The Senate's Intelligence

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party's narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq's nuclear program.

The quotes are taken from Mr. Ford's memo to Secretary Powell before Mr. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. They were reprinted in last week's declassified report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on pre-Iraq war intelligence. That report was widely offered as a confirmation of the Democratic party's narrative that Mr. Bush played fast and loose with the intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. Quoth Senator Rockefeller: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

H/T to the JAWA Report for pointing to the Editorial:

As It Turns Out, ROCKEFELLER Lied

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

Update: The New York Sun's editorial board notes that Rockefeller deliberately manipulated data for his committee's report to support the "Bush Lied" meme:

Mr. Rockefeller decided to exclude a handwritten note from the CIA's terrorism analyst of the Mr. Bush's 2002 speech in Cincinnati on the eve of the Congressional vote authorizing the war saying the paragraphs about Iraq and terrorism were "all-Okay." Wrote Senators Bond, Chambliss, Hatch, and Burr in an addendum to the report: "Apparently the majority did not think this was something the public needed to know since they denied our request to include it and did not allow a vote on the amendment offered to fix this shortcoming."

*****

Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post, of all places:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Hiatt also brings up Rockefeller's own inconvenient quote from October 2002:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Verdict: Jay Rockefeller is a hyper-partisan weasel trying to project his own lack of character on others.

Hat tip: The Anchoress, via email.
By Bluto | l digg this

From the The Anchoress :

WaPo: Bush “substantiated by intelligence” - UPDATED

******************EXCERPT*******************

What a long, strange trip it’s been, and here, some years later, we finally get someone in the press to tell it straight: Bush did not lie.

There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller’s [Intelligence Committee] report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
[,,,]
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” [all emphasis mine - admin]

One reads this and thinks…it’s really too bad that when this story of Dems on the Intel Committee plotting against Bush broke in 2003, the mainstream press ignored it, taking umbrage that anyone would leak a memo (!) and ignoring its content. Why, suddenly, is the WaPo deciding, after 5 years of supporting and promoting the “Bush lied” meme, to clarify?

1) Perhaps they see things improving so much in Iraq that there is going to be a slow turning around of the narrative - like turning around the Titanic - so that Democrats can stop pretending they never voted for the action, and get ready to claim a share in victory. Then it gives room to the presumed Democrat president to settle the Iraq matter with an American “presence” in Iraq - comparable to our presences in Germany, and elsewhere - so that he can get on with the business of “changing” America domestically. After all, the WaPo editorial board warned Obama just last week that he needed to update his thinking on Iraq.

2) Perhaps they see that the relentless pounding the press has given Bush for the last 5 years has impacted him negatively enough that there is no risk of his having any sort of rehabilitation, either in the polls or in history, and so they figure they can put away the flamethrowers.

3) Perhaps there are still some journalists who are more interested in telling the whole story than in framing and enshrining a narrative.

I want to believe it’s #3.

The article’s writer, Fred Hiatt, acknowledges that at this point, people will believe what they’ve been told for the past 5 years, and this report is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion on anything - we’re too far gone for that - the narratives have been erected in stone, but he writes:

…the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

The phony “Bush lied story line…

Pinch me, I’m dreaming. Say it with me: The phony “Bush lied story line…

There, in black and white, in The Washington Post. Imagine that. The Emily Litella Press says “nevermind”. I’m stunned. And even, a little…dare I be…hopeful.

Martin Luther King said that “a lie won’t stand forever.”

Bush did not lie. Others did - lots of others - but Bush did not lie. All he ever said was the same thing Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, John Edwards, Madeline Albright and so many others said, over, and over, and over. Either they were all lying, or none of them were, and our intelligence (and much of the world’s and the UN’s) was a catastrophic failure.

Let’s take any remaining steps available, to see that the intel is more reliable in future.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey fleshes the story out (Ed was, I think, perhaps the only person in America (besides Stephen Hayes) actually paying attention to the Iraq/AlQaeda links being discovered in the tens of thousands of documents out of Iraq). Also, read this from the New York Sun:

“We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime.”
Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party’s narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq’s nuclear program.

Martin Luther King was right.

Also, it might be difficult for President Lightworker to prosecute Bush for war crimes when his own party says…he didn’t lie.

Gateway Pundit - as ever - has more

From Hot Air:

Hiatt on Rockefeller Report: Partisan nonsense, and dangerous

*******************EXCERPT*********************************

posted at 9:00 am on June 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Fred Hiatt perused the report issued by Jay Rockefeller and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee accusing George Bush and Dick Cheney of deception and misdirection leading up to the war on Iraq, and finds something missing: evidence. Not only does Rockefeller fail to substantiate his accusations, the report itself contradicts his public conclusions. It also sets a bar so high for action on intelligence that its absorption could paralyze the US in confronting threats until far too late.

So what did the SIC find about Bush’s statements on contemporaneous intel?

On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

After the war, as we noted on several occasions, captured Iraqi documents confirmed two explicit connections between AQ and Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s IIS provided funds to two AQ terrorist groups. The Army of Mohammed, based in Bahrain, told the IIS that they wanted to attack American assets throughout the region, and the IIS supplied them with funds while attempting to cover their tracks, knowing what exposure would mean after 9/11. The IIS also supplied funds for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s organization which provided AQ with most of its leadership.

The New York Sun reminds everyone that in January 2003, the State department also had intelligence of ties between AQ and Saddam Hussein, and it came from the same group that dissented on the status of the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program:

His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi “has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials.” He added that intelligence on Qaeda “revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad.”

Hiatt also takes a look at the dissenting report from the Republicans, who — surprise! — didn’t get a chance to participate in the main report’s writing. Kit Bond (R-MO) reminded Rockefeller that he called Iraq an “imminent threat” in October 2002, not Bush, and that Rockefeller himself said, “To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.” And Rockefeller saw the same intelligence that Bush did.

What Rockefeller does in this report is to walk back the threshold, saying now that we should have waited for more evidence. That may or may not be true; after 9/11, which was the specific frame of reference Rockefeller himself used in his “imminent threat” speech, waiting for more evidence could mean waiting until an attack occurs, especially in an era of asymmetric warfare. That would at least be an honest debate, but Rockefeller eschews that for unsupported accusations of dishonesty in what turns out to be a dishonest report. He certainly felt in 2002 that Bush used the right threshold after seeing the same intel that Bush had. If we have to wait for Perry Mason-like evidence, it ensures that the US will never take action on its intelligence until it is far, far too late. (via the Anchoress)

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.