PDA

View Full Version : Why isn't this all over television?


dissention
07-11-2004, 02:38 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20040710/ts_latimes/keyrevisionsweremadetociadocument

Key Revisions Were Made to CIA Document

By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — In a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared before the Iraq (news - web sites) war, the CIA (news - web sites) hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and weapons of mass destruction, pointing up the limits of its knowledge.

But in the unclassified version of the NIE — the so-called white paper cited by the Bush administration in making its case for war — those carefully qualified conclusions were turned into blunt assertions of fact, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence.

The repeated elimination of qualifying language and dissenting assessments of some of the government's most knowledgeable experts gave the public an inaccurate impression of what the U.S. intelligence community believed about the threat Hussein posed to the United States, the committee said.

Dedicating a section of its 511-page report to discrepancies between the two versions of the crucial October 2002 NIE, the panel laid out numerous instances in which the unclassified version omitted key dissenting opinions about Iraqi weapons capabilities, overstated U.S. knowledge about Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons and, in one case, inserted threatening language into the public document that was not contained in the classified version.

"The intelligence community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified white paper misrepresented their judgments to the public, which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments," the Senate panel's report concluded.

"The fact that the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario … I think was highly significant," the committee's vice chairman, Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), said Friday.

NIEs commonly take months to prepare, but the Iraq report and its unclassified version were compiled in a matter of weeks, the panel said.

As the Bush administration ratcheted up its case for war in September 2002, senators on the Intelligence Committee wrote to the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, requesting an NIE about Iraq's weapons programs and any connections to Al Qaeda. With Congress set to vote on the war resolution the next month, intelligence officials rushed to produce the estimate.

But the Senate committee's sharpest criticism of the unclassified document focused not on changes made in haste but on the systematic alteration of the classified version.

For example, the panel cited changes made in the section of the NIE dealing with chemical weapons:

"Although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile," the classified NIE read, "Saddam Hussein probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons" of such poisons.

In the unclassified version of the report, the phrase "although we have little specific information" was deleted. Instead, the public report said, "Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."

The Senate report also noted one instance in which a dissenting view was left out of the unclassified version.

In that example, the classified NIE stated that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

But in a footnote, the U.S. Air Force's director for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance said he did not agree.

By eliminating that footnote from the unclassified version, the panel said, the public NIE "is missing the fact that [the] … agency with primary responsibility for technological analysis on UAV programs did not agree with the assessment."

During a nationally televised speech in October 2002, President Bush (news - web sites) cited the threat of Iraqi drone aircraft being used for terrorist attacks against the United States. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also discussed the UAVs in his speech to the United Nations (news - web sites) on Feb. 5, 2003.

The committee's report describes not just sins of omission, but of addition.

The classified NIE stated, for instance, that "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW [biological weapons] agents and is capable of quickly producing … a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives."

In the unclassified version, the words "potentially against the U.S. homeland" are inserted at the end of the statement.

During a briefing before the report was released, one committee aide said the Senate panel had asked Tenet and Stu Cohen — who, as acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council, oversaw production of the NIE — who was responsible for inserting those words into the unclassified document.

"They did not know and could not explain," said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A similar degree of mystery surrounds the larger question of exactly how the classified NIE morphed into its unclassified version.

According to the committee report, the intelligence community began preparing an unclassified white paper on Iraq's banned weapons in May 2002, at the request of the National Security Council.

Months later, as the administration began to make its public case for war, Congress requested an official NIE. Officials at the National Intelligence Council decided to merge the white paper with declassified elements of the NIE to produce the official unclassified version.

Yet committee staffers said Friday that, after a year of investigating, they were still trying to get to the bottom of how the key differences between the classified and unclassified versions came about.

One such difference, the committee reported, is that the classified version presented intelligence findings as assessments — usually beginning with the words "we assess that" — whereas the white paper omitted those words and stated the assessments as facts.

"We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF [cyclosarin] and VX," the classified NIE read, according to the Senate report.

The unclassified white paper read, "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX."

According to the intelligence committee report, staffers asked intelligence officials why words like "we judge" and "we assess" were removed during the declassification process.

They were told that, because officials believed the white paper would be made public as representing the view of the entire U.S. government, not simply an intelligence community product, it was more appropriate to take references to "we" out of the document. This was done, committee staffers were told, "purely for stylistic reasons."

dissention
07-11-2004, 02:51 PM
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspoli103887376jul10,0,6026014.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

WASHINGTON - Friday's Senate report on intelligence on Iraq drew a new battle line in this fall's presidential campaign by failing to settle perhaps the most controversial question of all: Did the White House pressure the CIA to concoct reasons to invade Iraq?

The question split the Senate Intelligence Committee's otherwise bipartisan unanimity on the intelligence failures in Iraq, with Democrats saying they had a "major disagreement" with Republicans over the issue.

Republicans noted in the report's conclusion that no intelligence analysts said they were pressured. But Democrats objected, saying there was ample evidence that top Bush administration officials had intimidated analysts to twist their judgments about whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

In the end, the committee decided to put off consideration of the Bush administration's use of intelligence, assuring the issue a prominent role in the presidential campaign.

"The committee's report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which the intelligence community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when the most senior officials in the Bush administration had already forcefully and repeatedly stated their conclusions publicly," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the committee's ranking minority member.

THEN WHY SIGN OFF ON IT, MR. ROCKEFELLER?????

darklinensuit
07-11-2004, 02:52 PM
Because Britney is getting married! :rolleyes:

- Jake

dissention
07-11-2004, 02:52 PM
Because Britney is getting married! :rolleyes:

- Jake

Are you serious? :confused: :mad:

darklinensuit
07-11-2004, 02:58 PM
Are you serious? :confused: :mad:

I thought the eye-roll smilie indicated I was not. My point is that TV is betting that most people are more interested in entertainment news than anything else these days.

- Jake

wondergirl9847
07-11-2004, 03:01 PM
LOL She is engaged to that guy. It's wuv.....twu wuv... Hehe.

Yeah, America is more interested in Britney's impending nuptuals than some complicated political stuff. :shrug:

sparky
07-11-2004, 05:36 PM
LOL She is engaged to that guy. It's wuv.....twu wuv... Hehe.

Yeah, America is more interested in Britney's impending nuptuals than some complicated political stuff. :shrug:


BREAD AND CIRCUSES, PEOPLE.

People aren't interested in reality ! They want to know what the latest about-to-fall-no-talent barbie doll is doing. Ever wonder if she was actually a CIA operative ?

Actually, I was thinking about this idiot the other day, when I heard about the impending "marriage". My initial response to her, which is invariably a strange cocktail of disgust and car-wreck curiosity, suddenly shifted.

I came to the realization that she isn't being paid ENOUGH. Is there enough money on earth to publicly humilate oneself repeatedly in such a manner ? First the quickie marriage, and now, the dream date husband who has already fathered one illegitimate child, and has another on the way ? And didn't J-Ho already marry a back-up dancer ? There isn't even any creativity in it. It would make more sense if she married a toothless buttcrack she met at a truckstop. At least the whole world wouldn't know he'd already insured that two more kids don't have a father.

But, I digress. The point is, this HAS to be a stunt. I find it hard to believe anyone is that stupid.

But then again, I say this in a time when people are more interested in her humiliating antics than in the brazen acts of the government. The collective identity of our country seems to be the dumb blonde someone here recently mentioned, "Pat her on the head and give her something shiny to play with."
Britney is one of those shiny things. A shiny dumb blonde given to the celebrity obsessed area of the brain that used to house our collective political consciousness, which is the biggest, dumbest blonde of them all.


Go Figure. It's so Made For Television. All of it.

dissention
07-11-2004, 06:09 PM
But, I digress. The point is, this HAS to be a stunt. I find it hard to believe anyone is that stupid.

According to the latest reports from Britney herself, they'll be tying the knot within a month and they won't be signing any prenups. :rolleyes: I'd like to have a penis worth $60 million.

gldstwmn
07-11-2004, 06:26 PM
BREAD AND CIRCUSES, PEOPLE.

People aren't interested in reality ! They want to know what the latest about-to-fall-no-talent barbie doll is doing. Ever wonder if she was actually a CIA operative ?

No. But I'm willing to listen if you'd care to elaborate. ;)

dissention
07-11-2004, 06:28 PM
Ever wonder if she was actually a CIA operative ?

That's what she has stuffed in her boobs: parachutes!

Jessica Leigh
07-12-2004, 03:13 AM
According to the latest reports from Britney herself, they'll be tying the knot within a month and they won't be signing any prenups. :rolleyes: I'd like to have a penis worth $60 million.

OH MAH GAWD!!!! NO PRENUPS!!!?????

HA!

That girl really IS stupid... oh wow.... seriously... how on EARTH can someone be that stupid? well... i have this to say.... WHEN they get divorced, and he's worth half of her current fortune, then his jilted lover/mother of his kids can sue the hell out of him for some damn good child support! at least those poor abandoned children will be taken care of!

darklinensuit
07-12-2004, 12:30 PM
I'd like to have a penis worth $60 million.

"Like a diamond snake in a black sky..." :lol: :cool:

- Jake