Skip to comments.Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War
Posted on 06/07/2003 7:15:11 AM PDT by leadpencil1
The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.
"What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field."
Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.
In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists.
Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said.
The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.
Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances.
CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them.
Also Friday, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in.
"There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States."
Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public.
The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said.
"When the administration did talk about specific evidence - it was basically declassified, sensitive information - it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said.
In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it.
"I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said.
Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles.
"We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that."
One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War."
Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory.
Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure.
Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government.
Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.
This appears to be the truth.
What about all this stuff?
Initial tests suggest WMD "cocktail" found in Iraq (**Of special note--post #58, by Archy)
And from Freeper "HatSteel":
******CENTAF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM
And I should add--
We've found wmds, we and the axis of weasels have known about the wmds--and the rest of this is just an excuse to attack what was a just and a successful war. The ones telling the "big lie" are not the President and his admin, but the weasels. Pity that some freepers are buying into it.
Yeah, and I think Thielmann was Ritters' roomate.
This appears to be the truth. "
It's the truth, yeah sure it is. I'm an unamed source and I say this is crapola.
Put a face on the source. Have them available for questioning. Let's see the 'evidence'. I won't take any NYTs article as evidence.
So the UN and Hans Blix was lying all the time. Hmmmm got to think that one over.
This is getting hilarious. We'll see won't we. But personally I need more than 2 months to search all the sand in Iraq for WMDs.
Anyone care to contemplate how easy it would be to take a gps and go out in the desert, write down the coordinates, dig a hole, stick the WMDs in the hole and bury them. How would anyone find the WMDs except those who buried them in the first place and knew the coordinates.
We'll see won't we.
Has anyone else noticed the uptick in dumpo posts in this forum? Getting a bit much. Do we have a re-direct from the undergraound? These types are doing nothing but attacking Bush's character with lies. So sad to see so many so blinded by hatred.
Correct, I never fully believed the story. The evidence was "thin" at best and the Niger forgery was well known before the first missile flew. The down side risk was considerable as we see in the rejuvenation of Al Queda.
So, yes, I was against the war before it started. Does that mean that I cannot point out the need for finding the truth now.
I will be happy to congratulate the President for being smarter than I was if he turns out correct, though I will be unhappy if they were withholding good evidence. On the other hand, I expect all true conservatives of whatever party to put aside party loyalty and stop supporting the president if the facts show that the administration intentionally lied. Do we have a deal?
Remember that the truth will eventually come out. It may take some years but history will know the answer. Just like we all know now that the main escalation of the Viet Nam war was based on a non-existent Gulf of Tonkin incident. Fifty Thousand dead Americans and probably 2 or 3 times than number of Viet Namese dead because of that story. If Johnson was alive, we should be hanging him from the highest place.
How much more operational can you get in Mr. so-called ex-official?
The war is over.
America has destroyed your Ally, Saddam in the process.
We have shaken up the entire world AND international terrorism in the process.
Regardless of this petty and unsubstantiated "charge," of "deception" the War is STILL supported by 75% of the American people.
Ergo, in 2004 Dubya will slaughter ANY RAT candidate for President.
Yes, but what relevance is that statement? The accusation was about people who have not even started to question the WMD search 2 months after we occupied Iraq. The statement was that common sense is not being used, and implied that it would be more productive to bolster the arguments made against critics rather than use ad hominem terms like "hysterical" and "ludicrous".
Hiding or moving is a reasonable argument, IMO. But the arguments of critics are not unreasonable either--better formulate some rebuttal.
Actually Bush admin officials said to give it at least a year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.