TPMCafe
« Phone Sex and Mortgage Servicing | Home | The Fire This Time »

Worse Than Conspiracy

user-pic

Good morning! This is Day Three of my Curveball blog.

We've enjoyed a fairly spirited discussion the last two days. One very committed writer seems fervently convinced that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Robb Silberman Commission, the Iraq Survey Group, the so-called Butler Report in the British Parliament, plus my new book CURVEBALL, all missed or covered-up the truth. That "truth," he writes, is that the tiny Office of Special Plans at Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon secretly and knowingly fed Curveball's false information to the Bush White House to hoodwink the nation.

It's an interesting theory. But there is no evidence - zero, nada, zip - to support it. Nor does it make any sense. As I wrote yesterday, Curveball's interrogations in Germany began during the Clinton administration. During the run-up to war, his flawed intelligence was not "stove piped" through secret channels or whispered in someone's ear. It was the OFFICIAL determination of the U.S. intelligence community. That's what makes the case so grotesque and the story so fascinating. Curveball's information was key to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the president's 2003 State of the Union speech, Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council, threat assessments given to Congress, and hundreds of classified documents and reports.

There was no need to slip this in the back door of the White House. George Tenet presented it to the president, and key members of Congress, on a silver platter, complete with charts, graphs and cartoon drawings. That's the real scandal in this case. It wasn't a dark conspiracy. It was worse - dreadful tradecraft, inept analysis, and spineless leadership that ignored warnings of problems.

Let me give you some examples.

 

The German intelligence agency, known as the BND, coordinated all the debriefings and interrogations of Curveball after he first turned up in Munich in November 1999. Most took place at a fortress-like site called the Nuremberg JIC, the joint interrogation center, which U.S., British, French and German authorities used as an intelligence base during the Cold War. (In 2000, the former head of the JIC, George Trofimoff, was sentenced to life in prison for spying for the Soviets for 25 years. The former Army colonel is the highest-ranking U.S. military officer ever convicted of espionage.) But Curveball also was interviewed at safe houses and on a German military base.

The BND repeatedly refused to allow the DIA and the CIA come interview Curveball. They similarly refused until very late in the game to release transcripts of their interviews. They instead released only their own analysis in German of what their informant had said in Arabic. This infuriated the CIA, but relations between the two services was terrible. In the end, the U.S. analysts got these thrice-translated analyses of Curveball's supposed stories, with additional comments and analysis steadily added on. The process was like a children's game of telephone, or what the British call Chinese whispers. As the information was passed up the chain, Curveball's apparent expertise grew stronger and and his story steadily more terrifying.

The BND's ostensible excuse for refusing to allow Americans to interview Curveball was he didn't speak English and he hated Americans. The fact is Curveball spoke better English than German. The CIA or DIA could always send a case officer who spoke fluent Arabic or German.

The Germans acted that way for two reasons. First, Curveball told them that the mobile biological production vehicles carried German equipment. That was potentially hugely embarrassing. German companies built much of Saddam's chemical and nuclear programs in the 1980s, and the Schroeder government - which ardently opposed the war - didn't want to give the Americans any cause to launch an invasion.

Secondly, relations between the BND and the CIA were poisonous. During the Cold War, the Americans treated the BND as an adjunct spy service that couldn't be trusted. They had good reason. The East Germans and other Soviet bloc forces repeatedly penetrated West German intelligence. But relations only grew worse after the Berlin Wall came down. The CIA and BND expelled each others' spies, battled in the press, and barely cooperated. To make matters worse, Schroeder's coordinator for intelligence had served as police chief in Hamburg. He was furious when the Bush administration suggested that the Germans bore partial blame for the 9/11 attacks because local authorities had failed to arrest the so-called Hamburg Cell led by Mohammed Atta. Most of the Atta's group, of course, moved to the United States long before 9/11.

As a result, he and other senior leaders at the BND openly distrusted and resented the CIA. And they saw no reason to suddenly cooperate. So they kept Curveball under wraps. It was partially "pride of service," partially spite, and partially recognition that the CIA would NEVER let the BND interview a key CIA informant. Except in very rare cases, the CIA doesn't even allow the DIA, the Pentagon's intelligence wing, to interview a CIA source.

Not surprisingly, when a colleague and I first broke the Curveball story in the Los Angeles Times in 2004, the CIA's first response was to blame German intelligence for not granting access to their secret source. It was classic blame-shifting, just as they had done after the 9/11 attacks.

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence authorities, most investigators concluded, failed to "connect the dots" of evidence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. The problem in Curveball was much worse. The CIA and DIA made up the dots to conjure up a threat that didn't exist.

 

 


6 Comments

| Leave a comment

You seem, again, to suggest there has been no dissent within the CIA on the credence given to Curveball, but there was. In the LA Times of 2nd April, 2005, Tyler Drumheller, prior CIA European division chief, said:

"...Everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening," said Drumheller, who retired in November after 25 years at the CIA. He said he never met personally with Tenet, but "did talk to McLaughlin and everybody else.

"Drumheller scoffed at claims by Tenet and McLauglin that they were unaware of concerns about Curveball's credibility...

"Believe me, there are literally inches and inches of documentation" including "dozens and dozens of e-mails and memos and things like that detailing meetings" where officials sharply questioned Curveball's credibility, Drumheller said...."

I don't feel that you adequately explain the acceptance of Curveball as there seems to be zero cross-checking of even the most basic facts of his story.

So, were Tenet and McLauglin serving up the president what he wanted to hear and ignoring the lack of credibililty? Was the lack of credibility written off as BND-CIA jealousy? Is Drumheller speaking untruths?

Or, knowing that the Office of Special Plans had a remit far from intelligence and only to justify the course chosen, is it possible that Tenet and McLauglin were working on directives (or "suggestions") from this and Cheney's office? That's a lot of weight from close to the president to "adjust" reports.

What?

Thank you for mentioning the Los Angeles Times story of April 2, 2005. You'll notice that it carries my byline. I co-wrote it. That's why it's on my website: www.curveballbook.com.

In my book, I provide far more shocking detail about the repeated attempts by Drumheller to raise alarms inside the agency, and his frustrating attempts to convince McLaughlin and Tenet. They and other CIA leaders repeatedly squelched or ignored dissent. I explain what happened, and why, in my book.

Dear Mr Drogin --

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses to the many queries from our Cafe denizens.

As to your opening line here, from above:

One very committed writer seems fervently convinced that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Robb Silberman Commission, the Iraq Survey Group, the so-called Butler Report in the British Parliament, plus my new book CURVEBALL, all missed or covered-up the truth. That "truth," he writes, is that the tiny Office of Special Plans at Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon secretly and knowingly fed Curveball's false information to the Bush White House to hoodwink the nation.

It's an interesting theory. But there is no evidence - zero, nada, zip - to support it. Nor does it make any sense.

Would that be the the reason that you found it necessary to down-rate that "very committed writer" with a load of "0" troll-ratings in the last thread?

Ya' know Bob -- usually a person who is a visitor hawking his wares is left in a less than credible light if that individual runs around the threads dumping low ratings on those he; 1.) either does not agree with their opinion, or 2.) finds to be a proverbial burr under the saddle.

You may possibly find the following from the FAQ/ How do I rate a comment? to help you understand the basic ratings system:

RATINGS AT TPMCAFE

At TPMCafe, we strive to cultivate a collegial atmosphere, one conducive to discussion. Therefore, please abide by the following guidelines.

Ratings should not depend on one’s agreement or disagreement with the comment itself. Rather, a "5" or "excellent" rating rewards posters who make clear and cogent arguments, highlighting succinct, insightful, and useful content. "0"s and "1"s are reserved for inappropriate comments and help us weed out material that shouldn’t be here in the first place.

* Use ratings for their designated purposes only. Don’t downrate comments simply because you disagree with them! In practice, it can be difficult to separate out how we judge the "quality" of a comment from whether we agree with its content. Please do your best to avoid this common pitfall.
* Because ratings should not be personal, we recommend discretion in rating the comments of posters with whom you are actively debating.
* Personal attacks are never appropriate. If we disagree with a comment, we should criticize the substance of the argument, rather than the individual who made it. Rude and retaliatory comments are not appropriate.
o Acceptable: “I don’t see that x follows from y as you suggest.”
o Unacceptable: “You’re an idiot.”
* All Café participants are entitled to courtesy and respect. Rational people can view the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. Disagreement does not indicate a) stupidity, b) inaccurate or incomplete information, or c) malfeasance.
* If we are troubled by the behavior of another Café denizen, we should report our concerns to The Management rather than engaging in ratings’ wars or insult exchanges.



Here are just a few examples in the other thread: here's a rating of 0 "troll" and here's another 0 "troll" and here's another 0 "troll and here's another and here's another and here's another and here's another and here's another 0 "troll" and here and here and here.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is the first time that a guest commentator was so bold as to down-rate members of the Cafe. And without so much as a how do ya' do or a reason for the down-ratings.

And please understand, I'm not saying that there aren't times when a down-rate is deserved to be given out by a guest, but from my perspective, the majority, if not all of the above linked ratings are suspect to say the least.

By the way Mr. Drogin: Thanks for dropping in and Good Luck with your book sales, sir.

~OGD~

The BND's ostensible excuse for refusing to allow Americans to interview Curveball was he didn't speak English and he hated Americans. The fact is Curveball spoke better English than German. The CIA or DIA could always send a case officer who spoke fluent Arabic or German.

The Germans acted that way for two reasons. First, Curveball told them that the mobile biological production vehicles carried German equipment. That was potentially hugely embarrassing. German companies built much of Saddam's chemical and nuclear programs in the 1980s, and the Schroeder government - which ardently opposed the war - didn't want to give the Americans any cause to launch an invasion.

Secondly, relations between the BND and the CIA were poisonous. During the Cold War, the Americans treated the BND as an adjunct spy service that couldn't be trusted. They had good reason. The East Germans and other Soviet bloc forces repeatedly penetrated West German intelligence. But relations only grew worse after the Berlin Wall came down. The CIA and BND expelled each others' spies, battled in the press, and barely cooperated. To make matters worse, Schroeder's coordinator for intelligence had served as police chief in Hamburg. He was furious when the Bush administration suggested that the Germans bore partial blame for the 9/11 attacks because local authorities had failed to arrest the so-called Hamburg Cell led by Mohammed Atta. Most of the Atta's group, of course, moved to the United States long before 9/11.

Two questions: First, if Curveball was genuinely as hapless as he seems, doesn't it see curious that he would tell the Germans the very thing that would make them less likely to share information with the CIA: that the trucks were German? After all, why else would Curveball had said this, if the existance of the trucks was a fantasy anyway.

Second, if there was such animosity between the CIA and the BND, and a belief by the U.S. administration that the Germans had basically flubbed it by failing to catch Atta, it makes little sense that the information that the Germans were providing would be elevated to such importance, does it?

I'm also curious about where Curveball is now. Have you, or any other reporter, had a chance to interview him directly? 

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

While I understand the frustration involved in getting troll rated, Mr. Drogin may have been simply unaware of the fairly unusual way ratings are used here at TPM Cafe. I've seen the same thing happen here with  other new guest posters on occasion.

Edited to add: It appears Mr. Drogin has gone back and removed the zeros, or someone has. Good. 

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

I think that cooking the inteligence predated Bush Administration. It was a priority to maintain sanctions against Iraq and to compile anything, however impropable, that would justtify it.

Recall dispute within British inteligence whether Iraqi chemical weapons can reach Cyprus, or are merely artillery shells, and if they can be launched "within hours" or require rather more time. The pattern was the same. First false stories were collected from a defector or two. Next, those false stories were vastly exagerated, at which point the professional spirit of some officials caused some protests.

That CIA was cooking inteligence was very clear from the incident with aluminum pipes. Experts from DoE, who actually know something about the operation and specification of cetrifuges issued an opinion that is highly unlikely that the intercepted aluminum pipes were appropriate for centrifuge construction, and CIA issued an opinion to the contrary based on what? the understanding of technology that was superior to that in DoE?

I think that the pattern was that CIA analysts were quite ready to stretch the evidence, but they were trying to draw the line on utterly preposterous. Some people just do not feel comfortable being described by future historians as tools and idiots. Being tools comes with the territory, but inteligence analysis perhaps do not like pretending to be idiots. More precisely, Tenet could easily find analysts whoi could stretch or mischaracterize evidence, but there were few takers for the role of utter idiots.

Under those circumstances it is not likely that a direct confrontation of Curveball with CIA agents would change any assesments. To concoct a story about German equipment he had to know something, unlike, say, people who wrote the documentats about Niger uranium.

On the other hand, there is a possible explanation for Curveball concocting story about German trucks. Supposed that he wanted to get hush money from Germans for not speaking with anyone else. His "hatred of Americans" could result from such a payment.

What Tenet had to know is that for every defector with a story about forbidden programs there was another defectors claiming that all MWD programs were shut down. Thus there was not a single piece of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

The track record of falsifiable stories, those with fixed locations, was not good -- they were duly falsified by UN inspectors. This somehow did not stir any doubts in Tenet's mind.

Finally, is it just me to find a cognitive dissonance here:
"In 2000, the former head of the JIC, George Trofimoff, was sentenced to life in prison for spying for the Soviets for 25 years. The former [US] Army colonel..."
with "Americans treated the BND as an adjunct spy service that couldn't be trusted. They had good reason. The East Germans and other Soviet bloc forces repeatedly penetrated West German intelligence."

So were these reasons really all that good, or just ordinary arrogance?

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address