Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.
Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."
I remember the words Sen. Jim Webb spoke in his SOTU response:
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The less I say this morning about the despicable men of whom Sen. Webb so justly condemned, and whose actions condemn them, the better. God bless and keep all our fighting men and women, and their families.
UPDATE: The Washington Post has issued a prominent correction to its article. Here it is:
Correction to This Article
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."
This is an important correction, because it reveals that the initial report attributes statements to the IG that were actually Levin's. The IG's executive summary does not draw the harsh conclusions that Levin's did. It's still unclear to me what, exactly, the IG found, other than that Feith's work in this regard was "inappropriate." That doesn't make Levin wrong or right, but the Post made a whopper of a mistake.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod, Apparently you do not know the role of intelligence analysts - especially at the senior levels. Their duty is NOT to follow orders blindly - their duty is to act as a trusted advisor and challenge assumptions in order to give an accurate assessment of the threat. To do otherwise can get them demoted or worse. If their leadership choose to ignore their recommendation, so be it - they must comply, but no officer worth his salt (or with any self-respect) would tailor a brief simply to be a lickspittle. I never advocated rebellion, Rod, I advocated honor. To assume that these men and women are brave enough to confront bullets, but not to confront fallacy is where I believe you have denigated our Armed Services. Rod, you are showing your ignorance of the military establishment and obviously inserting your ill-formed opinion in as fact. For the third time, will you take me up on my challenge? You may have your 'sources' but are they wide-ranging, are they diverse, are they informed? Or are they simply a small like-minded group who have bolstered and affirmed your suspicions because they're simply birds of a feather? If that's the case Rod, then you and your trusted advisors are guilty of the same foible you accuse the administration of. So, which is it? Words or action? I will leave this to your conscience as all I've asked is that you seek out the thoughts of those you claim to speak on behalf of. I surmise you will find yourself a small minority in the midst of a very well informed, thoughtful, and determined majority who think other than you. You have nothing to prove to me - you only have truth (and I admit, validation of your own opinion) to discover for yourself. Respectfully and signing off, Eric
Correction: last sentence should read "and I admit, the POSSIBILITY of validation of your own opinion"
Rod, There's something in our national temprament that makes us undertake our wars as high moral crusades. "War to end war"..."...fighting for mom, apple pie and the little girl next door"..."that freedom shall not perish from this earth". "...to bring freedum n' demmacracy to the middle east". Conservatives of the old breed have always rolled their eyes at such holy gassifying, They pretty much see the world as a lowlife bar where brawls and blooshed are the daily menu. Like it not, this joint is all there is, so might as well get used to it. That means it's best to win every bar fight, always. Just, unjust, well-intentioned or sordid, wisely begun or not , it doesn't matter. The choice is between clobberer or clobberee. Always has been, always will. I don't know to what extent you partake of this dismal view of war and peace, but to us who do, everything you say, Rod, is perfectly true but completely irrevelant. Clobberer or clobberee. If you care to, I'd be interested in hearing how you'd frame your argument to those companions on the right who think it does come down to this.
Jim Hale: "You simply don't understand how important morale is when it comes to doing battle. " The old broken record- Don't say anything about a war that is going poorly because that may make the soldiers feel bad. I think that just the opposite would be true- it give them hope that this madness will come to an end if enough voices of concern are raised. The Conservatives certainly didn't apply that rule when Clinton deployed troops to Bosnia and Haiti. They vilified him notwithstanding what effect that might have on the troops. It is sheer hypocrisy to even suggest that the war critics should remain silent! Keep talking Rod! I don't agree with you on most issues but on the war, you're 100% right.
Mr Dreher, it will be hard to have someone you know over there, but I think you will learn a lot. You've carefully measured the facts and have come to your conclusions. Now is the time for truth to be a little less objective for you. Keep in touch with your friend. He'll have access to e-mail, but whether or not he has time to e-mail you, ask him to send you his address as soon as he has one. Send him real letters. You don't need to say much, just some inspirational or biblical quotes that have touched you recently, some pictures of green fields and tropical beaches to decorate his trailer or tent with, and maybe some silly anecdotes about life back home, and offer your support. Offer to send him odd items he can't get at the tiny Shopettes there. Send coffee. If he doesn't drink it, I guarantee you there are plenty of folks around him who can't make it through the long watches of night without it;). Be willing to listen to what he has to say. But always try to be encouraging in your response. Real mail means the world when you are deployed. It brought me close to tears a time or two.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.