|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
PostWatch: An irregular correction to the Washington Post
Brought to you by Christopher Rake
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Saturday, January 31, 2004
9:51 AM
Classic straight-ahead story headlined No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Data by Dana Priest.
Congressional and CIA investigations into the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism have found no evidence that CIA analysts colored their judgment because of perceived or actual political pressure from White House officials, according to intelligence officials and congressional officials from both parties.
Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading the CIA's review of its prewar Iraq assessment, said an examination of the secret analytical work done by CIA analysts showed that it remained consistent over many years.
And this:
The conclusion that analysts did not buckle under political pressure does not answer the question of why the intelligence reports were so flawed. Nor does it address allegations -- made by Democrats in Congress and Democratic presidential candidates -- that top Bush administration officials misused intelligence and exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq.
Right. Exactly.
One interesting thing: This story gets major A1 play in the temporal hard-copy plane that we inhabit. Online, at the moment, it's on the homepage but played down, below the latest sad news about U.S. soldiers and Iraqis being killed by bombings.
UPDATE: One odd thing about this story. Though the lede says congressional officials from both parties agrees analysts did not alter their findings under pressure, it doesn't name any Democrats.
Who are they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|