News

Records Could Shed Light on Iraq Group

»

by: Walter Pincus, The Washington Post

photo
Members of the White House Iraq Group, formed in 2002, included Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, and Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser. (Photo: AFP)

    There is an important line in last week's Senate intelligence committee report on the Bush administration's prewar exaggerations of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. It says that the panel did not review "less formal communications between intelligence agencies and other parts of the Executive Branch."

    More important, there was no effort to obtain White House records or interview President Bush, Vice President Cheney or other administration officials whose speeches were analyzed because, the report says, such steps were considered beyond the scope of the report.

    One obvious target for such an expanded inquiry would have been the records of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a group set up in August 2002 by then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.

    The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants (many have since left or changed jobs) were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy aides led by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, as well as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

    As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan wrote in his recently released book, "What Happened," the Iraq Group "had been set up in the summer of 2002 to coordinate the marketing of the war to the public."

    "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," McClellan wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."

    In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, 2002, Card did not mention the group, but he hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

    Two days later, WHIG's product placement was on display. It began with a front-page story in the Times describing Iraq's clandestine purchase of aluminum tubes that, the story said, could be used to produce weapons-grade uranium. The story said that information came from "senior administration officials."

    The story also spoke of "hardliners" in the Bush administration being "alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war." They "argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud," the Times story said.

    That same morning, the message was carried on three network news shows. Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and, referring to the Times story, said that intelligence showed that Hussein "has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon." The Iraqi leader was "trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs," Cheney said.

    That same day, on CNN's "Late Edition," Rice said, "There will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

    On CBS's "Face the Nation," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked about the Times story and whether Hussein had nuclear weapons. "Is there a smoking gun here?" host Bob Schieffer asked. "'Smoking gun' is an interesting phrase," Rumsfeld said, and then he went to the same message his colleagues had given.

    "The problem with that is the way one gains absolute certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is if he uses it ... and that's a little late." Bush picked up the slogan a month later in his nationally televised speech on the threat from Iraq.

    McClellan wrote that WHIG was not used to "deliberately mislead the public" but that the "more fundamental problem was the way [Bush's] advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people.

    "As the campaign accelerated," he added, "caveats and qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded."

    WHIG's records would shed much light on whether, as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the intelligence panel, put it: "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent."

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

I am against capital

I am against capital punishment ....but , BY the standards set at Nurenburg Bush and Co. should be hanged for the war crime of initiating wars of aggression. Mclellan along with many people in the "liberal media" are also guilty of aiding and abetting these crimes and should face at a minimum serious prison time for lying the american people into these senseless wars. Impeachment , which the "liberal democrats " are too spineless to pursue would be less than a slap on the wrist. We must not allow the Bush/cheney junta to attack Iran in a similar manor or to escape their scurrilous public service in golden parachutes .

They lied. They lie. They

They lied. They lie. They are lying. They will lie. They are liars. They will always be liars. They are breeding liars.

OSP ring a bell? Is this

OSP ring a bell? Is this supposed to be "news" or some sort of revelation? Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked for the Office of Special Plans - which is not even mentioned anymore - has been telling us the facts from nearly day one. "It wasn't intelligence — it was propaganda. They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." "The reason we're in Iraq first off has not honestly been told to the American people; it certainly had nothing to do with the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was never part of the agenda and it's not part of the agenda now." But "we're" still talking about maybes and the need for more "investigations?" Just more smoke and mirror bullshit to ensure no member of the anti-American Bushcult is ever brought to justice for their litany of war crimes and treasonous acts and massive thefts.

I'm with tired of parsing.

I'm with tired of parsing. How does Scotty work this out with the 'not used to deliberately mislead us? I'll agree that I personally was NOT mislead, since I knew they were lying. Still, I'm curious as to how he tries to reconcile this. Meantime, as we've noted before, this is the almost exact same language used as the excuse for Iran. The only difference, (which is a large one) is that Saddam did NOT have any such thing, (and the inspectors were in the process of certifying that). And, Iran actually IS enriching uranium, but for civilian purposes, which they have a legal right to do. And, they've got inspectors there as well. Otherwise, the mob hasn't even attempted to change the wording of the accusations. Guess the same ploy was expected to fool everyone the second and third times around.

I'd love to hear McClellan

I'd love to hear McClellan explain what to me are the directly contradictory statements that WHIG "was not used to "deliberately mislead the public"" and " Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded." If you (one must assume intentionally, at least in the legal sense of the word) ignore or disregard contradictory intel, what possible purpose could there be other than to mislead?