« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Memory Hole: DOD Backed Away From Feith's "Inappropriate" Intel in 2003
It's easy to forget, but in November 2003, after the Weekly Standard published a leaked summary of the Office of Special Plans's analysis of the Iraq-al-Qaeda question, the Pentagon immediately released an official statement distancing itself from the OSP's controversial findings. The central contention of the statement tracks with the positions taken in Douglas Feith and Eric Edelman's rebuttals -- that whatever OSP did, it wasn't intelligence analysis.
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
Of course, digging through such raw reports to criticize the intelligence community was exactly what the OSP* was charged with doing. And after the Pentagon released its statement, the Standard shot back its disbelief: "But make no mistake--contrary to what Defense now says--these are conclusions and this is analysis."
At the time, the Defense Department's statement merely seemed bizarre. Now, however, it appears to have had a subtler purpose than simply distancing the Pentagon from the OSP. By stating that OSP didn't perform analysis and "drew no conclusions," it's likely that the Pentagon was trying to forestall criticism of illegally performing intelligence work. Curiouser and curiouser...
* By the way, we're using the term "OSP" here as the inspector general's report does: as "generic terminology" for Iraq and al-Qaeda-related program activities that occurred in 2001 and 2002 in the office of the undersecretary of defense for policy.
Comments (14)
j swift wrote on February 9, 2007 1:22 PM:You know I just had a thought. I imagine that shortly after your are appointed or hired on at whatever fed job that they send you over to some photographer for the ubiquitous stars and stripes and FNG picture.
It would be much more efficient of the Bush Admin to do mug shots at the same time.
carole wrote on February 9, 2007 2:24 PM:"It would be much more efficient of the Bush Admin to do mug shots at the same time."
That is hilarious, thanks.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 9, 2007 2:51 PM:Height markings up the gray wall behind them . . .
The plaque each one of these folk would be holding would have to be painted 'green-screen' next to case number to allow for multiple charges.
Plus . . . I think that they need to take the picts annually like school photos . . . Criminal Class o' 200-.
mbbsdphil wrote on February 9, 2007 3:44 PM:I believe the "It's legal because my boss told me to do it," defense was thrown out at Nuremburg. But then, this has always been a history- and constitutional law-challenged administration.
Lugo wrote on February 9, 2007 5:25 PM:mbbsdphil, what law was broken (even in theory)?
Uncle Sam wrote on February 9, 2007 6:53 PM:I know we got Libby, lets hope we can only continue these trials with Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Dov Zakheim, David Wurmser, Donald Rumsfeld and many others, to expose the real crime of the century. These men intentionally mislead a paranoid White House that Iraq, not al Qaeda, was the main threat to the US. This group pushed our country to war, not to protect the American people from terrorism, but to be an active participant in a dream for a greater Israel. When this war in Iraq is done, over a million Iraqis will have perished, thousands of Americans will be dead with tens of thousands more wounded, lets pray that justice will be served to these traitors.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 9, 2007 10:20 PM:Uncle Sam,
I'm a bit offended that you 'cut and paste' lifted your post from another story . . . AND left intact your popshot at Israel.
Sigh.
prostratedragon wrote on February 9, 2007 11:44 PM:Possibly the National Security Act of 1947 for starters. You could look it up.
prostratedragon wrote on February 9, 2007 11:47 PM:Hmmm, links not allowed here.
Lugo wrote on February 10, 2007 12:35 AM:Try this: http://tinyurl.com/yqkhmz
So how was the National Security Act of 1947 broken?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on February 10, 2007 1:17 AM:Actually . . . If previous testimony denying this crap was under oath . . . Comtempt of Congress, Perjury and giving a false statement to a governmental offical also come to mind. All three are felonies.
Lugo wrote on February 10, 2007 9:21 PM:So no actual crime may be involved here, but there may be a long, expensive prosecution anyway? Hmmm, that sounds familiar...
jeremiah wrote on February 12, 2007 12:26 PM:Mr Adlof,
Misleading Congress *is* a crime. It's no suprise that a DoD self-investigation would find that the DoD didn't break a law. That'll be for Congress to decide.
epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:15 AM:Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night