OPINION — “For too long, faulty, inadequate, or weaponized intelligence have led to costly failures and the undermining of our national security and God-given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The most obvious example of one of these failures is our invasion of Iraq based upon a total fabrication or complete failure of ‘intelligence.’ This disastrous decision led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and millions of people in the Middle East; mass migration, destabilization, and undermining of the security and stability of our European allies; the rise of ISIS, strengthening of al-Qaeda and other Islamist Jihadist groups, and strengthening Iran.”
This was Tulsi Gabbard, making opening remarks at her confirmation hearing last Thursday to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
One of the duties of the DNI is to provide the President with “timely and objective national intelligence.”
Focus for a minute on Gabbard’s statement last week that the invasion of Iraq was based upon “a total fabrication or complete failure of ‘intelligence.’”
I covered the intelligence community’s activities both before and after the Iraq invasion. The “fabrication” of reasons for the invasion came from President George W. Bush, and several White House and cabinet officials along with Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed publicly that Iraq had maintained “weapons of mass destruction” which he said were being hidden from United Nations inspectors.
Before the invasion, I wrote a story that said, “Despite the Bush administration’s claims, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden,” raising questions “about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence.”
Another pre-invasion story by my then-colleagues at the Washington Post, Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung, reported that CIA officials “communicated significant doubts to the administration” about evidence tying Iraq to attempted uranium purchases for nuclear weapons.
The then-McClatchy Newspaper’s Warren Strobel wrote, “Intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that [Iraq’s leader] Saddam [Hussein] poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary.”
In other words, despite the way that Gabbard described the Iraq war as an intelligence community failure, public justification for invading Iraq was really based on the Bush administration officials’ misuse of intelligence.
A discrepancy over casualty tolls
Post-Iraq-war studies have also shown that to be the case, and Gabbard seems to be aware of those studies.
In a pre-hearing written answer to a Senate Intelligence Committee question, Gabbard wrote that when she was deployed to Iraq in 2005, “I had faith in our leaders and intel agencies, believing their claims and ‘intelligence’ that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was supporting al-Qaeda who could potentially access those WMDs.”
Gabbard added that “we later learned that the so-called intelligence then referenced was manufactured to support a war that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were trying to sell to the American people and the world.”
I focus on this incident because to me it shows that during last week’s public hearing, Gabbard was not providing objective information about the intelligence community, for which she is supposed to be the coordinator.
That opening statement also had a fact distortion that jumped out to me.
Gabbard served as an Army brigade’s surgeon operations officer in Iraq 20 years ago where, each day, she had to deal with every soldier from her unit who had been injured in combat the previous 24 hours. That experience, she has said, left her “in the most real and human way understanding the cost of war.”
Recall, in her opening statement, that Gabbard said the Iraq war decision “led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers.” However, as terrible as any death is, Defense Department records show that as of last week, American deaths in Iraq from all military services totaled 4,419. Why did Gabbard inflate the American death toll?
Again, in answer to the Intelligence Committee’s pre-hearing questionnaire, Gabbard put the Iraq war deaths at “thousands of my brothers and sisters in uniform,” not the “tens of thousands” she spoke of publicly. In other words, she gave a correct answer in her written replies; and an inflated figure when she was addressing the committee.
One responsibility of the DNI as the principal intelligence adviser to the President is to provide accurate and objective information. In the cases above, Gabbard – in public – appeared neither objective nor accurate.
Questions of “loyalty”
There were several other Senate Intelligence Committee pre-hearing questions that Gabbard answered that need public attention in the wake of Trump administration firings in the past two weeks at the Justice Department, the FBI, and other government agencies.
The first Committee question was: “Would you ever consider an individual’s personal political preferences, to include ‘loyalty’ to the President, in making personnel decisions such as to hire, fire, or promote an individual?”
Gabbard answered, “No.”
A second was: “If confirmed, what assurances will you provide to the IC [Intelligence Community] workforce that personnel decisions will be based exclusively on professional
qualifications, performance and needs, and not on personal political preferences?”
Gabbard answered, “If confirmed, I will provide clear and unequivocal assurances to the IC workforce that all personnel decisions will be based solely on professional qualifications, performance, and the operational needs of the IC, without regard to personal political preferences or perceived loyalty to any individual or administration. The IC operates on the principles of objectivity, integrity, and independence, and ensuring that personnel decisions are free from political influence is essential to upholding these values. The IC must function as a trusted, nonpartisan entity, dedicated to advancing U.S. national security interests, and this trust starts with the individuals who serve within it.”
A third question was, “If you receive credible allegations that IC employees or others in the executive branch are seeking to fire or force out IC employees because of their perceived political views or loyalty to the President, will you commit to informing the congressional intelligence committees and immediately stopping such efforts?”
Gabbard answered, “Yes. Targeting IC employees for their political views fundamentally undermines the integrity, independence, and professionalism of the IC and threatens its ability to carry out its mission objectively and effectively.”
A fourth question was, “Will you impose a political litmus test for IC employees? Is a political litmus test ever appropriate in determining who can or should work in the IC?”
Gabbard answered, “No. The IC must be apolitical to fulfill its essential national security function. Violating these principles would contravene ethical obligations and erode the foundational values of the IC. In addition, the DNI and IC leadership are bound by laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs.”
Gabbard, therefore, is on-the-record as opposing what the Trump administration has done so far at the FBI, which is part of the IC.
What would she do?
However, I must point out that last Thursday, Kash Patel, President Trump’s pick for FBI director, also promised Senate Judiciary Committee members at his confirmation hearing that no FBI officials would be retaliated against. “All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution,” Patel said in sworn testimony.
Nonetheless, one day later, on Friday, acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll said he was ordered by Emil Bove, the acting Deputy Attorney General and Trump’s former personal lawyer, to have eight senior FBI executives to either put in for retirement or be fired. They were all involved in investigations of Donald Trump –and included Ryan Young, of the FBI’s intelligence branch.
Driscoll also said he had been told to turn over the names of every FBI employee involved in investigating Jan. 6 rioters.
If confirmed, what would Tulsi Gabbard do when faced with such an order? I am fairly sure something similar is in the works for other IC agencies.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to [email protected] for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
