Bush Waged Iraq War by "Cherry Picking" Evidence-Former CIA official

[ClintonTyree]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060210/ts_alt_afp/usiraqpoliticscia_060210073633

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A former CIA official who coordinated US intelligence on the Middle East has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, The Washington Post reports.

The newspaper said Paul Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, also accused the administration of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs.

Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

Yet MORE evidence that bush had a war hard-on and was going into Iraq come hell or high water. What the hell is Congress waiting for, IMPEACH THE BASTARD! :grr:

[rodeodance]

1. this is key;

n his article, he said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results, the report said.

Instead, Pillar describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq, The Post said.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, which analysts had discounted.


RECOMMEND THIS STORY

[rodeodance]

2. 4.6 stars

Your Recommendation:

Average (31 votes)
4.6 stars

[Imalittleteapot]

3. Rate this story. nt

[ClintonTyree]

4. This was up on Yahoo ever so briefly.........

then they buried it and I had to do a search. I've perma-linked it in case it disappears altogether which I think is highly likely.

Yes, I agree. I think this is VERY important and I'd recommend it myself if I could.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Remember the Downing Street Minutes memos

[ClintonTyree]

5. Here's the WaPo article itself.........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html By Walter Pincus

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

Paul R. Pillar, , who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, says warnings on Iraq were ignored. (By Dennis Cook -- Associated Press)

[cal04]

7. Again Novak involved. This man should be behind bars

Pillar wrote that the first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was "not until a year into the war." That assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerrilla war or civil war. It was leaked to the media in September in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bush, who had told voters that the mission in Iraq was going well, described the assessment to reporters as "just guessing."

Shortly thereafter, Pillar was identified in a column by Robert D. Novak as having prepared the assessment and having given a speech critical of Bush's Iraq policy at a private dinner in California. The column fed the White House's view that the CIA was in effect working against the Bush administration, and that Pillar was part of that. A columnist in the Washington Times in October 2004 called him "a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism."

Leaked information "encouraged some administration supporters to charge intelligence officers (including me) with trying to sabotage the president's policies," Pillar wrote. One effect of that, he said, was to limit challenges to consensus views on matters such as the Iraqi weapons program. When asked why he did not quit given his concerns, Pillar said in the interview that he was doing "other worthwhile work in the nation's interest" and never thought of resigning over the issue.

For the future, Pillar suggests that the CIA and other intelligence agencies, now under Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, remain within the executive branch but "be given greater independence." The model he cites is the Federal Reserve, overseen by a board of governors that serves for fixed terms. That, he said, would reduce "both the politicization of the intelligence community's own work and the public misuse of intelligence by policymakers."

[ClintonTyree]

8. Novak was their "go to guy"....

for all of this bullshit until, UNTIL he started singing like a canary when the heat came down from Fitz. :rofl: That's what they get for trusting a douche-bag like Novak. All of these guys act so tough, but when the slightest pressure is exerted they start crying like little girls. Novak is now a pariah in Conservative circles, an untouchable. Too bad, Bobby!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. This is also in a big front-page WaPo article. LINK to DU thread on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2098146
thread title (2-9-06 LBN): WP A1: Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq ("cherry-picking")
Comment/excerpt: “The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year {Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005} has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein…."Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." ‘It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized,’ Pillar wrote.”
Also predicted civil discord inside Iraq as we are seeing today – it’s civil war, and it was all spelled out and ignored by the Bushies.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. It wasn't an Intelligence failure after all.

Unless you want to believe that it's the CIA's job to STOP the executive branch from following an agenda that not supported by them.