Did Bush's Chief Spook Say W. Misled the Nation?

Again, I've been negligent. I covered the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Feb. 27 for my boss at The Nation. I originally wrote a straight news article, but because I had other work to do, I wasn't able to get it to him until around 6 p.m. that day. Unfortunately, this was too late, as most major news sources had already published straight news stories on their websites; I tweaked the story to make the style more appropriate for the timing and the nature of David's blog. Below is what was published today, March 1. Below that is the original story (written Feb. 27) and David's comments.

Stephanie Condon reports:

When the top three intelligence officials in the Bush administration testified before the Senate armed services committee on Tueday, their negative assessments of the situation in Iraq received the standard amount of media coverage. But what didn't draw much attention was that George W. Bush's top intelligence aide essentially said that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had recently misled the public about the ground reality in Iraq.

Citing a recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Vice Adm. John McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence, said, "Current sectarian and political trends are moving in a negative direction." He added that "sectarian violence has become self-sustaining" and reported that the U.S. intelligence community has concluded "the sectarian situation will continue to deteriorate."Noting that suppressing sectarian violence and creating political unity is necessary for progress in Iraq, McConnell said, "Iraqi political leaders have a close to impossible task."

Those words struck a chord with Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, who came back to them later in the hearing."If theirs is close to impossible," the senator asked, "then how would you characterize our task?" At first McConnell didn't know how to respond. After a fair bit of hesitation, he said, "Our task is similar in that it is very, very difficult."

Bayh continued to press McConnell, forcing McConnell to acknowledge that the situation in Iraq has been deteriorating for some time. "So if someone indicated four months ago we were 'absolutely winning' in Iraq, that is a mistaken assessment?" Bayh asked.

"I wouldn't agree that we were winning," McConnell replied, explaining that it became clear in 2006 that conditions were worsening. Bayh then noted that comment was made by the president and vice president four months earlier. McConnell response? A very long pause. Then Bayh's time for questions expired.

###

What I originally wrote the day of the event:

The scenario is worsening in Iraq, the Iraqi government is too entrenched in sectarian division to do anything about it and there is no way out for the United States anytime soon, three intelligence directors told Senators Tuesday during an Armed Services Committee hearing on worldwide threats to the United States.

"Current sectarian and political trends are moving in a negative direction," said Vice Admiral John M. McConnell, the newly appointed director of National Intelligence, with regard to Iraq.

Sectarian violence has become self-sustaining," he said, citing the most recent National Intelligence Estimate released on Iraq. "We assess the sectarian situation will continue to deteriorate."

McConnell said resolution in Iraq will necessarily be political, but he was not optimistic about the prospects for political resolution any time soon.

The Shias, in my view are not confident in their position in the majority," McConnell said.

Morever, he said,"the Sunnis are not willing to admit they are no longer in charge. The Kurds are participating… and biding their time."

"Iraqi political leaders have a close to impossible task," he said.

Senator Evan Bayh later pressed McConnell, "If theirs is close to impossible, then how would you characterize our task?"

In a response that seemed to reveal just how oblique the United States’ mission in Iraq is, McConnell asked, after some hesitance, “With regard to Iraq?"

"Our task is similarly very difficult,” the director then said.

McConnell said, however, that as it states in the NIE, there would be a “significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict” if coalition forces were removed quickly.

Sen. Bayh pressed the panelists on the language of the NIE: Why discount a “rapid withdrawal” from Iraq without considering other, more measured withdrawal plans?

The NIE was “unquestionably and uncategorically not to consider policy,” said Dr. Thomas Fingar, deputy director of National Intelligence for Analysis and chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

Instead, Fingar said, the hypothetical was posed in the NIE to address the hypothesis that the coalition presence was aggravating violence. To remove the forces within the time frame addressed in the NIE—12 to 18 months— “would by very definition be ‘rapid,’” he said.

Still, the President’s “surge” plan has not started off to the greatest success, the panelists acknowledged under the committee’s questioning.

"I do not see evidence that Iraqi forces are measuring up in any amount to what the President laid out,” said Sen. John Warner.

He cited the president’s Jan. 10 speech, which said 21,500 additional American troops would be sent to Iraq to aid the Iraqis in securing their own country—not to take the lead in doing so.

But, according to a Feb. 23 New York Times article, only 300 Iraqi forces joined the 2500 American forces in the first few days of the new Baghdad security plan.

"The Iraqis have moved two of three brigades into Baghdad” that it promised, said Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

However, the forces are only manned at 43 to 82 percent of the levels promised.

McConnell said Iraqi forces were “in the process of taking the lead."

"It’s a work in progress,” he said.

###

David's comments:
stephanie,
you are a concise and clear writer--that's good. the piece you sent last night would have made a fine posting yesterday, almost as a straight but short account of the hearing. but if you lok at the newspaper stories out today, it's not mch different (that's a compliment, in a way). if you had gotten this to me right after the event, it would make sense to psot it. but if it's later--after the main news of the hearing has already hit--then it would need to have soemthing lse. a focus on a telling (or amusing or disturbing) exchange, fact, or moment that did not get much attention. but you are showing talent and good instincts.