# Pentagon/OSP manipulated intelligence to link Hussein to al-Qaeda
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 10, 2007, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582 "2007-02-10T00:43:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/1 "2007-02-10T00:43:59Z")
I expect some mod to lock [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=199309) zombie thread from '03 in short order, as is the usual procedure, so we’ll need a fresh thread to continue the discussion.
Story reported in:
[_The Washington Post_](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html)
[_The New York Times_](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-cong.html?hp&ex=1171083600&en=bdc47717bcf9c077&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
[AP/_Editor & Publisher_](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003543976)
It might be worth mentioning that, the OSP having done its job so well WRT Iraq, they’ve set up [another one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Directorate) (with the same director and some other personnel) for Iran.
Anyone care to speak in the OSP’s defense?
What will be the fallout? It seems to be the consensus that the OSP acted “inappropriately” but not illegally.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/2 "2007-02-10T01:05:08Z")
Links to PDF files of the DoD inspector Generals _unclassified_ report, and today’s _open_ testimony at the senate armed services committee [are here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8244173#post8244173). Of course there’s also a _classified_ report, and _closed_ testimoney on this. It’d probably be worth a [medal of freedom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom) for someone to post links to _those_ bad boys here.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/3 "2007-02-10T02:13:59Z")
[QUOTE=Squink]
Of course there’s also a _classified_ report, and _closed_ testimoney on this. It’d probably be worth a [medal of freedom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom) for someone to post links to _those_ bad boys here.
[/QUOTE]
Or a term at Leavenworth . . .
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/4 "2007-02-10T02:25:35Z")
Can someone explain to me what’s new about this that we didn’t learn from the 9/11 Commission Report published in 2004?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/5 "2007-02-10T02:31:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Can someone explain to me what’s new about this that we didn’t learn from the 9/11 Commission Report published in 2004?
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the 9/11 Commission simply concluded there was no credible evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaeda link, without clearly assigning blame for the deception. This new testimony shows us exactly whodunnit.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/6 "2007-02-10T03:00:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
IIRC, the 9/11 Commission simply concluded there was no credible evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaeda link, without clearly assigning blame for the deception. This new testimony shows us exactly whodunnit.
[/QUOTE]
If not the 9/11 Report explicitly, it was still reported at about the same time. From this 2004 [Slate](http://www.slate.com/id/2100899/) article:
> [@](#):
>
> During the buildup to the war, Feith oversaw the two offices that have since been criticized for politicizing intelligence and for inadequately planning for the occupation. The first group was known as the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Unit, and it was established to find links between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors. The group issued a report about connections between Iraq and al-Qaida that Rumsfeld had Feith deliver to CIA Director George Tenet in August 2002. This was reportedly the same report that Vice President Cheney recently called “your best source of information” on the links between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
>
> But the report has been widely discredited. Tenet told a congressional committee in March that Cheney was mistaken about its reliability. And Daniel Benjamin, former director of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, wrote in Slate that, far from proving Saddam-Osama ties, “the document lends substance to the frequently voiced criticism that some in the Bush administration have misused intelligence to advance their policy goals.”
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/7 "2007-02-10T03:22:23Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
[Quote=John Mace]
Can someone explain to me what’s new about this that we didn’t learn from the 9/11 Commission Report published in 2004?
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, the 9/11 Commission simply concluded there was no credible evidence of a Hussein-al-Qaeda link, without clearly assigning blame for the deception. This new testimony shows us exactly whodunnit.
[/QUOTE]
OTOH, everyone on the SDMB who was not a True Believer recognized the perfidy that originated from that office even before the 9/11 Commission Report (with several posters noting its prominent and deceitful purpose and actions long prior to the 9/11 Commission report).
I think the “news” in this regard has been that the GOP had refused to engage in any active examination of the activities of the OSP and when the Democrats came to (Congressional) power, they decided it was to their political advantage to re-open some of the testimony and make public just how deliberately deceitful the OSP had been, This will, (if we are lucky), mean that the same 14 -17 people, assigned to rationalize a war on Iran, will have a much tougher time finding a willing audience for their distortions.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/8 "2007-02-10T03:34:39Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace]
If not the 9/11 Report explicitly, it was still reported at about the same time.
[/QUOTE]
You have a point?
Slate is one thing, but has the DoDIG ever said anything like this before?
> [@](#):
>
> The Office of the tinder Secretary of Defense for Policy developed, produced
> and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on tlie Iraq and al-Qaida
> relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus
> of the Intelligence Community: to senior decision-makers. Wliile such actions were not
> illegal or unautliorized, the actions were: in our opinion, inappropriate given that the
> intelligence assessments were ilitelligelicc products and did not clearly show the variance
> with the consensus of tlie Intelligence Community. This condition occurred because of
> an expanded role and mission of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
> From policy formulation to alternative intclligence analysis and dissemination. As a
> result, the Office of the Under Secretary of Dcfcnse for Policy did not provide “the most
> accurate analysis of intelligence”’ to senior decision-makers.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I think the “news” in this regard has been that the GOP had refused to engage in any active examination of the activities of the OSP
[/QUOTE]
The Republicans didn’t just ‘refuse to engage’, they actively worked against any sort of engagement, and foisted blame for the problems that they couldn’t cover up over onto the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
Sure **John** , it’s old news, but it’s coming out through official channels for the first time.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/9 "2007-02-10T04:01:37Z")
[QUOTE=Squink]
You have a point?
\
Sure **John** , it’s old news, but it’s coming out through official channels for the first time.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’d call the 9/11 Commission Report an “official channel”. It’s no secret who headed up the Pentagon’s efforts to link Saddam and al Qaeda. So, OK, we have another “official channel” reporting it. What do you think will happen now that we have this “new” information?
---
### Author:  [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/10 "2007-02-10T04:22:08Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Pentagon/OSP manipulated intelligence to link Hussein to al-Qaeda
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for “manipulated”? In the links you provided that is clearly Levin’s assessment. That doesn’t make it factual. From your link to the NYTime’s article: (emphasis mine)
> [@](#):
>
> When Mr. Inhofe pressed Mr. Gimble on whether he agreed with Mr. Levin’s characterization of his report, **Mr. Gimble said he viewed the document as “a flat, fact-based report of the events that occurred.** I don’t have an opinion as to whether it’s devastating or not devastating.”
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/11 "2007-02-10T04:27:44Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace]
What do you think will happen now that we have this “new” information?
[/QUOTE]
Some folks’ll call it old news and try to push it under the rug. Maybe they’ll get away with it, or maybe someone’ll get a real investigation going and find some criminal activity to prosecute. The security interests of the US have taken a hell of a beating over the Iraq war, and I think anyone who intentionally mislead us during the lead up ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of all applicable laws. Of course, YMMV.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/12 "2007-02-10T04:47:15Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Do you have a cite for “manipulated”? In the links you provided that is clearly Levin’s assessment.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious: We shall see what we shall see. I would have used the word “falsified” in the thread title, except that “manipulated” was the strongest word used in the linked stories. Note that even Gimble called the OSP’s actions “inappropriate”.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/13 "2007-02-10T06:36:45Z")
[QUOTE=Squink]
Some folks’ll call it old news and try to push it under the rug.
[/quote]
I’m calling it old news because it is old news. I said nothing about sweeping it under the rug.
> [@](#):
>
> Maybe they’ll get away with it, or maybe someone’ll get a real investigation going and find some criminal activity to prosecute. The security interests of the US have taken a hell of a beating over the Iraq war, and I think anyone who intentionally mislead us during the lead up ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of all applicable laws. Of course, YMMV.
Well, if you can find a law that this guy broke, then have at it. Proving the he “intentionally mislead us” into war will be virtually impossible.
If the Dems are enjoying this little exercise, then good for them. That’s a perq of power. Too bad they didn’t ask these kinds of question before we went to war.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/14 "2007-02-10T07:11:02Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, if you can find a law that this guy broke, then have at it.
[/QUOTE]
OK then, and if nothing comes of it, we can use the old news to wrap up some fish or something.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/15 "2007-02-10T07:16:43Z")
Some of us did, as I recall. The wild approval with which our views were greeted still rings in my ears, the glad cries of “Hear! Hear!” and “Huzzah!”
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/16 "2007-02-10T07:58:57Z")
[http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%20Brief.pdf](http://www.dodig.osd.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP%20Brief.pdf)
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy [OUSD(P)] 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.
While **such actions were not** illegal or **unauthorized** , the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the products did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community **and were, in some cases, shown as intelligence products.**
It seems they showed senior decision makers “some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community” “as intelligence products” when they were not.
Here’s the rub, these actions were not unauthorized.
**Who authorized the OSP to show “senior decision makers” “alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship” as though they were products of the intelligence community?**
---
### Author:  [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/17 "2007-02-10T12:58:54Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace]
If the Dems are enjoying this little exercise, then good for them. That’s a perq of power. Too bad they didn’t ask these kinds of question before we went to war.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, absolutely. It certainly is the Democrats fault that we got into this war. Good on you for pointing that out. Wrong-thinking people might think that the blame lies with the Republicans and the administration in power.
---
### Author:  [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/18 "2007-02-10T13:11:26Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m calling it old news because it is old news. I said nothing about sweeping it under the rug.
[/QUOTE]
In all honesty, John, the actual play this gets is the paranoia that we’re in a run up to another military adventure, of whatever stripe, in Iran. The marginal value I’m seeing to these hearings is to make it more difficult for another set of questionable intelligence reports out of the administration to lead the American people down the path to that military action.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/19 "2007-02-10T16:24:06Z")
[QUOTE=bluethree]
Oh, absolutely. It certainly is the Democrats fault that we got into this war.
[/QUOTE]
Never said it was. Don’t you wish they had asked these kinds of questions before we went to war? I, and most Americans, do now and did so in 2002, as well (see below).
> [@Jonathan Chance](#):
>
> In all honesty, John, the actual play this gets is the paranoia that we’re in a run up to another military adventure, of whatever stripe, in Iran.
I’m surprised you’re falling for that canard. We’re not going to war with Iran.
> [@](#):
>
> The marginal value I’m seeing to these hearings is to make it more difficult for another set of questionable intelligence reports out of the administration to lead the American people down the path to that military action.
Funny thing is, it was Congress that was too chicken-shit to stop the president, not the American people. Somehow the meme that Americans were itching for war has worked it’s way into out collective memory. In fact, we wanted a go-slow approach, and we were absolutely clear (by a margin of 70%) that Bush needed approval of Congress before acting. Do you think those numbers are lower now?
If you go back and look a the polls immediately prior to the vote on the AUMF, there was support for getting rid of Saddam, but not the way Bush did it. And American’s weren’t buying the linkage of Iraq to terrorism, either. From [CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml), one week before the vote for the Iraq AUMF (emphasis added):
> [@](#):
>
> [War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml)
>
> Americans generally support military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and while most think war is inevitable, there is no rush to begin it..
>
> The public overwhelmingly wants to get the United Nations’ weapons inspectors back into Iraq and allied support before taking any military action. Americans also want a congressional vote before acting - and think members of Congress should be asking more questions about the implications of war with Iraq.
>
> Americans are concerned about the wider implications of war with Iraq. They believe such a war will result in a long and costly military involvement; they believe it will lead to a wider war in the Middle East with other Arab nations and Israel; and that it could further undermine the U.S. economy.
>
> Americans are also cool to the doctrine of pre-emption. They believe countries should not be able to attack each other unless attacked first…
>
> Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.
> U.S. SHOULD:
>
> Now
> Act now 29%
> Wait for allies 65%
>
> \
>
> HAS CONGRESS ASKED ENOUGH QUESTIONS?
>
> 10/02
> Asked too many 20%
> Asked the right amount 17%
> Not asked enough 51%
>
> \
>
> U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ AND TERROR THREAT
>
> Now
> Will increase threat 50%
> Will make no difference 32%
> Will decrease threat 16%
>
> \
>
> BUSH’S APPROACH TO WAR
>
> Despite his statements over the weekend about the pressing need to disarm Saddam Hussein, Americans believe Bush is more interested in removing Saddam Hussein than in removing the weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Americans also believe Bush is being somewhat influenced by his father’s experience with Hussein. However, most see Bush as wanting to work with the United Nations and NOT moving too quickly towards war.
>
> BUSH: MORE INTERESTED IN REMOVING HUSSEIN OR WEAPONS?
> Removing Hussein 53%
> Removing weapons of mass destruction 29%
About the only thing the American people got wrong was that Bush wanted to work with the UN. They weren’t buying the link to terrorism and they weren’t buying the WMD talk.
No, I’m not worried about the American people at all. If it were up to us, we would’ve gotten it right. We won’t be fooled again, _because we weren’t fooled the first time._
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582/20 "2007-02-10T18:40:45Z")
And yet, he did it anyway. This suggests to me and mine that the situation in re Iran is not as cut and dried as you seem to believe. If the consensus of American public opinion and that of Congress isn’t sufficient, what do you think might be?
My dark suspicion is that The Leader is seeking a confrontation with Iran of one form or another. He is hoping for a triumph that will vindicate him, something so glorious that it will erase all his minor misdeeds. He wants to throw the long bomb, and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. And then be seen as The Leader who stuck to his guns, defied public opinion and a defeatist Congress, and carried the day, huzzah!
Its \*deja voodoo \* all over again. _ThinkProgress_ has an excellent take on this, with all appropriate links and cites (Warning! Lefty site, tighty righty advisory Shields Up!)
[http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/iran-cooked-intel/](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/10/iran-cooked-intel/)
“Evidence Grows That White House Planned To Release Cooked Intel On Iran”
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pentagon-osp-manipulated-intelligence-to-link-hussein-to-al-qaeda/391582.md?page=2)