"This could conceivably be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time," said Harman

WASHINGTON, May 24 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – As the lack of hard evidence on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has been a thorn in the side of the U.S.-led forces in post-war Iraq, the Congress on Friday, May 23, demanded CIA to determine whether the U.S. intelligence community erred in its pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs or links with al-Qaeda network.

"It is now time to re-evaluate U.S. intelligence regarding the amount or existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that country's linkages to terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaeda," members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence told CIA director George Tenet in a letter.

"The committee wants to ensure that the intelligence analysis relayed to our policymakers from the intelligence community was accurate, unbiased and timely," said the letter, signed by committee vice-chairman Porter Goss, a Republican, and committee member Jane Harman, a California Democrat.

The letter, a copy of which was furnished to Agence France-Presse (AFP), asked Tenet to respond by July 1 to these questions:

• Was the gathered intelligence sufficient in quantity and quality?

• Were the sources of the intelligence reliable?

• How was the intelligence analyzed and disseminated?

• Were divergent analyses taken into account, or swept aside, and, in the latter case, why?

The demand came as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked the CIA to conduct an internal analysis of the quality of secrets collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies, the BBC News Online reported.

"Since some questions have been raised and it is taking a long time to find out about the WMDs, we think it is prudent to ask," said Harman, ranking Democrat on the committee.

"This could conceivably be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time," said Harman. "I doubt it, but we have to ask."

‘Unimpressive’

Rockefeller dismissed U.S. intelligence services performance as "wholly unimpressive"

In the Senate, as well, Democrats were attacking U.S. intelligence services, whose performance, said John Rockefeller of West Virginia, had been "wholly unimpressive."

Rockefeller called for internal investigations by the Pentagon and CIA to determine whether the Bush government had been manipulating documents to show that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger for its nuclear program while the CIA was denying it.

On March 7, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) raised a mini-scandal when he told the U.N. Security Council that American documents indicating such an attempted uranium purchase were "not authentic."

The U.S. government was forced to admit they were, in fact, false, although denied any role in their fabrication.

Several critics have suggested that President George W. Bush and the Pentagon cooked intelligence on Iraq's possession of WMDs to support an invasion resisted by the international community.

The BBC said some CIA operatives have claimed privately that war intelligence provided by the agency was not essentially flawed but was exaggerated and misused by politicians.

Settling Scores

Bowing to pressure, the CIA said it will conduct an inquiry into intelligence assessments of Iraq before the war, the BBC said.

But the respected Christian Science Monitor said there may be more to this investigation than meets the eye.

It reported Friday CIA might be seeking to embarrass or discredit the Pentagon’s Special Plans Unit (SPU).

The unit was created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz after the 9/11 attacks and "gradually came to rival both the CIA and the Defense Department's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in terms of providing information on Iraq to President Bush."

Abram Shulsky is directing the SPU, which is supervised by UnderSecretary of Defense William Luti, a retired Navy captain.

The Monitor said that while CIA was questioning alleged ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq or the presence of WMDs in the country, it was the SPU that pushed what it claimed was evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties and the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the war-scarred country.

But a Pentagon advisor dismisses the criticism as just so much sour grapes.

"Shulsky and Luti won the policy debate," the adviser said.

"They beat 'em—they cleaned up against State and the CIA. There's no mystery why they won—because they were more effective in making their argument. Luti is smarter than the opposition. Wolfowitz is smarter.

"They out-argued them. It was a fair fight. They persuaded the President of the need to make a new security policy. Those who lose are so good at trying to undercut those who won," he said.

"I'd love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small group of eight or nine people made the case and won," boasted the advisor.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that former Democratic Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, a member of the independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, said Thursday, May 22, he was troubled about reports of intelligence reassessment.

"We went to war, now we have (the question of) inadequate intelligence," Cleland wondered.

"Were we right? Where are the weapons of mass destruction? It does seem to me ... that this commission better get on with its business ... and the sooner the better we come to terms with connecting the dots, improving the intelligence capabilities of this country so that when we go to war somewhere, we don't have to look back and say 'did we have the right intelligence?'" Cleland stressed.

Meanwhile Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, a former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the commission Thursday that officials ignored legislative directives and federal laws while pinning the blame on Congress.

"We can legislate, but there is little we can do to compel compliance," Shelby said of Congress.

"As you examine the record, you will discover numerous examples of complete disregard for congressional direction, not to mention the law," he expected.