WaPo quasi-retracts page-one story about Feith Iraq/AQ intel
Allahpundit

Spruiell e-mails with the subject header, “Good Lord.” Indeed.

They’re calling it a “correction,” but is it really a correction if you’re quoting from an entirely different document than the one you thought you were? And your story kinda sorta hinges on which one it was?

This is a “correction” in the same way Crocodile Dundee’s knife was a knife:

Correction to This Article
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general’s report did not draw. The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “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.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”

Got that? The big scoop was that the Pentagon itself had concluded that Feith floated bogus intel on the links between Iraq and AQ and suggested that he’d done so at Bush/Cheney’s behest. Except the Pentagon didn’t conclude that. Anti-war Democrat Carl Levin did. The only damning quote from the IG report that doesn’t appear to have been retracted is this: ...

Read the whole thing.

***

Devastating Commentary
Jules Crittenden

I haven’t jumped into the big talk about Pentagon intel because, to put in bluntly, it doesn’t mean anything nor does it change anything.  Then or now.  It is simply a stick, and not a very impressive one, for people who want to beat the administration and try to make it look like they are doing something useful. Take Carl Levin … please:

… while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy “were not illegal or unauthorized,” they “did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers” at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

“I can’t think of a more devastating commentary,” said Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Well, I can. I’m looking at one attack after another in the 1990s, and nothing in reaction but a few missiles lobbed.

Levin’s doing the best he can with the commentary he has to work with.  It needs to be devastating, so he’ll think it’s as devastating as he possibly can.  ...

***

How Dare You Disagree
Posted by Curt

Ok, now this is some funny shite.  The CIA and the Department of Defense is upset because the Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon dared to disagree with the CIA when they ignored all the evidence that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaeda:

Some of the Pentagon's prewar intelligence work, including a contention that the CIA underplayed the likelihood of al-Qaida connections to Saddam Hussein, was inappropriate but not illegal, a Defense Department investigation has concluded.

In a report to be presented to Congress on Friday, the department's inspector general said former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence.

Inappropriate?  Bringing up the truth is inappropriate now? 

Asked to comment on the IG's findings, Feith said in a telephone interview that he had not seen the report but was pleased to hear that it concluded his office's activities were neither illegal nor unauthorized. He took strong issue, however, with the IG's finding that some activities had been "inappropriate."

"The policy office has been smeared for years by allegations that its pre-Iraq-war work was somehow 'unlawful' or 'unauthorized' and that some information it gave to congressional committees was deceptive or misleading," Feith said.

Feith called "bizarre" the inspector general's conclusion that some intelligence activities by the Office of Special Plans, which was created while Feith served as the undersecretary of defense for policy --the top policy position under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld--were inappropriate but not unauthorized.

I have plenty of evidence chronicled in my blog here that Saddam did indeed have connections with al-Qaeda, and unfortunately for the left, none of it is "inappropriate".

Imagine, disagreeing with the status quo and it's inappropriate! ...

***

DoD Inspector General Report Destroys Claims of Pentagon Intel Manipulation
Posted by Scott Malensek

Aka: “DoD IG Clears OSP, but AP Still Holds SSCI PR”

The Department of Defense Inspector General’s office has determined that the 2002 Office of Special Plans was not an illegal operation despite 5 years of claims from Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but the Associated Press is still trying to carry the line that the Bush Administration used the Office of Special Plans to manipulate the intelligence provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ok, what this means for your average Joe is this:

Back in 2002, none of the 16 different intelligence agencies was willing to do a detailed report on the question of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda.  The CIA-after much prodding-finally put out a small report, but it was vague because the United States didn’t have a single spy in Iraq for the previous four years (1998-2002).  Having just been attacked by Al Queda, the Bush Administration and components of it wanted to know if there was a serious relationship between Iraq and Al Queda, but no one wanted to give them one.  So, in 2002 the Pentagon (where even their own intelligence agencies were refusing to investigate the matter) put together a group called the Office of Special Plans.

This office went around to the different intelligence agencies, looked at whatever intelligence reporting they had on the subject (remember, all 16 intelligence agencies worked alone at this point in American history.  They did not normally share information).  Then this Office of Special Plans found a bunch of reports that seemed scary.  They presented these scary reports to the CIA and others, who refused to stand by any assessment because so little intelligence had been gathered.

In the end, the question of war with Iraq oriented around two things: the WMD that the UN could not account for, and the depth of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda. 

The WMD issue as presented by the Bush Administration was mostly just a parroting of the UN inspectors claims, but while the UN had to maintain ambivalence, the US Govt had to say, look, we can’t just sit around and wait forever for this matter to be resolved, and he’s hidden WMD in the future, so either prove there’s no WMD, or the US will make sure. ... 

***

Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey, John Hinderaker and Andrew McCarthy have more.