way, the NIE that was released to congress in Oct 2002 did not spell out "varying" opinions. The declassified NIE in July 2003 after the war started described entire agencies disagreeing with the NIE.

[Sagan]

23. It was definitely a pedantic whitewash.

Tenet continuously used intent and potential intent and potential capability as subsitutes for realistic evidence.

The point is, we were not taken to war based on intent or potential intent or potential capability. We were taken to war based on the claim that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMD's that could be used immediately.

That was a LIE.

[Oilwellian]

25. About that Oct, 2002 NIE report

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in fact, was the greatest congressional obstacle to the administration's push for war. Under the lead of Graham and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the committee enjoyed respect and deference in the Senate and the House, and its members could speak authoritatively, based on their access to classified information, about whether Iraq was developing nuclear weapons or had ties to Al Qaeda. And, in this case, the classified information available to the committee did not support the public pronouncements being made by the CIA.

In the late summer of 2002, Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn't do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war. For instance, the intelligence report cited the much-disputed aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam "remains intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons. And it claimed, "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program"--a blatant mischaracterization. Subsequently, the NIE allowed that "some" experts might disagree but insisted that "most" did not, never mentioning that the DOE's expert analysts had determined the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. The NIE also said that Iraq had "begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents"--which the DIA report had left pointedly in doubt. Graham demanded that the CIA declassify dissenting portions.

In response, Tenet produced a single-page letter. It satisfied one of Graham's requests: It included a statement that there was a "low" likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States. But it also contained a sop to the administration, stating without qualification that the CIA had "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Graham demanded that Tenet declassify more of the report, and Tenet promised to fax over additional material. But, later that evening, Graham received a call from the CIA, informing him that the White House had ordered Tenet not to release anything more.

<much more>http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

[0007]

26. In other words folks, Tenet said we got the bang for our buck"

At that time 30 billion a year worth of bangs.

[ewagner]

27. I listened carefully to Tenet's speech

and came away a bit confused.

He seemed to be saying two different things:

One obvious theme was that only more time for inspections will determine the ultimate question of whether the intelligence was right or wrong.

The other was that the CIA gave the WH their best estimate (including caveats) and pretty much left it at that. This leaves the door open to imply that the WH was receiving other information from other sources and based the decision to go to war on that...(we know Bush wanted to go to war from day one anyway) IOW if there was bad intelligence, Bush and company got it from somebody else.

[grasswire]

30. Daschle said...

..there was nothing new in Tenet's remarks. There's still the need for investigation.

The NYT assessment can be found at this link. It doesn't look as if the speech made much of an impact.

http://www.nytimes.com/ads/citibank/popunder_citibank04.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. I don't think you're confused at all...

...because that's the way I'm reading it too.

[TacticalPeek]

39. I too listened with interest, and you're right.

True, he blew some smoke, for which the WH will be grateful for about 24-48 hours. But his bottom line was that the intel community did fine, so if you smell a rat, its not in our shop. Implying plainly IMHO that the CIA does not declare war, does not prosyletize for invasions in the ME, does not invoke musrhroom clouds, etc. Those matters are above his pay grade. He did not say this of course, but the implied conclusion is plain.

Also, the theme you mention about "only more time for inspections" that was asserted also has a now tragic relevance to the pre-war inspections. Remember Blix and the IAEA complaining publicly about the poor intel they kept receiving? Either we deliberately misled the UN inspectors to foster war, or, more likely, 'accidentally' misled them with raggedy defector info leading to fruitless searchs because there was nothing there. We even spied on the UN over this as I recall.

And the only time I laughed out load was when he answered the student's question about OSP, Cheney, etc.

He said essentially, "George loves me more that any other intel guys, and he told me so to my face repeatedly. But all this stuff about OSP and Cheney, I dunno (what this town is coming to)." Implying that for any claims of hot, illicit trysts with rogue intelligence operations, ask Feith or Cheney.

In short, he wants to both keep his job and stand up for the CIA. So he continues his high wire act, still up there so far.

[grasswire]

31. OK....here's the deal then

CIA gave Bush truthful information.

Bush gave Congress and American people bad information.

It's as simple as that!

[Bandit]

32. CIA Chief Says Analysts Didn't See Imminent Threat

If there was no imminent threat then we broke international law. The only way we could legally attack another country was in defense or if they were an imminent threat. :shrug: who knew?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Yep...Tenet is being very careful about what he says and how he says it...

...and technically, he is correct that Tenet is the only OFFICIAL briefer to Junior on intelligence matters. As far as he is concerned, Tenet wants to make it known that the CIA is in no way connected to the OSP.

[Thoth]

36. He denied the existence of the OSP without naming it...

This is a bald-faced lie! I hope someone high up in the "opposition" calls him on this, but I'm not holding my breath. I believe there was a thread in General Discussion with lots of links about the OSP - and Tenet denies its very existence. How can they get away with this?

[July]

37. It depends on what the meaning of "imminent" is?

Are they seriously trying to sell the idea that they didn't say the word "imminent" and are, therefore, off the hook? Do they believe nobody knows the meaning of that word or noticed the fear-mongering (mushroom cloud, anyone?)? If I say "couch", I'm not saying "sofa," but a hundred bucks say I'm talking about the same thing.

I'm buying this only if Tenet meant Bush when he talked of "a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."

What a load of crap.