Leaking, the Politicization of Intelligence,Etc: The Story Which Andrew Sullivan Says Musn't Die
Well, I wasn't going to comment on the Weekly Standard's big "Conclusive Proof that Saddam was Behind 9/11" story until I was off the drugs, but who am I to go against Andrew Sullivan's command to tell the world: "Keep watching the skies! They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next..."
THIS STORY MUSTN'T DIE: What to make of the Weekly Standard's publication of a leaked memo from neocon Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Well, I'm not someone used to reading classified CIA documents and being able to separate the wheat from the chaff. But reading Stephen Hayes' summary of the document, I have to say this strikes me as a Big Deal.
Yeah, Sullivan's complete lack of training or experience in doing intelligence analysis convinces ME that his belief that Hayes's summary of a summary of a handful of documents picked to support one point of view is indeed a "Big Deal," and that the liberal media is ignoring it for some nefarious reason.
Earlier in the day, Sullivan said:
I cannot independently judge this material. But others can. All I know is that we shouldn't rest until the case debunking these claims has been effectively made. We need to be told: Why is this intelligence faulty? How? Has it been cherry-picked? By whom? Why?
While I'm not one of the people Sullivan asks to judge this material or debunk these claims, I think I can answer some of his questions: Has this intelligence been cherry-picked? Of COURSE it has. By whom? By Douglas J. Feith. Why? To support his claim that Saddam was supporting al Qaida.
I would suggest that Sullivan read DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections, which says in part:
A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA.
See, Sullivan, Feith chose some intelligence he liked to make a speech to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which he claimed there were links between Saddam and al Qaida, and so the administration had no choice but to go to war. The Committee said, "Well, not that we don't believe you, Doug, but we'd like to see some proof." So, DOD got permission from CIA and NSA to release summaries of their reports to the Committee. And then somebody leaked those summaries to the Weekly Standard.
So, Mr. Sullivan, lets deal with the questions that you probably MEANT to ask next: Who leaked this report, and why?
While a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee is a logical guess (maybe the same person who leaked the Democratic SSCI "strategy" memo to Sean Hannity), I think that we have to ask ourselves, "If this was leaked by somebody from the Senate, why would he give this memo to the Weekly Standard, instead of a U.S. paper, or Sean Hannity again?' That suggests it was leaked by somebody who wanted to make things easier for the President during his upcoming visit to the UK (where they all seem to hate him), and to keep Tony Blair from being thrown out by his own people for ever having agreed to back the U.S. in this invasion thing.
So, who would have such a goal in mind? And who has shown already that they have no regard about endagering intelligence sources and methods by leaking stuff in order to score some political points? Yes, a Senior Administration Official. Which one? That's for the FBI to find out. Because I'm sure the CIA and NSA are preparing (if they haven't already been sent) crimes report about this leak, and they will hit DOJ any day now.
Oh, and in regard to your questions, "Why is this intelligence faulty? How?", Mr, Sullivan, my guess would be that it conflicts with information obtained from other sources, or wasn't confirmed by any other sources. But we'll probably never know, because this information is CLASSIFIED, and so shouldn't be appearing in newspapers, even if you really, really want to know about it. After all, the DOD did say:
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.
So, let's move on.
Sullivan's admitted lack of expertise doesn't stop him from declaring one tidbit from the leaked info (a senior al Qaeda operative reportedly saying that an associate told him that he was "tasked" to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence, in order to obtain poisons and gases training), " the smoking vial, the intelligence that a link-up between the maniacs of al Qaeda with the resources of the Baathist terror-state was real, and that it could lead to attacks more devastating than 9/11."
Of course, in intelligence analysis circles, one guy saying that some other guy told him something doesn't count as a "smoking" anything, but Sullivan is covered because he admitted up front that he doesn't actually know anything about this. And he does say at the conclusion of this post, "Again, all this is amazing stuff: a phenomenally important story, if true. "
Yeah, it's just that "if true" part that we have to worry about. It really is too bad that we need highly trained, well-educated analysts who devote their working lives to studying one particular aspect of an intelligence issue to evaluate this stuff, because it's so much more fun if we just let Sullivan do his own precis of Hayes' precis of cherry-picked raw data, and then declare that the White House was right when it said that Saddam posed an imminent threat, and was likely to kill each and every one of us if not stopped.
Anyway, Sullivan goes on to disparage a piece by Walter Pincus (CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists). Well, not really the whole piece -- just the part where Pincus quotes a "senior administration official" who, talking about the leaked report, said that the "classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy." Sullivan discounts this because he doesn't trust Pinchus. Um, and I guess that means that any senior administration official who talks to Pinchus is a Commie by association, and we shouldn't trust them either. Of course, the DOD, in their official statement on the matter, also said the material was raw data, and that it"was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions." But they're probably on Pincus's payroll too.
But oddly enough, Sullivan doesn't mention this quote in the Pincus piece:
Last Thursday, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith defended the administration’s prewar position at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The idea that we didn’t have specific proof that he was planning to give a biological agent to a terrorist group,” he said, “doesn’t really lead you to anything, because you wouldn’t expect to have that information even if it were true. And our intelligence is just not at the point where if Saddam had that intention that we would necessarily know it.”
So, Feith is saying that we didn't have any proof that Saddam was planning to give bio-weapons to al Qaida (and you wouldn't expect us to, even if were true, which it may or may not be).
So, no smoking vials, Sullivan. Feith says so. (Of course, Feith is implying that the fact that we have no proof means that it WAS true, because that's just what we'd expect to have if it was true, but let Sullivan work that out for himself.)
Well, I doubted that helped Sullivan very much, but at least I'm keeping the story from dying, as ordered. I hope he appreciates it, because I wouldn't have tried working while under the influence of Sudafed for anyone else.
3:14:16 AM 
|
