Decoding the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation on Iraq

[struggle4progress]

EDITORIAL OBSERVER
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
Published: July 18, 2004

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on American intelligence failures in Iraq has produced a rare and curious thing — agreement between left and right. For opposite reasons, both are pushing the absurd notion that the report told us that President Bush was not to blame for giving Americans false information about Iraq.
<snip>

The 511-page report, which was released by the committee last week after about 20 percent was censored by the administration, does not tell us what the C.I.A. and other agencies told Mr. Bush before he concluded that Iraq had dangerous weapons and that Saddam Hussein had to go. It focuses on something called a "National Intelligence Estimate," which came out in October 2002, months and months after the administration had already set its face toward war. The estimate was requested by Congress, and it was supposed to summarize the views of the C.I.A., along with those of the Defense Department's intelligence experts and other agencies, like the State Department and Department of Energy, that might have important information to offer.

Three versions of the report on Iraq were prepared, all of them concluding that Saddam Hussein was a major threat. But the first, long, classified one was peppered with reservations. A declassified version that was given to Congress erased most of the doubts. The even shorter public version had no caveats at all.

What we need to know now is how the report came up so positive. The Senate committee said its staff "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." Republican members in particular have repeatedly assured the public that no one reported any direct arm-twisting. But that is a lot less meaningful than it sounds.
<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18SUN3.html

[NMDemDist2]

1. more damning at the end..

The British report on the intelligence debacle, also released last week, made it plain that the push for war was political, not based on new urgency about a threat from Iraq. Even with fears justifiably heightened after the 9/11 attacks, it said, "there was no recent intelligence that would itself have given rise to a conclusion that Iraq was of more immediate concern than the activities of some other countries."

So how did the Bush administration wind up passing out so much disinformation? Americans are going to have to wait for the Senate's judgment on this crucial question until after the election.

ibid

[jimshoes]

2. I'd say a deal was struck

and now look for one of the top White House players to exit shortly. Just my guess though.