Flawed intelligence led to war

The Star’s analysis on the Iraq report (6/7, Opinion. “A lesson to future administrations”) makes clear that the editors failed to read the actual report.

Readers may be surprised that Democrats concluded the administration’s statements on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were “substantiated by intelligence.”

The same conclusion was found regarding statements on Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and ties to al-Qaida.

And while The Star trivializes the fact, Democrats in the Senate examined the same intelligence as the administration and they, too, characterized Iraq as a growing and dangerous threat.

In 2002, the current Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said “there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.”

The record is rife with similar statements that speak to the crux of the matter: The intelligence leading up to the war was wrong.

The bottom line is that flawed intelligence, not administration deception, led to policy makers’ statements and decisions.

To prevent repeating these failures, we must put national security over politics and work together to reform our intelligence operations.

We owe this much to the American families whose safety depends on our getting this job right.

U.S. Sen. Kit Bond
Republican, Missouri
Washington, D.C.

Editor’s note: Bond is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Comments

[Arminius]

"On the other hand I disagree with Joe’s efforts at saying a Democratic President would have done better because he would have ignored (at the time) world opinion that Iraq had active/usable WMD’s. It reminds me of another saying: Cowards live longer."

Bill Clinton himself told Time magazine in 2004 that if he had been in Congress in 2002 he would have vited to authorize force against Iraq. Of course, the intelligence regarding Iraq was consistent from Clinton to Bush, so you would have expected this. Clinton's first strike against terrorism was against Iraq in 1993. Clinton also launched a preemptive strike on Iraq in 1998. Of course, he would have invaded Iraq after 9/11.

[katman]

I'd like that to be the end of the rhetoric just like the election results of 2000. "Let sleeping dogs lie". But, some of our 'colleagues' never get enough of 'beating dead horses'.

[Engineer]

President Bush has always said that he was and is responsible for urging the decision to go to war. He has never denied that some of the intelligence on which the decision was based has proved to be faulty. Just what more is desired?

[GCYL]

“Joe, by check and double check, do you imply the President should personally check out all the intell personally? Isn't that what he has the CIA, the FBI, his Cabinet & military advisers for?” – katman

I think Joe’s examples were flawed but I think the point he was trying to make reminds me of a saying I live with: You can delegate authority but you can never delegate responsibility. Yes the agencies you named have the authority and the responsibility to advise the President correctly. If they don’t they should be held accountable. Yet the President does hold some responsibility of the flawed information because he pulled the trigger on use of force based on it.

On the other hand I disagree with Joe’s efforts at saying a Democratic President would have done better because he would have ignored (at the time) world opinion that Iraq had active/usable WMD’s. It reminds me of another saying: Cowards live longer.

[katman]

Joe, by check and double check, do you imply the President should personally check out all the intell personally? Isn't that what he has the CIA, the FBI, his Cabinet & military advisers for?

Colin Powell bought into it. I recall him showing actual pictures of WMD launchers to the UN. He's no dummy; he was smart enough not to run for the highest office in the land.

[Arminius]

Joe:

"Blaming it on the intelligence is not good enough. If your going to war, you better personally verify the data."

So Bush was supposed to go out into the field and verify everything the intelligence community told him about Iraq?

"There is a saying in engineering about using computer programs for design...."garbage in equals garbage out." It does not absolve the designer from overall responsibility."

It was the intelligence community that apparently put the garbage in. Yet you say don't blame the intelligence? Incredible.

[Stifled Freedom]

Senator Bond, who provided that intelligence? Wasn't it the CIA? And the CIA is ultimately under the executive control of the President. Blaming it on the intelligence is not good enough. If your going to war, you better personally verify the data....not just get fed what you want to get fed.

There is a saying in engineering about using computer programs for design...."garbage in equals garbage out." It does not absolve the designer from overall responsibility.

"To prevent repeating these failures, we must put national security over politics and work together" Sen Bond

Great, now you can get to work the Democrats and work out a compromise for our energy needs. Together you have done little but play partisan politics (shooting each other's legislation proposals down) while there is no end in sight to gas prices.

[Q2D2]

I'm about to fall out of my chair laughing.

Kit Bond advocating bi-partisanship!?!?

It's Friday the 13th, not April Fool's day!

[Arminius]

To hear the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) talk, the buck never even got to Clinton.

www.sinsofthehusband.com

[katman]

When the single member of The Star's editorial staff takes a break, everything stops. For that person and others, the intelligent reports should be translated into braille for more accurate comprehension.

[T. Hanson]

Yeap, the buck stops here... and when I say here I mean the last president.

[Arminius]

I get the impression that the Star's editorial board are not ecxactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. It is obviously that they did not read the actual report and instead merely parroted moonbat talking points.

The fact is, as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards noted, the intelligence on Iraq was consistent from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The Clinton administration said the very same things about Iraq and al Qaeda. See www.sinsofthehusband.com