Useful Idiots

May 30, 2003 9:36 PM

U.S. Insiders Say Iraq Intel Deliberately Skewed "Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorist operations, said he knew of serving intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up "fraudulent" intelligence, "a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi." The marines are looking, but they can't find a damn thing. So... were Bush and company played by the INC, or were the American people played by Team Bush?
posted by owillis (21 comments total)

By 'cherry picked' intel they mean they selectively chose intel data and highlighted it if it would bolster their case.

The idea is that you can cherry pick intel to reach almost any desired intel outcome.

I don't think the article well describes their intended use of the phrase 'cherry picked', - which as I understand it normally means something slightly different... atleast where I've heard it more often used, which is in relation to sports.
posted by balinx at 9:52 PM on May 30, 2003

See also Save Our Spooks by Nicholas Kristoff in today's New York Times.

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence.

"I've never heard this level of alarm before," said Larry Johnson, who used to work in the C.I.A. and State Department. "It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

I am less inclined to give him a pass on this, myself.
posted by y2karl at 9:57 PM on May 30, 2003

were Bush and company played by the INC
Yes

were the American people played by Team Bush
Yes
posted by Argyle at 9:58 PM on May 30, 2003

Here's a related WarFi thread.
posted by homunculus at 10:11 PM on May 30, 2003

how about chalabi's "sock puppet"?

and this quote is just plain astonishing: "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them" - and unfortunately for the world clear evidence of what is very very wrong with the man in charge of the white house.
posted by specialk420 at 10:18 PM on May 30, 2003

That Team Bush, always trying to steal Pikachu.
posted by Hildago at 10:26 PM on May 30, 2003

The Waldorf transcipts reveal that both Straw and Powell had misgivings about the evidence.

Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces".
......
What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:30 PM on May 30, 2003

That Team Bush, always trying to steal Pikachu.
posted by homunculus at 10:35 PM on May 30, 2003

i like the newshour coverage with a good discussion by brooke shields tonite!

DAVID BROOKS: The weapons of mass destruction is a serious issue. They found, as President Bush has said, these two weapons labs, they're beginning to get testimony from the Iraqi scientists. Nonetheless, it is a serious problem in Europe, a serious problem for the credibility of the administration. To me, it does not de-legitimize the war. The war will be legitimized, (a) by the ending of the death camps, by the liberation of the Iraqi people and by what we can potentially build to create some sort of decent set of governments in the Middle East. But it will damage U.S. credibility the next time the administration goes abroad.

MARK SHIELDS: The case for the war was made by president of the United States and secretary of state, Colin Powell, and it rested upon weapons of mass destruction. It did not rest upon democracy in Iraq. And I think what Paul Wolfowitz said in the piece in Vanity Fair, saying that this was essentially a bureaucratic decision because that was the one point where all could agree, ignores the fact that this was the central argument made.

with the FT also getting in on the act :D

The intelligence failures in Iraq raise many questions, not least why Saddam Hussein was so unforthcoming to UN inspectors, if he had little left to hide. But there is one overwhelming caution for the Bush administration. If it ever wants to put its doctrine of pre-emptive war into practice again, it will need to come up with far more convincing proof of threats than it showed in Iraq.

also btw, drudge is "reporting" (or blogging, i guess!) that colin powell was "apprehensive" about their evidence of iraq's WMD, but apparently he's now taking the "never in doubt" approach. meanwhile, wolfowitz's statements in vanity fair are now claimed by the pentagon to be a fabrication...
posted by kliuless at 10:59 PM on May 30, 2003

...and, in the back of my head, i'm thinking, you woulda thunk they'd have manufactured something by now. so like the fact that they haven't is kinda encouraging in a way :D

also btw, in other OT news, U.N. Approves French-Led Peacekeepers for Congo :D uruguayans, help is on the way!
posted by kliuless at 11:18 PM on May 30, 2003

Intelligence analysts often speak of "humint" for human intelligence (spies) and "sigint" for signals intelligence (wiretaps). They refer contemptuously to recent work as "rumint," or rumor intelligence.

IANA spook, but it's my understanding that sigint is more than just wiretaps. Which is really neither here nor there in terms of this discussion, but it does make me wonder if the NYT has truly underinformed reporters (yeah, yeah, save the Blair jokes) or if this falls under the category of deliberate misinformation (or less than complete information) for the sake of "national security" -- ie, that whole strange unspoken partnership between Big Media and the government when it comes to reporting sensitive issues. (I'm not saying I believe this happens, though I'm inclined to believe it does -- I'm just wondering if this is a case of it.)

Second, I think it could be argued that, to a certain degree, humint is rumint.
posted by damn yankee at 11:26 PM on May 30, 2003

Truthfilter. ;-)
posted by hairyeyeball at 12:21 AM on May 31, 2003

Tony Blair, "Have a little patience." Good catch phrase for U.S. Foreign Policy toward Iraq, especially if you put the emphasis on the right word.
posted by newlydead at 6:00 AM on May 31, 2003

To me, it does not de-legitimize the war. The war will be legitimized, (a) by the ending of the death camps, by the liberation of the Iraqi people and by what we can potentially build to create some sort of decent set of governments in the Middle East.

Nevermind the dying masses in the Congo. Never mind the slaughters in Burma.


meanwhile, wolfowitz's statements in vanity fair are now claimed by the pentagon to be a fabrication...

It's so easy to believe the Pentagon. By the way, did they ever find that 1 trillion dollars that came up missing?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 6:29 AM on May 31, 2003

In the mid 1990s, the CIA underwent what we called an "agent scrub." That meant that we let go of approximately 60% of our human sources, perhaps more, which seriously damaged the CIA.

When I was in charge of the Caucuses in Central Asia, for example, we had no human sources. That also was in the mid to late 1990s.

intelligence ?
posted by larry_darrell at 6:36 AM on May 31, 2003

If Wolfowitz was right, why did we pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia? This is precisely what Bin Laden has always wanted, and was the primary reason 9/11 happened. When I saw on the news that our troops were being pulled from there I was left at the TV yelling and screaming because no one was explaining why. Are our government leaders negotiating with terrorists because they know terrorism can never be stopped and by giving Bin Laden what he wants we could go off, fight Iraq so that we would have an excuse to later pull our troops from Saudia Arabia and make Bin Laden happy? Were we just trying to get out to appease all Muslims? Is this why Bin Laden has not been caught? What is the deal here? Why did we pull out?
posted by banished at 7:38 AM on May 31, 2003

from Hildago's second link: "Wolfowitz also was quoted in the article as saying that a "huge" reason for going to war would be to enable the United States to withdraw American forces from Saudi Arabia."

banished : If Wolfowitz was right, why did we pull our troops out of Saudia Arabia?
As you can see, people started using ex-post reasoning, so anything is now possible.

related - Murphy's laws:
The six steps of program management are:
1. wild enthusiasm
2. disenchantment
3. total confusion
4. search for the guilty
5. punishment of the innocent
6. promotion of the non-participants.
posted by MzB at 9:03 AM on May 31, 2003

Never mind the slaughters in Burma.

John Ashcroft agrees.
posted by homunculus at 10:20 AM on May 31, 2003

Why did we pull out?

Why were you there?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 6:43 PM on May 31, 2003

And speaking of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has been arrested again.
posted by homunculus at 5:19 PM on June 1, 2003

OT: When I first read the title I thought this was referring to a cunning CIA plan to equip the Iraqis with dodgy Pentiums...
posted by prentiz at 7:15 AM on June 2, 2003