Pentagon Iraq intelligence report 'very damning'

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."

The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaeda connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.

The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.

Levin has asserted that President Bush took the country to war in Iraq based in part on intelligence assessments -- some shaped by Feith's office -- that were off base and did not fully reflect the views of the intelligence community.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Levin said the IG report is "very damning" and shows a Pentagon policy shop trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

Levin in September 2005 had asked the inspector general to determine whether Feith's offices' activities were appropriate, and if not, what remedies should be pursued.

The 2004 report from the September 11 commission found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization before the U.S. invasion.

Asked to comment on the IG's findings, Feith said in a telephone interview that he had not seen the report but was pleased to hear that it concluded his office's activities were neither illegal nor unauthorized. He took strong issue, however, with the IG's finding that some activities had been "inappropriate."

"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," Feith said.

Spin-doctoring
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
For the one billionth time...

Iraq was not necessarily linked to alqaeda. Saddam was absolutely linked to terrorism.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
For the one billionth time...

Iraq was not necessarily linked to alqaeda. Saddam was absolutely linked to terrorism.


GWB said:
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

I see just what you mean. :rolleyes:
 

2minkey

bootlicker
For the one billionth time...

Iraq was not necessarily linked to alqaeda.

actually i think it was that others had to beat that into your head about a billion times, and now it seems, maybe, that it's sunk in.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I clearly recall the debates leading up to it. Alqaeda being tied to Iraq was not a major point (in fact, it hardly constitutes a minor one).

Iraq being tied to terrorism, in general, was a major point.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
It's from the original speech, Gonz. Right before the invasion.

I remember the same debates that you do except that I clearly remember ties to al-Qaeda being a major issue (kinda like he refers to in the speech). :shrug:
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
He implied there is more to the ME than we're all privy to. I was just curious what his inside man has to offer that hasn't already been talked about, ad nauseum.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
He implied there is more to the ME than we're all privy to. I was just curious what his inside man has to offer that hasn't already been talked about, ad nauseum.

I didn't think so. He said that despite the obvious failure of the current policy the administration (and supporters thereof) continue to rationalize the current policy via information that has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. He never implies any more knowledge than is available to anyone else.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
I didn't think so. He said that despite the obvious failure of the current policy the administration (and supporters thereof) continue to rationalize the current policy via information that has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. He never implies any more knowledge than is available to anyone else.

i've stated elsewhere that i have what i believe to be a moderate level of knowledge about the middle east. yes, i know the difference between seveners and twelvers, but i ain't no fuckin' lawrence of arabia.

as chcr sez, nowhere in the post that is referred to above did i suggest that i was something special as far as knowledge aboot the middle east. i've merely pointed toward what all but the most desperate understand as a preponderance of evidence showing the long-tired "significant iraq-al quada relationship" assertion as bull-huckey. again, kinda what chcr said.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
2minkey said:
.... i've merely pointed toward what all but the most desperate understand as a preponderance of evidence showing the long-tired "significant iraq-al quada relationship" assertion as bull-huckey.



Please reveal what you understand as the "REAL" reason the United States went to Iraq; after all, I know the Left is fond of calling it "Bush's War."

Maybe the "reason" contains the letters w-a-r-f-o-r-o-i-l or h-e-t-r-i-e-d-t-o-k-i-l-l-m-y-d-a-d-d-y or c-o-w-b-o-y-p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s?
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Please reveal what you understand as the "REAL" reason the United States went to Iraq; after all, I know the Left is fond of calling it "Bush's War."

Maybe the "reason" contains the letters w-a-r-f-o-r-o-i-l or h-e-t-r-i-e-d-t-o-k-i-l-l-m-y-d-a-d-d-y or c-o-w-b-o-y-p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s?

:rofl:

nice assumptions. you have no idea if i'm left. i could be so far off the scale to the right that i could call you a fucking pinko commie pussy. maybe i'm just embarrassed by how dumb and short-sighted the right has become. or maybe i am a commie.

when something salient arises in your posts, i may reply. until then... try holding your breath.
 
Top