U.S. intelligence on Iraq was “dead wrong,” dealing a blow to American credibility that will take years to undo, and spymasters still know disturbingly little about nuclear programs in countries like Iran and North Korea, a presidential commission reported on Thursday.
The commission’s bluntly written report, based on more than a year of investigations, offered a damning assessment of the intelligence that President Bush used to launch the Iraq war two years ago and warned that flaws are still all too common throughout spy agencies.
“We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” the commissioners wrote.
And at a time when the United States is accusing Iran of nuclear ambitions and pressuring North Korea on its nuclear programs, the report said: “Across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world’s most dangerous actors.”
The presidential commission, led by appeals court judge Laurence Silberman and former Virginia Republican Sen. Charles Robb, called for a broad overhaul in the spy community to increase information-sharing and foster dissenting views.
This is hardly surprising, given the decades-long decimation of our spy corps. Perhaps such a bluntly written assessment will go a long way toward pressuring for the necessary fixes and stop gaps.
Or else it will used by both political parties as a cudgel to try to score partisan points.
And who can get enough of a screeching Bob Beckel, or Sean Hannity’s furrowed eyebrows of moral concern…?
As you say, hopefully it will assist in beefing up our intelligence corps.
But Reuters premise (“offered a damning assessment of the intelligence that President Bush used to launch the Iraq war two years ago”) is a continuation of moving the goalposts. All you have to do is ask a complete-the-sentence question to know how someone stood on the war. “The burden of proof regarding the existence or non-existence of WMD in Iraq belonged to ________.”
The goalposts always move when the situation changes. That’s a given.
But in this case, the intelligence was off. Wide right, some would say.
To take the analogy toward absurdity: If the FBI/CIA is the kicker, we need to know what kind of a leg it has no matter where the goalposts are. Can he hit a longshot? A chippy from the three? A game winner?
I’d say the coach made a rookie mistake.
While I’d admit there were certainly some mistakes, I think it’s incredibly wrong-headed to say that the intelligence community was “dead-wrong.”
I’d buy this assessment once we have the opportunity to search Syria (after Assad is gone) and still find no WMDs (or info on what happened to them).
Until that happens, to believe this commission’s conclusions, one has to also believe that Saddam destroyed his documented, large stockpiles of WMDs without any notice. That he destroyed them in secret despite the fact that a documented destruction would have resulted in a lifting of UN sanctions and a real opportunity for Saddam to rebuild his weapons program. That’s simply too ridiculous to believe.
I’m all for some changes to the intelligence community but to claim the US was “dead wrong” without having all of the facts in is, in my opinion, the same exact process for which the intelligence community is being damned. They are making statements based solely on what information is available at present. Where’s the proof that there weren’t WMD’s…the fact that they aren’t there now? The magician at my kid’s birthday party had a rabbit in his act but then it wasn’t in his hat…I guess, if I were on the intelligence panel, I’d assume the rabbit never existed…not that he had simply moved it by slight of hand.
I’m wondering, will the headline following the Syrian regime’s crack-up be: “Intelligence panel’s conclusions dead wrong on intelligence community’s WMD conclusions”? It’s certainly possible.
jon, you’re right. I didn’t mean to imply that many assessments were incorrect. And following up on Pax’s statements, should the article have addressed programs, the flaunting of the embargo, and what role the UN Oil for Food scandal played in the formulation for going to war?
My local paper (Seattle Times) has a headline that screams “Bush Administration “dead wrong” on previous intelligence, panel says”. Yet when I read the story itself it clearly states “America’s spy agencies were dead wrong” What’s a guy to believe? If I was a suspicious person I might think they changed that headline PURPOSELY to make our President look bad. Please tell me I’m wrong!
Well, as the leader he gets the credit and the blame. He was wrong if they were wrong. He would certainly be right if they were. The buck stops somewhere, doesn’t it?
bigbooner: You’re right, but you’re looking too hard for reasons to be offended.
“Or else it will used by both political parties as a cudgel to try to score partisan points”.
Tragically, that is best we can hope for…guess I’m too cynical. I doubt we have the stomach for real reform, which should enable the spies to be spies. Which can be very, very dirty.
Just one additional point.
I keep reading about the need in the intelligence community for more open analytical discussion being needed and the (past) stifling of dissenting analytical opinions.
What I haven’t read of, yet, is a single scrap of intelligence (Bagdad Bob doesn’t count) that pointed to a dismantled Iraqi WMD program. It wasn’t a lack of “diversity of opinion,” it was a lack of evidence to disprove what was an established and documented fact (that Saddam had WMD’s).
For anyone to insist that they would have come up with different conclusions while looking at the same data set is self-delusional at best and dishonest at worst.
While I agree with Red State Moron about “spies being spies”, it’s really more than just the need for HUMINT (Human Intelligence) and what they do. It’s about having enough trained analysts on hand to sift through the vast amount of data that comes into the intelligence community (IC). You can have all the collection platforms in the world but if you don’t have anyone on the other end to make sense of what’s been collected, you’ve only got useless data…not intelligence.
That’s where we can really thank Kerry, Clinton, and the rest of their kind who didn’t like Danny Ortega and Fidel being bothered. Not only did they gut our HUMINT capabilities, but the slashing of the overall intelligence budget resulted in less analysts on the job.
That’s why I personally want to retch when those asshats pretend to be shocked, yes shocked, that the intelligence community was wrong. The IC is where it is thanks to their defense cuts in general and intelligence cuts in particular.
Jon, I am not looking for any reasons to be offended I am merely mentioning that my local paper couldn’t get something as simple as that correct. Their “quotation” is not only misleading but it is incorrect. I find that whole way of reporting rather Michael Moorish. No offense but that “credit and blame” argument doesn’t do much for me. What does float my boat is when somebody (reporter) actually gets something right. It’s hard enough usually having to read through a lengthy report to find the “truth” but when it’s right there in the first sentence and they STILL miquote it I get a little irritated. That’s when I put my cranky pants on.
Combine a big booner and cranky pants and you get tents.
The Bush Administration believed the bad intelligence. Again, he made the call. Those other guys goofed, too. But they’re part of the Executive Branch, at least their leaders are. So it’s really part and parcel to say Intelligence and Bush Administration interchangably.
(And yes, as someone who didn’t vote for a President Bush four times, I do have a hard time writing that.)
Ok, last comment and I will give it a rest. My point is this. I would like the media to REPORT something as it is. If I want editorials there is a special page for that. The report SPECIFICALLY says one thing yet the headlines read another. Whether or not you or I agree on WHO is responsible for the WMD business I would like the headline to REFLECT what the report sez. We could argue all day on the degree of blame that Bush deserves/doesn’t deserve but I ask one thing of the media. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. Now you have a nice day y’hear?
Someone smack Jimmy Carter for me please.
Turing: several. On second thought, smack him several times.
Guys—it not the budget, and certainly not Bush.
It’s the fact the current rules do not allow our guys to do the dirty work required to gain intelligence.
As we used to say in Chicago, speaking for myself as an individual, I’d rather my spies didn’t have “rules” regarding intelligence gathering. I know that is probably “moronic”, and not very “nuanced”, but if the shoe fits…
The BBC’s phony American report “The World” is using this report to editorialize against assuming that Iran is trying to create Nukes. Despite the fact that they’ve often SAID that they’re trying to make Nukes and claim the RIGHT to create nukes, and a former president said they’d NUKE ISRAEL as soon as the nukes are ready. Depite the fact that they keep parading around missiles with pictures of the United States on them and Israel on and slogans like DEATH TO AMERICA and DEATH TO ISRAEL on them representing their intended targets.
None of that is any reason to conclude Iraq wants to make nukes according to the fake americans at the BBC’s fake American NEWS show, “The World”
PIMF
None of that is any reason to conclude Iran wants to make nukes according to the fake americans at the BBC’s fake American NEWS show, “The Worldâ€Â
Hmm… that’s interesting.
I mean, I’m FROM Virginia. Senator Robb was indeed one of our senators.
Strangely enough, this is the first time I’ve every heard him referred to as a Republican.
http://www.senate.com/state/va.html
I may never be able to look at Sean Hannity again without cracking up, Jeff.
Talk about nailing a description.
It’s the fact the current rules do not allow our guys to do the dirty work required to gain intelligence.
That is only one of the reasons.
Others include State department employees playing partisan politics, our intelligence work on the ground “outsourced” and political correctness.
An American Expat in Southeast Asia