Undoubtedly there are more, but I have just read two online analyses of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report — one on Newsweek and the other… considerably more thorough and interesting… by Dan Darling at Winds of Change. The Senators, of course, have their own reports. Darling writes of them:
I’ll be quite honest and say that most of these strike me as rather polemical in nature and seems more or less designed to set up the next phase of Washington politicking, with both Republican and Democratic senators making claims that, truth be told, are not supported or are in certain cases directly contradicted by the actual text of the document in question. I’ll be quite honest and say that if one reads simply the additional views but not the body of the report that they’re going to be left with an extremely skewed view as far as what the report actually says or the conclusions that were reached within it on a number of key points.
Who’d a thunk it? Anyway, check out what Dan has to say and Newsweek too (I guess).
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
18 Comments
1. Charlie (Colorado):Having just read the report myself (see previous thread’s comments) I agree completely with Dan.
It’s actually pretty easy reading, astonishingly. And very different from what the MSM reports have said..
Jul 11, 2004 - 5:59 pm 2. Dave Schuler:Particularly interesting in Dan’s analysis are his conjectures about what’s been redacted. Try to get that from the mainstream media.
Jul 11, 2004 - 6:25 pm 3. richard mcenroe:It’s already started. Senator Jay Rockefeller is making the talk show rounds insisting the Intelligence Community was pressured into telling the Bush Administration what they wanted to hear, even though not one intelligence professional questioned at any level said they had been pressured when asked…
Jul 11, 2004 - 7:38 pm 4. thedragonflies:The reason the 9/11 commission has become so politicized is because the Dems are so focused on unseating President Bush that they will do anything to discredit him, including turning what should have been a bi-partisan commission looking for solutions to security problems into a political springboard for the upcoming election.
Just proof to me that many in this country are in denial about the fact that we are actually at war and are in desperate need to defend ourselves.
Jul 11, 2004 - 7:58 pm 5. Sandy P:Seems Hammorabi’s also got a post about this, via biasedbbc:
“Hammorabbi hammers the Beeb over war …against W. Apparently, some reporting stinks in Baghdad too. Here is the entire post.
The War against GWB
The new report by the US Senate regarding intelligence failure about WMD may be part of the war against GWB!
The question that they should ask themselves about is; what will happen if Saddam remained in power in regard to the issue of the international terrorism. Sooner or later; SH will side with the terrorists to kill as many people as they can. He showed his WMD in Halabja and the South of Iraq. SH tried and has he succeeded to produce nuclear or other similar WMD he will not hesitate to use it any where it may come….”
More at Hammorabi.
Jul 11, 2004 - 8:07 pm 6. Kevin P:Roger:
Of course the media will ignore or bury the facts that prove that Wilson was peddling lies, or seen in the most positive light possible,was completely ignorant. It doesn’t fit into their pre-ordained script for their treatment of the war.The MSM meme is that the Bush administration knowingly misinformed the public about Iraq and Wilsons tall tales fit right into the script.Now that they know they were duped they will never admit that such savy reporters could be taken in. So instead of refering to Wilsons fable as fact the most recanting they will do is say that Republicans dispute Wilsons claims. That way they can say they looked into his lies and spin the story that Wilsons detractors are partisan defenders of the President.Because they will bury the facts about Wilson the Democrats will still parade this fraud in the coming election.
Richard, I am shocked that Senator Rockefeller is claiming that he thinks the Bush White House pressured the CIA even though the report says there is no evidence of pressure.The media will report Rockefellers claims on the front page and in the last paragraph they will note that the report that the report shows no proof of the claim.Why screw up the story with facts.Accusations are always more sexy then the facts.Don’t you know the FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to bombed and JFK was set up by Johnson. Or was it the mob. Or Cuba.I still think it was Haliburton.All I can say about the MSM is thank God for Blogs!
Jul 11, 2004 - 8:10 pm 7. TmjUtah:It’s been an interesting weekend here, news-wise.
I didn’t watch any on Saturday. My youngest daughter dragged in a two pound trout and my garage is clean.
Today I watched a CSPAN repeat of a Kerry/Edwards campaign appearance, all of forty straight minutes of stumping without punditry. I came away from that experience more assured than I have been in months that November will not be all that close. This isn’t the Great Depression, we aren’t all freaking helpless victims, and those two guys couldn’t run an insurance agency. They don’t play well in direct view; small wonder they depend on surrogates like Soros, Moore, and the MSM to do the heavy lifting.
Speaking of MSM, I caught this item about Dem media buys; I haven’t noticed since they aren’t wasting resources here in Utah, but who could reasonably tell the difference between a Kerry advert or Rather/Brokaw/Jennings’ efforts on any given night? A science fiction writer from my neighborhood, Orson Scott Card, had an excellent editorial on bias picked up by the WSJ. Seems to me he covered the ground extremely well.
I’ve read the Newsweek and WOC links; the divergence from fact already on display by the various individuals and pundits trying to exploit the report is breathtaking. Joe Wilson is indisputably and in depth a liar, but the entire U.S. liberal media is attempting to serve up a conspiracy theory Bush’s NG records were destroyed on purpose… Guys, more people than you think read source documents these days!
I hope that MSM and the various unions, civil rights scabs, and 527’s can keep this race at least polling closely. I do believe that our enemy will hold fire domestically as long as there is any chance at all Kerry might win. Once they become convinced that that is not going to happen, stand by for action. They know that four more years of Bush may well see them joining the Sovs on the ash-heap of history.
Y’all have a great week.
Jul 11, 2004 - 11:25 pm 8. Markus Rose:And if you’re not going to read Talking Points Memo’s exhaustive comments, at least you can also read Andrew Sullivan’s initial response:
“So if we had had accurate intelligence, the war would not have taken place. I reiterate: I’m still glad we fought it. But this remains one of the biggest government screw-ups in recent history. It has made future pre-emption based on intelligence close to impossible. And President Bush is ultimately responsible for this. Tenet has taken the fall, but it will take years and years before the U.S. regains the reputation for credibility that this president has destroyed. Even if you believe that Bush is still the best man to fight this war, you also have to concede that his record includes at least one massive error, and one that will cripple our ability to fight the war in the future.”
Jul 12, 2004 - 7:17 am 9. Knucklehead:The Winds of Change article is very interesting reading.
Den Beste has an interesting comparison of the MM/LL/Moonbat crowd with Mugtada’s “army” (basically that both are picking the wrong “flag” and have decided to make their Big Stand on hopelessly indefensible “terrain”)
I watched some of the Rockefeller positioning of the report (until he started cycling back to the top of his talking points for the third time). The refrain here is that that even though not one (of ~200?) intelligence analyst seems to make any claim they were pressured to change their anlysis or reports or recommendations in any way and that they seem to all say that they did NOT change their analysis, that nevertheless there was a “climate” of pressure (which the analysts, of course, resisted), that there were no end of caveats a whatifs and yeahbuts scattered throughout the intelligence analysis (which everyone from both sides of the isle swept aside or ignored because they were, after all, echos from the losing arguments) and there was some email where somebody said decisions had been made (well, the old phrase “the buck stops here” essentially means that somebody has to make a decision rather than just argue points back and forth) and there was no point trying to present a different analysis (i.e, those points have already been filed in the “losing arguments” tray) and, in hindsight the administration (and Senate Intelligence Committee) should have just kept chewing on data until all feelings of any need to act had passed and events proved the arguments one way or another.
And, of course, they were already setting up the catfight over a new CIA director and/or new intelligence bureaucracy.
Jul 12, 2004 - 7:24 am 10. Fresh Air:Markus–
If you are going to start quoting Sullivan, you better go back and read the umpteen other reasons we went to war that he so eloquently defended until he got all sore about Bush’s support for the FMA.
All this talk about years of credibility destroyed, no more preemptive war, etc. is just hooey. Saddam was a uniquely dangerous tyrant with a dossier of misdeeds miles long. And why would Bush be responsible? Why not, say, George Tenet?
If anything, our extraordinary military success in Iraq will embolden future presidents to do the hard work on the ground that Bill Clinton refused to do with his antiseptic bombing campaign in Kosovo.
Jul 12, 2004 - 7:48 am 11. Syl:Markus Rose
There still would have been enough votes for the war and the war was NOT based on stockpiles of WMD alone. The war was based on the future threat Saddam would pose in light of the crumbling sanctions. The onus was on Saddam to comply with the UN Resolutions, not on us to prove he had stockpiles.
Jul 12, 2004 - 7:49 am 12. Knucklehead:Markus,
I suppose its not particularly good guest etiquette to use Roger’s site to respond to Sullivan’s claims, but since you entered them into the thread I’ll pretend it’s OK.
“So if we had had accurate intelligence, the war would not have taken place. I reiterate: I’m still glad we fought it. But this remains one of the biggest government screw-ups in recent history…
How is one supposed to parse that mess? Is he saying “right war, wrong reasons”? As others have pointed out, the Iraqi WMD case was just ONE of a long list of reasons. John Moore has listed out twenty or so and just over the past few weeks this site has had numerous discussions.
What was the magnitude of this “biggest government screwups in recent history”? So far, the evidence suggests that about the only thing the intelligence assessment got wildly wrong was the “stockpiles” part of the WMD argument. That rougue states supported terrorists and that there was an “underground” nuclear weapons technology black market are now quite clear. That the states involved in that black market were quite willing to aid and abet terrorists is also quite clear. The use of “proxies” by at least some of those states is also clear. That terrorist enabling states (the most milquetoast euphemism I could come up with) are neck deep in WMD programs is now clear. A few short months ago all this was mere speculattion.
As for the “biggest” part of Andrew’s assertion, it just doesn’t seem to hold water – even when considering only foreign affairs. What is “recent history?” I consider the Sovient Union “recent history”. Our intelligence community got the analysis of their economic and military capabilities all wrong – on a monumental scale. In retrospect was the decision to support the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan a success or a screwup? If we hadn’t supplied their opponents would they have wound up pacifying Afghanistan and would there ever have been a Taliban to harbor AQ while they made their trial and error preparations to attack us on our own soil?
Screwups abound. Some of them seem like darned good ideas at the time the decisions were made. You pays your money and you takes your chances and then, somewhere in the future, you pay more money to repair whatever portion of whatever you did went some way other than planned.
Has keeping the UN alive all these years, or more specifically providing the muscle to enable UNSCAM been a small, medium, large or XXXL screwup?
Was ending the first gulf war after 100 hours on the ground a success or a screwup?
Andrew is overwrought in referring to this particular “screwup” as one of the biggest in recent history. And you are misguided if you accept his assertion.
“…It has made future pre-emption based on intelligence close to impossible. And President Bush is ultimately responsible for this.”
The case for pre-emptive war seems vindicated. I fail to see how any other conclusion is even possible.
Bush had to make a decision to act, or not, with the information available to him. That Saddam had to go had been discussed and decided in the affirmative several times. But action had not been taken to achieve this goal. He could have rejected that as a US policy goal, but given that terrorists had decided it was time to strike, massively, against us was a new wrinkle in the equation (a predictable one, in retrospect, but a new one for this president to deal with).
How well the war has been run is open to investigation and discussion. Historians will argue their cases for years to come. The early returns, for those of us who analyze such things, are astonishingly positive. Really, back when Afghanistan was getting under way those who knew me as a “history whacko” would ask if I thought we could win and how long it would take and a what cost. I thought we could win, it would take at least 2 or 3 years, and it would be very ugly, not only in terms of how many US troops were killed and wounded, but I couldn’t fathom how it it could be won without getting somewhere close to Grozny-like slaughtering of Afghanis. The “wild-eyed, best case, it can’t possibly go better than this fantasy” I held for Iraq was 6-8 weeks to invest Baghdad, somewhere around 2,000 US troops killed and several 10’s of thousands of Iraqis killed. Baghdad itself, I wrongly guessed, would be a 3-6 month effort with another thousand or two US troops killed and even more 10’s of thousands of Iraqis.
I had no idea that we could reach the point we’ve reached as soon, and with as few lives taken and lost, as we have – and I was among the most wild-eyed optimists. I had equally “history whacko” friends who had much more pessimistic assessments. Discounting the “we’re gonna get our clocks cleaned” crowd, the general concensus among those I know who follow history and have some understanding of military actions we were in for an incredibly difficult and long fight.
And, all that said, when will the MSM/LL segment of society EVER admit they got anything wrong? They just won’t. Its as if they’ve taken on the pose of the weather forecasting segment of their industry. “Yeah, we botched yesterday’s forecast but here’s the information you need to dress and plan for today!” I
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:03 am 13. John Lynch:In the not covered by the MSM category:
What is the history, I believe dating from the 80s, on hamstringing the intelligence community?
I believe there is complicity, at the least, from Congress, and from prior administrations, on making sure that we did not have an effective intelligence capability.
Anyone see any coverage on that subject?
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:13 am 14. Knucklehead:John Lynch,
Excellent point! The MSM/LL/whatever the heck it is wants no part of any intelligence activity. They don’t want us to have spies or even associate with that “criminal element” or eavesdrop or take pictures from space. They have taken every opporunity to pare down and sanitize US intelligence capabilities and mock, as an obvious oxymoron, “Military Intelligence”. Yet when intelligence proves to be something less than perfectly accurate, they are the first to yell “Gotcha! How could you make a mistake like this!?!? See, toldya, let’s defund it some more!”
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:37 am 15. Eric Deamer:Markus:
It’s interesting that we’re talking about the importance of consulting source documents here, and you want to send us all to read another pundit. I read Sullivan every day, and I enjoy his anlysis, so I read what you quote. It’s clear to me that AS hasn’t read the source document and is basing that entirely on Rockefeller/Roberts appearances on the Sunday Chat shows and on various “mainstream” press stories. Roger linked to Dan Danrling’s long, detailed summary of the entire report, which he has read. I think that’s a bit more relevant. The substance of the actual report, from these first hand reports as opposed to the way it’s mostly being reported by the NYT/WaPo/NBC/ABC/CBS, and most especially by Senator Rockefellar et al is:
1. Joseph Wilson is a liar and a fraud.
2. Any iteration of the BUSH LIED!!!!!/16 words meme is incorrect.
3. There was no political pressure of any kind by by anyone in the administration to manipulate intelligence data to fit a certain conclusion, despite the fact that Senator Rockefellar is stil trying to assert precisely the opposite propostiion.
4. The question of ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime, while still something that one could plausibly have a variety of opinions about, is not nearly as clear-cut as war opponents maintain.
5. Richard Clarke’s assertion that Saddam Hussein had not attempted an act of terrorism against the US since the 1993 assassination attempt on President George HW Bush is incorrect.
So, it seems to that the major news of the weekend, according to those who have actually read this report, is that the report demolishes several key articles of faith in the anti-war mythology, yet you direct us to this one Andrew Sullivan quote. Strange.
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:48 am 16. Sandy P:Is the intel a massive screwup?
Yes.
However, we do have W asking Tenet are you sure?
Tenet said slam dunk.
Time to recycle Torchy quotes and what he did in the 80s.
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:55 am 17. Fresh Air:Knucklehead–
Another point: If you read today’s delicious comparison of Sen. Rockefeller’s previous speeches with his talk circuit pronouncements made by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard online, you come away convinced that the Senate Intelligence Committee was absolutely persuaded Saddam had to go.
A question one must ask oneself regarding the Rock’s dramatic about-face is this: How different is the information the Senate Intelligence Committee receives from that which the president receives? Based upon the lame daily security briefings that have been made public from the summer of 2001, I would submit the president’s intel is not some Star Chamber of supercomputed, huminted, fully vetted omniscience, but something ranging from speculation to publicly accepted fact attached to analysis. So how is it that, if Bush and Rockefeller were in lockstep before, on the basis of the same information, why are they supposedly divergent now? Partisan politics, perhaps. Naw!
I put it to the Bush Lied!™ crowd: What information did the president have that the Senate Intelligence Committee didn’t?
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:57 am 18. Sandy P:And as to no WMD, we really don’t know.
It’s taken US 30 years and now that we look at it, we really did win Nam.
It might take a few years for WMD to be validated.
There are between 20-40 binary shells found. We have a few hundred thousand tons to go thru yet.
Jul 12, 2004 - 9:59 am