So here I am, watching Peter Jennings display his awesome sobriety (number one choice for designated driver), and he runs through stories about Iraq election, etc. He finishes with what is almost aside, as quoting Our Leader as stating he is entirely convinced that Al-Queda and Iraq are intertwined.
He then points out that the CIA says differently, that there is no evidence of any such cooperation.
So what the heck is going on here? Shouldn’t somebody be explaining why this cognitive dissonance at the highest levels of incompetence? Clearly, somebody is wrong, and the answer to that question is, quite literally, a matter of life and death.
I have heard discussions on NPR saying something to the effect that the CIA has a slightly opposing view of Bush’s “regime change” policy. There were links between Saddam and Al-Quaida, but the CIA doesn’t see the the connections as such a serious threat.
My understanding is that the C.I.A is not the only intelligence arm or the United States, and that even within the C.I.A. things are kept deliberately fractionated for obvious reasons.
So, at one level of information, the analysis may suggest that Iraq does not have ties to Al Quaeda and does not represent a significant danger. However, a higher level privy to more sensitive and more complete information from specific sources may have an entirely different opinion in their analysis.
Guess what level of analysis Peter Jennings gets?
Seeing as it is the C.I.A and other intelligence arms duty to brief the President at the highest level, who’s information do you think is better?
It is unsurprising that what Bush says may contradict what the C.I.A. is distributing publically.
The other possibility is that the C.I.A.s information and reports are consistent across all levels and even consistent with the analysis of other intelligent arms and that Bush is exagerating the threat. Unfortunately, we do not and should not have the information to analyze this possibility.
Be that as it may, doesn’t it strike anyone here that there is something wrong when the President is saying that there is a connection between Iraq and ElQuida and the agency in charge of finding out that sort of thing and telling the President about it is saying that there is no persuasive evidence of such a connection? You may assume that the info coming out of the CIA is from the left hand that doesn’t know what the right hand is doing but that is an assumption. You can likewise think that just maybe the President is saying anything that springs into his mind as long as it cannot be authoritatively debunked. You can think that the President has an agenda, but what ax does the CIA have to grind?
Also, why are CIA reports becoming public information. Surely the President and his people are not authorizing the release of CIA conclusions that undermine the President’s position. Something is funny here.
No one is suggesting that Peter Jennings is privy to some special analysis, or even accusing him of an expressing an opinion.
Well, yes, there is that. Entirely plausible, in my estimation. Except for the nagging question of spin control and information “management”. Didn’t anybody on the Bush staff notice that what Bush was saying was in direct contradiction to public statements from CIA? Didn’t he? Did they think we wouldn’t notice?
Boy, do I disagree! I disagree to the point of thinking you might be kidding. We should not have sufficient information to judge whether we are being misled? And by whom?
Allow me to clarify. If the information Peter Jennings gets is basically nonclassified stuff like the CIA factbook, and the stuff Bush is getting is top-notch intelligence stuff from highly ranked informers inside Saddam’s government, than this should not be cleared up.
If Bush were to come out and say “Look. I’m not making this up. I have here an intelligence report written by Sakeem Phanouk, a top ranking Director inside Saddam Hussein’s joint Nuclear Weapons factory/Bio weapons facility, where he says that they just finished bulding a Nuclear bomb that gives all the survivor’s ebola. Furthermore when Saddam cam to see it, he just couldn’t stop talking about how he planned to mail it to his agents in DC…”
Well then I predict we won’t be getting many more reports from Sakeeem. Know what I mean?
There is definitely a difference between the official CIA position and what Bush has said.
However, a couple of things to consider:
The differences aren’t nearly as great as the media is playing them up to be.
The CIA is a very cautious agency. Too much so, these days. Thanks in large part to the Democrats who savaged the CIA in the 80’s and 90’s, the agency is a shell of its former self, and Cover-Your-Ass is job 1 among many of the career bureaucrats. The same problem exists in the FBI.
The CIA isn’t the only source of intel. It may be entirely possible that the CIA has no knowledge of any links but Bush does because he’s getting his information from the FBI, the military, or the NSA.
The CIA may have the same information Bush has, but can’t release it for fear of compromising assets. So they may be forced into a position of half-hearted denials, whereas the President has decided to say a little more.
Or, Bush could be over-stating things.
My opinion is that there are a number of tenuous links, none of them strong enough that an agency like the CIA can issue a conclusive report about it. But presidents sometimes have to just look at the evidence and make a judgement call. That’s my guess as to what’s going on - Bush has made a judgement call that al-Qaida is connected in some way, based on a number of reports of varying credibility and/or intelligence from other sources. The CIA just isn’t in a position to confirm it.
This is an accusation that is frequently made but never particularly backed up. It also conveniently ignores the reason why the agencies were “savaged”…namely because they had been abusing their powers to spy on Americans for political reasons and had done things in other countries that were even more unpalatable.
Well, here is the letter in question, dated October 7, 2002 from the Director of the CIA, George Tenat, sent to Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
Let us consider that it is just possible that when faced with a number of conflicting reports and analysis from what ever government and private agencies may be involved, the President has chosen to accept as rock ribbed, copper bottomed, irrefutable the report that most closely matches and justifies the course he has already determined to follow and that he has decided to disregard all other reports. Thus, it may not make any difference what the facts might be (and at this point the general Peter Jennings watching public is in a fog on the facts), since all the President needs is any report that can be tortured into an assertion by someone who might conceivably be in a position to know that there is a sinister connection between Sadam and Osama. At this point the whole thing has got to be taken with a considerable dose of salt.
It is pretty clear to me that the electorate is being played like a violin.
I am still troubled by public statements by the CIA that are at such variance from the President’s statements and position. I can only hope that the reports the President is accepting as conclusive are not coming out of the Heritage Foundation and the Petroleum Club.
In the end, however, this country has done worse things for worse reasons.
It seems to me if Our Leader is concerned about not compromising intelligence sources, then he should have said nothing at all.
And these must be utterly spectacular sources of intelligence, as the intelligence directly contradicts a wide variety of other, presumably expert, opinions. If the opposition is aware that the CIA believes that there are no real ties between Iraq and Al Queda, and the President reveals that he knows the truth - then the opposition must know thier security is compromised, and its time to go mole hunting. Hence, the source is imperiled regardless.
That is, if what Bush said is true. If it is false, then they know pretty much what we know: he’s either lying or misinformed.
The glaring contradiction between public statement by CIA and Our Leader brings to mind Casey Stengel’s question: Can anybody here play this game?
Anyone care to guess what people would be screaming if Iraq did launch a terror attack against the US and there was a statement saying that this could be a possibility in an NSA report? Anyone for “Bush Knew, Part 2”?
Scylla’s contention about some double super-duper-extra-secret information is hypothetical at best, and frankly implausible. If the Bushies actually had some smoking gun on Iraq/al Quaeda, I believe they would let the public know about it. What possible reason would they have to keep it secret? Especially since the White House is getting no traction at all in its “kill Saddam” PR campaign. (the sniper is better tv)
What is really more plausible, that the CIA has some hidden, evil “agenda” to embarrass GWB, (and why would they? His father used to be the HEAD of the CIA, remember) or that the Bush WH (like every other WH) would push a political agenda in the face of embarrassing facts?
Do you really have to ask why they might want to keep the information secret?
Because if it’s information coming from inside the Iraqi government, then releasing too much information could result in the death of the informer, the death of his family, and a loss of a critical intelligence source.
If the information comes from listening devices or signal interception, then divulging it tells Saddam where he communication system is compromised.
If it’s coming from classified satellite data or disaffected citizens, releasing it could cause Saddam to modify his activities to avoid detection, or to crack down on the citizens.
Hell, the information could even come from direct observations of terrorist activities from special forces soldiers in Iraq, and releasing it will cause a lot of U.S. soldiers to be killed.
Not that I think any of this is likely. I think Bush is just willing to draw lines between the dots because it suits his purposes. That doesn’t mean the dots aren’t there, or that it’s not a reasonable assumption.
It wouldn’t be necessary to say HOW they got the info, or even what it WAS specifically. All they would have to do is say they have something concrete. Right now they just keep talking about largely theoretical WOMD and “what if…” scenarios.
Bush has magic information that the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees don’t. No. They have full access. Many members have said there is no connection and there is nothing new. Bush has wishful thinking because he is a warmonger who wants war. Edge Jennings.
A higher level may have more information. Like what? That pigs fly? If the aforementioned Congressional committees don’t have it, and they don’t, then it isn’t there. The fact that war mongering conservatives want such information to exist means that they feel free to make it up. Edge Jennings.
The level of analysis that Peter Jennings gets is far superior to Pres Bush’s, who has only Cheney’s yes men around him. And I am surprised that anyone could seriously believe that Bush has analytical skills at anywhere near the levels that Peter Jennings does is alarming. Bush is a cretinous and deliberate ignoramous, while Jennings is actually extraordinarily bright. Edge Jennings.
Who’s information is better? Let’s see. Bush, who is too short attentioned to attend full briefings and delegates everything to others, or Jennings, whose reporters are committee member sources, some even public saying there is nothing new, and who pays attention to sources of information from all over the world in news gathering. Edge Jennings.
It is unsurprising that what Bush says may contradict what the C.I.A. is distributing publically. Well, duh. Bush pays no attention to information that does not suit his purpose. And the argument assumes that the CIA is distributing different information privately. There is zero evidence that they are distributing different information privately. Not even Bush claims that. Nor Fleischer, nor Rumsfeld, nor Cheney. They interpret the level of threat to vital interests differently. Edge Jennings.
Bush is exaggerating the threat. That is why Congressional committees have information that indicates little immediate threat.
The lack of skepticism of the Bush line by conservatives is alarming – he must be telling the truth 'cuz he is such a marvellous analyst with such vastly superior information just isn’t supported by the evidence: that Bush is slightly smarter than the national average, extraordinarily lazy when it comes to work, vindictive and dismissive of any views other than his own.
The whole rush to war with a laughably minimal diplomatic effort and the republican desire for war is designed as distraction from Bush’s utter failure to deliver on any of his duties towards our general economy, national safety and well being. The Bush foreign policy is no more sophisticated that what Ari Fleischer had the foolishness to share at a press conference last week: pray for someone to shoot the President of Iraq. Congress should question the man under oath in a closed room, and if he was repeating things said in policy meetings, Bush should be impeached. Jeb Bush showed us in his behind the scenes contempt for the public exactly what the Bush family thinks of a government belonging to the people: something to trick them out of through devious means. And Jeb is the smarter one.
The assumption of high quality information showing an imminent threat of enormous proportions needs to be confirmed by opposition party members who have access to the information, namely the intelligence committee members, none of whom have said that there is such a threat. Many have said in general terms that nothing has changed. That would not compromise sources.
If passage of the vote was so urgent, then why has Bush started a 14 day campaign trip doing nothing but raising funds for Republican candidates and making obligatory classroom appearances so that taxpayers get stuck with the travel bill?
If any Democrat had the exact same record as the Bush administration, every conservative in the country would be screaming for impeachment, as would most media outlets, etc. Bush is a failure of such grand scale that the conservatives are still arguing over the trees and not the forest.