You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Pillar shows his true colors
2006-02-10
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

White House officials did not respond to a request to comment for this article. They have vehemently denied accusations that the administration manipulated intelligence to generate public support for the war.

"Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a White House briefing in November. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

Republicans and Democrats in Congress continue to argue over whether, or how, to investigate accusations the administration manipulated prewar intelligence.

Yesterday, the Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a statement to counter what it described as "the continuing Iraq pre-war intelligence myths," including charges that Bush " 'misused' intelligence to justify the war." Writing that it was perfectly reasonable for the president to rely on the intelligence he was given, the paper concluded, "it is actually the critics who are misleading the American people."

In his article, Pillar said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results. "Such attempts are rare," he writes, "and when they do occur . . . are almost always unsuccessful."

Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."

The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."

Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.

Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."

In an interview, Pillar said the prewar assessments "were not crystal-balling, but in them we were laying out the challenges that would face us depending on decisions that were made."

Pillar wrote that the first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was "not until a year into the war."

That assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerrilla war or civil war. It was leaked to the media in September in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bush, who had told voters that the mission in Iraq was going well, described the assessment to reporters as "just guessing."

Shortly thereafter, Pillar was identified in a column by Robert D. Novak as having prepared the assessment and having given a speech critical of Bush's Iraq policy at a private dinner in California. The column fed the White House's view that the CIA was in effect working against the Bush administration, and that Pillar was part of that. A columnist in the Washington Times in October 2004 called him "a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism."

Leaked information "encouraged some administration supporters to charge intelligence officers (including me) with trying to sabotage the president's policies," Pillar wrote. One effect of that, he said, was to limit challenges to consensus views on matters such as the Iraqi weapons program.

When asked why he did not quit given his concerns, Pillar said in the interview that he was doing "other worthwhile work in the nation's interest" and never thought of resigning over the issue.

For the future, Pillar suggests that the CIA and other intelligence agencies, now under Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, remain within the executive branch but "be given greater independence."

The model he cites is the Federal Reserve, overseen by a board of governors that serves for fixed terms. That, he said, would reduce "both the politicization of the intelligence community's own work and the public misuse of intelligence by policymakers."
Posted by:Dan Darling

#33  
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-02-10 14:59  

#32  Dan's post is well-spoken as well as knowledgeable. The same can be said for State.

This isn't mere whistle-blowing, it is sedition.

He is far too kind, IMHO, to the seditionists.

I prefer Hunter / Killer Teams.
Posted by: .com   2006-02-10 19:52  

#31  Here's the synopsis from Pillar's written work:

Pillar has a preference for negotiations as the way to solve conflicts. From his earliest work, the guy focused on situations where the outcome was not victory. Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions. With regard to Iraq, whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly — if terrorism is the question. Clearly Mr. Pillar was never on board with George Bush’s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy.

Why did this guy have a job at the CIA?

Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-10 19:43  

#30  Darrell

9.7 extra points for Red Herring & Strawmen in the same short sentence.
Posted by: 6   2006-02-10 18:33  

#29  I agree. CIA officials taking political positions compromise their position and does the country a huge disservice.

For example, if a CIA official wants to second-guess those in Congress or the Executive branches who have responsibility for making such decisions (and are held accountable in general election by "the people") then they should be like any other citizen and pull the voting lever to express their views.

This should be the case irrespective of which party holds power.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-02-10 18:33  

#28  liberalhawk:

To a certain extent, yes, as far as the liberties of the average citizens are concerned but the campaign that Pillar and his fellows have led over the last couple of years is basically one where you have senior officials in an intelligence agency becoming actively involved in domestic politics while continuing to serve in their positions in government. Their rationale for this is that the administration is too bad for them to sit back and do nothing, but the reality is that they have ignored all of the legal options available to them in favor of a sub-rosa campaign against a sitting government. If senior serving officials of the military (not civilian appointees) did the same thing, wouldn't that raise issues as far as civilian control of the military is concerned? I think it's fair to say so. Similarly, the willingness to embrace Pillar and Co. in certain quarters while simultaneously being concerned about illegal actions on the part of the NSA strikes me as rather hypocritical and tribal given that their paradigm is that when my guys go illegal on intel it's okay, when your guys do it's an outrage. Then there is also the point that the NSA program according to Risen is aimed at al-Qaeda, whereas Pillar and Co. are aimed at the administration.
Posted by: Dan Darling   2006-02-10 17:52  

#27  Cute. A new troll. They all say the same thing.
Posted by: DragonFly   2006-02-10 17:17  

#26  Darrell:

RNC brainwashing is a terrible thing. It turns people into mindless robots..

YOU have a good day..
Posted by: Common Sense   2006-02-10 16:54  

#25  Please don't feed the troll.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-02-10 16:53  

#24  a rogue operator and leaker... is not the same kind of danger to liberty that an executive branch determined to act with no legal constraint is

Explain that to the people who die as a result of the leaker.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-10 16:35  

#23  Not biting, No Sense. Have a nice day. Try not to mix your straw men with your red herrings.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-02-10 16:23  

#22  Darell:

If I'm not mistaken youre on of the people that stated that you believe that democrats are "endangering" the security of the U.S. nor do you think that they will "defend" the U.S. against its enemies.

That is a hell of a statement that to me borders on slander and is highly insulting.

Please explain your rational
Posted by: Common Sense   2006-02-10 16:12  

#21  You think so, do you?

"Upon the cunning loom of thought We weave our fancies, so and so." -- Thomas Bailey Aldrich
Posted by: Darrell   2006-02-10 16:05  

#20  liberalhawk:

If you take all the comments above on Mr.Paul R. Pillar, there is nothing nothing uncommon about them.

To those on the right, anyone and any organization
that opposes or criticizes President Bush on the GWOT/Iraq War, is a treasonous Anti-American traitor who is aiding and abetting the enemy.

To them President Bush is above the law and criticism because he is leading the fight against the enemy and his intent is to "win" no matter what it takes, To them the means justify the end result.

Yesterday, I had some of these folks on the right have the audacity and unmitgated gall to suggest that the Democratic Party is "endangering" the security of the U.S.. They then went on state that democrats will never regain power in this country because they will NOT defend it.
Statements such as that i consider to be utterly ridiculous and the people who say stuff like that really need to check themselves.
I think they are unhinged and unstable.
Posted by: Common Sense   2006-02-10 15:54  

#19  
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-02-10 14:59  

#18  "He decided to launch his own campaign, outside of and apparently in active contempt of official channels and civilian oversight like the SSIC so that he could bring down an administration whose policies he didn't agree with. You'd think that the left, which is all up in arms over the NSA program going on without the FISA stamp, would appreciate the danger of what this POS represents"

Dan, in fairness, a rogue operator and leaker, even a treasonous one (which is arguable I suppose - i really havent followd this closely) is not the same kind of danger to liberty that an executive branch determined to act with no legal constraint is - NOTE WELL: Im not saying that the NSA program IS the exec branch acting without legal constraing - AFAICT its a pretty complex issue, worth investigation as Sen Spector will do, without prejudgement - but for the left that (unfortunately IMO) HAS rushed to judgment, the judgement theyve rushed to is a pretty serious thing.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-10 13:54  

#17  How long until his first Saudi-funded speaking engagement?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-02-10 12:33  

#16  Paul R. Pillar in a treasonous anti-american traitor who along with democrats, liberals and those in the anti-war movement are aiding and abetting the enemy. People like him are a threat to the security of the U.S.

President Bush is fighting the noble GWOT and all his critics from the left do is whine while they offer no solutions of their own.

Wimps like Pillar and those on the left who oppose President Bush should all be hung for treason.
Posted by: I.M Right   2006-02-10 12:02  

#15  Just another d**kless desk jockey back in Langley who NEVER listened to the ops people - another one of those CYA types that came to the forefront under Bush-I and Clinton.

Thats why he is "former" - his type are being shown as the incompetent boobs that they are. THEY are the ones that got us into this mess on 9/11, with their old-boy insider ways. And the only way the agencies can reform is to get dead weight like this out of the way.

Goss is doing a so-so job from what I hear on tossing senior weenies like this cheesedick over the side so agressive and effective people can take their place.

Yes - peopel like this piss me off. Not only are they being disloyal, they are skating close to the edge in talking about classified matters, and on top of that, they are slanting the hell out of what they say. Whats worse is this particular jerk knows there's no way to easily and conscisely refute him without revealing compromising important information - so he will get away with his slanted and disingenuous statements
Posted by: OldSpook   2006-02-10 10:39  

#14  Barney Fife w/o the uniform
lol!!
Posted by: 2b   2006-02-10 10:33  

#13  Georgetown University is certainly where he belongs. He'll get lots of support for his Whitehouse bashing from his colleagues over there. Comfortably pensioned, he can do his bashing ("worthwhile work" as he refers to it) fully in the open and take full credit vs slinking around behind the "green door" as a worthless pipe smoking, PhD, Pentagon hating, gov'ment bureaucrat. Non-disclosure is a sad joke. Phuechs like Pillar and Sandy Berger and others who are entrusted with national security and betray those trusts should be flogged until dood.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-10 09:19  

#12  Question - were Jimmah and this man separated at birth?
Posted by: Raj   2006-02-10 08:50  

#11  Barney Fife w/o the uniform. And just as effective.
Posted by: Crineting Crusing1151   2006-02-10 08:07  

#10  Dan, Just so you all know, this guy is the mastermind behind a lot of the CIA leaks against the administration and he wants more independence for the intelligence agency he worked to politicize as his reward.

The Perp [looks like Mr. peepers]
Posted by: RD   2006-02-10 06:52  

#9  the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

And that's bad because?
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-02-10 05:31  

#8  Common Sense must not be up yet. Of course we "Republicans" are just trying to slime the messenger.
Posted by: SR-71   2006-02-10 05:00  

#7  Sheesh. The spin is dizzying. Glad he was finally "retired" from his career working for our enemies. Now, if possible, throw his ass in prison for any classified data that can be tracked back to his sorry ass. It'll be even sorrier.

I favor Hunter / Killer Teams, myself.
Posted by: .com   2006-02-10 03:24  

#6  This guy is issuing a mea culpa. He admits that the intelligence information "was politicized". He's trying to worm his way out of responsibility by saying that, "Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war".

He further says that, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

It's a weak argument but considering the fact that it's about to become crystal clear that Saddam indeed had WMD's, he's attempting to making the impossible argument that the Bush Administration didn't pay attention to their admitted politicized and faulty information, so it didn't matter anyway.

Good luck with that argument, loser.
Posted by: 2b   2006-02-10 03:15  

#5   Just so you all know, this guy is the mastermind behind a lot of the CIA leaks against the administration and he wants more independence for the intelligence agency he worked to politicize as his reward.

Let's suppose, just for a moment, that all or even half of the shit that he's saying is true. He decided to launch his own campaign, outside of and apparently in active contempt of official channels and civilian oversight like the SSIC so that he could bring down an administration whose policies he didn't agree with. You'd think that the left, which is all up in arms over the NSA program going on without the FISA stamp, would appreciate the danger of what this POS represents.
Posted by: Dan Darling   2006-02-10 01:37  

#4  Pillar of fools? Maybe pillar of book deals?
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-02-10 01:05  

#3  It's convient for him to speak now. He can be someone to blame. A new pu8nching bag has arrived. This guys maiddel name has to be Failure. 9 will get you ten he is a dhimmi as well.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-02-10 00:53  

#2  28 years? That puts him into the Carter years for a starting point...Amazing how certain people can retire a career. Pillar of stupidity.
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-02-10 00:44  

#1  "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official


LOL! Talk about spin. Pillar is scrambling like a dog on linoleum to get ready for the revelations that there were WMD's in Iraq, so he's singing a new tune. Yet MSNBC tries to spin this as an indictment against Bush. Um, no, this is the most severe indictment of our intelligence services to date.

Good try though.
Posted by: 2b   2006-02-10 00:36  

00:00