Open-source Material

Former CIA Analyst Michael Scheuer, in his tour of the talk shows, now says there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Tim Russert questioned him about that on Meet the Press.

MR. RUSSERT: You've talked about Iraq being a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, that you said the invasion of Iraq was not a pre-emption, it was an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat. But I want to bring you to an interview you had on Tuesday on "Hardball" where you said, "The only part of [the case for the war in Iraq] that I know about is that I happened to do the research on links between al Qaeda and Iraq." Question: "And what did you come up with?" Scheuer: "Nothing." If you go back and read your first book, "Through Enemies' Eyes," you seem to lay out a pretty strong case of connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Let me show you page 190: "In pursuing tactical nuclear weapons, bin Laden has focused on the [Former Soviet Union] states and has sought and received help from Iraq." This week's new Weekly Standard lays out this one: "There's information showing that in '93-94, bin Laden began" working "with Sudan and Iraq to acquire a [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] capability." And this: "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking [chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear] weapons ... and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden."

MR. SCHEUER: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: So you saw a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

MR. SCHEUER: I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in terms of a relationship--in the terms of a relationship...

MR. RUSSERT: But your book did point out some contacts?

MR. SCHEUER: Certainly it was available in the open-source material, yes, sir.

So. Because Through Enemies' Eyes relied on "open-source material", are we to conclude that it's unreliable? Is "open-source literature, unclassified literature" somehow suspect? And what does it mean "no connection… in the terms of a relationship?" What counts as a relationship?

One thing lacking from the CIA intelligence gathering capabilities on Iraq was the Human Intelligence, HUMINT. Cracking Saddam's inner circles with CIA operatives or informants was impossible. What could the CIA have known, and have put into its classified documents, about Saddam's relationships if Saddam didn't want anybody to know?

More and more I'm coming to see this election season as the War on Bush, and even though the election is over, the war isn't. A significant issue in this election was to my mind, the question of who would select our president, the American people or the media elite. Try as they did, the media elite didn't win. There has been great temptation on the part of bloggers to cast the struggle as one between the Mainstream Media and the pajama bloggers, but I can't say I agree with that. It's still the old left verses right with the left entrenched in Mainstream Media and the right finding voice first in talk radio, then in blogs.

But now I wonder is there something else going on here? Is this a fascinating parallel that we see? Some present and former CIA operatives seem to be operating in an inverse of Mainstream Media fashion. The power of the left in Mainstream Media has been their power to withhold information from the public. Think Walter Duranty. Have they, the left, established a beachhead at the CIA?

Here is Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard who notices the intriquing alliance.

Conventional wisdom was already firm: Goss and his cronies, embittered CIA failures all, were out to exact political revenge. John Roberts, anchoring CBS Evening News, wondered aloud, "What went wrong?" A Boston Globe editorial claimed the Goss "purge" was likely the "settling of partisan scores rather than an effort to introduce genuine accountability."

Let's entertain an alternative scenario: that after several years of painful and very public intelligence failures by the CIA, the new director and his team hope to make changes that will protect Americans; that Goss will draw on his decade as a CIA operative in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Europe and his seven years as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence to ameliorate a deteriorating situation that he watched from the front row; that perhaps it is the CIA officials who leaked against Bush who have a political agenda or interests to protect.

It was possible to take in most press accounts over the last week and never encounter those possibilities. It would appear that reporters who cover the intelligence community--particularly beat reporters from the Washington Post, the New York Times, Newsday, and Knight Ridder newspapers--often simply regurgitate storylines presented to them by the most political current and former CIA officials. Democratic elected officials furrow their brows about the partisan Republicans. And so we arrive at yet another bizarre moment in the often perplexing political sociology of Washington: The political left and its friends in the establishment press are in a full embrace of the most illiberal and secretive component of the U.S. government.

No "connection in terms of a relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda is to be found in classified CIA documents. I wonder if one will be found when they are de-classified.  What's been going on at the CIA?  Who outed Valerie Plame?

Comments

[Scott]

The argument that the existence of an Iraqi intelligence operative who helped, and failed, to procure WMD for bin Laden in the late '90s justifies the Iraq war is false, in my opinion.

[Scott]

By the way, have you read all of Imperial Hubris? I took from it a condemnation of the American view on the war on terror rather than finding it overtly political, not in the least actually (very refreshing in this way.) He condemns Clinton for inaction and cowardice and Bush for throwing fuel on the flames. From Scheuer's perspective, both are/were highly misguided and culpable.

[Tom Bowler]

I have two confessions. First, I haven’t read Imperial Hubris, and I suppose at the risk of undermining my prejudices I ought to pick it up. My point to posting on these news bits about Scheuer is, first to point out the odd behavior of the CIA, and second to point out his apparent contradictions from book to book. But I haven’t read any of them. I’m going on the assumption that the books are accurately quoted.

Second, I was in favor of the invasion of Iraq. I believed then and believe now from the strategic standpoint, deposing Saddam was the right thing to do. Without a change in the political climate in the Middle East, terrorism will continue to thrive, and to think political change will happen through diplomacy is unrealistic. That puts me among those who subscribe to the theory that the war on terror is an actual war, not a criminal justice issue. I think if you see the war on terror as a criminal justice issue, no argument in favor of invading Iraq is going to sway you.

[Scott]

I agree entirely we are fighting a war. As it relates to Imperial Hubris, Scheuer argues we are left with two choices: war, or endless war. Indeed I would say the book's overriding message is that Americans need to come to grips with the substantial and growing threat Bin Laden poses to us in the Islamic world. I would argue, in fact, that the real shame of the reaction to the book and interviews Scheuer has given on television is that his message is being skewed politically. Frankly, if I had to guess, I would actually say Scheuer is a right-leaning Independent--he has kind words for Reagan and his foreign policy approach I would argue is more hawkish than Bush, though in a different manner, Iraq being of course a notable exception. Please pick up the book or take it out from your local library--you won't regret it.

I can be convinced Iraq was the right thing to do but all of my concerns about this particular war that I had as long as 2+ years ago have come true. Your point about the political climate needing to change in the Middle East is an excellent one; the manner in which this is done forms the crux of difference between our favored approaches.

[Tom Bowler]

The constant refrain coming from Bush about the spread of freedom being America's best defense is all about changing the political climate in the Middle East. This Foreign Affairs article by Michael Doran makes that point. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101faessay10219-p0/michael-scott-doran/palestine-iraq-and-american-strategy.html. I think our options for political reform in the Middle East are severely limited. Unless we're willing to go along with the destruction of the state of Israel, diplomacy is not one of them. I'll plan on picking up a copy of Imperial Hubris.