Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Defense of Intelligence

Aired February 05, 2004 - 09:09   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Retired U.S. Army Colonel Pat Lang, an analyst with the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency is with us. Pat Lang is with us now from D.C. to talk about this.
Good morning to you, colonel. Good to have you back on AMERICAN MORNING.

COL. PAT LANG, (RET.) U.S. ARMY: Good morning.

HEMMER: What do you think gives here? Donald Rumsfeld yesterday saying the game's not over yet. What is over at this point?

LANG: Well, you know, David Kay's statements about this last week are sort of the functional equivalent of telling everybody that the emperor has no clothes, and the American people have a lot of common sense. And they know how long we've been looking for these things in Iraq and that we haven't come up with them.

So I think it's unfortunate that so many people have gone into a kind of defensive crouch, and are still trying to say that some day, somewhere, we're going to find these things in Iraq, or else, or the intelligence people all by themselves are total losers in this matter. And you know, This is basically something which is bound to be politically destructive, I would think, in this country, because when you still don't find these things, you're going to look even worse in the end.

HEMMER: You think this is driven by politics, is that right? That's been your position for some time, just to make that clear?

LANG: Well, I think that a couple things happened here. On the one hand, I think the policy-making group, with regard to Iraq in this administration, came in with very firmly held sincere beliefs that they understood what the situation was in Iraq, with a kind of almost religious fervor. And when they start interacting with the analysts and the intelligence agencies who told them there wasn't evidence to prove what they believed to be so, then, in fact, the analysts were told, well, we just don't have this right, you need to re-examine this.

HEMMER: Hang on a second here -- is that a fact?

LANG: Is what a fact?

HEMMER: They told them that you just don't have this right?

LANG: Oh, yes, that's a fact. I've been told that by any number of people.

HEMMER: You've been told. You weren't in the room for that, though.

LANG: No, but people who were in the room have told me that. I beg your pardon?

HEMMER: I just don't want to put anything out there we can't support. If you weren't in the room, I just don't want to let that go over the airwaves and take it as fact.

Back up just a little bit here -- what appears to be happening in D.C. is a turf war. You have Congress, you have the White House and now you have the CIA. Who wins ultimately in this turf war? Does George Tenet take the fall ultimately?

LANG: Well, it appears that George Tenet is going to put up as good a defense as he can, of his performance and that of his agency. In the end, the Congress also has the major power in this. And if the commission, which the president is going to name, is constituted in such a way as to render a judgment about a couple of important structural fixes that need to be made in the intelligence business, then I think the recommendations they make to Congress could be quite helpful, and Congress has the power.

HEMMER: Give me a better understanding. When it comes to big decisions like war, like we all experienced a year ago -- in fact, Colin Powell was here a year ago at the U.N. making his case there before the Security Council. Is it not inevitable that the politicians who ultimately make the decisions that send the U.S. to war would clearly have interactions with the CIA? Is that not an understandable thing?

LANG: No it's very understandable. But it isn't understandable if you try to start to influence the outcome of the deliberations of the analysts over what evidence there is. If you start doing that, then it becomes your estimate of the situation. And when things go wrong, the policymakers and the politicians should take responsibility for what was their decision about the available evidence.

HEMMER: Yes, about two hours ago, Senator Shelby, Republican from Alabama, was on our program. He said the ball's not going to move very far after this speech today. Do you think the same?

LANG: Yes, I think this speech is essentially a nonevent in terms of where this process is going over to what extent the administration will be held accountable for whatever the outcome was in Iraq about these weapons. If you can't find these things, then they weren't there. It seems no matter how many times you say you're going to find them, if you don't find them, there's bound to have some effect on American life in the long run.

HEMMER: Colonel Pat Lang in D.C.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired February 5, 2004 - 09:09   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Retired U.S. Army Colonel Pat Lang, an analyst with the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency is with us. Pat Lang is with us now from D.C. to talk about this.
Good morning to you, colonel. Good to have you back on AMERICAN MORNING.

COL. PAT LANG, (RET.) U.S. ARMY: Good morning.

HEMMER: What do you think gives here? Donald Rumsfeld yesterday saying the game's not over yet. What is over at this point?

LANG: Well, you know, David Kay's statements about this last week are sort of the functional equivalent of telling everybody that the emperor has no clothes, and the American people have a lot of common sense. And they know how long we've been looking for these things in Iraq and that we haven't come up with them.

So I think it's unfortunate that so many people have gone into a kind of defensive crouch, and are still trying to say that some day, somewhere, we're going to find these things in Iraq, or else, or the intelligence people all by themselves are total losers in this matter. And you know, This is basically something which is bound to be politically destructive, I would think, in this country, because when you still don't find these things, you're going to look even worse in the end.

HEMMER: You think this is driven by politics, is that right? That's been your position for some time, just to make that clear?

LANG: Well, I think that a couple things happened here. On the one hand, I think the policy-making group, with regard to Iraq in this administration, came in with very firmly held sincere beliefs that they understood what the situation was in Iraq, with a kind of almost religious fervor. And when they start interacting with the analysts and the intelligence agencies who told them there wasn't evidence to prove what they believed to be so, then, in fact, the analysts were told, well, we just don't have this right, you need to re-examine this.

HEMMER: Hang on a second here -- is that a fact?

LANG: Is what a fact?

HEMMER: They told them that you just don't have this right?

LANG: Oh, yes, that's a fact. I've been told that by any number of people.

HEMMER: You've been told. You weren't in the room for that, though.

LANG: No, but people who were in the room have told me that. I beg your pardon?

HEMMER: I just don't want to put anything out there we can't support. If you weren't in the room, I just don't want to let that go over the airwaves and take it as fact.

Back up just a little bit here -- what appears to be happening in D.C. is a turf war. You have Congress, you have the White House and now you have the CIA. Who wins ultimately in this turf war? Does George Tenet take the fall ultimately?

LANG: Well, it appears that George Tenet is going to put up as good a defense as he can, of his performance and that of his agency. In the end, the Congress also has the major power in this. And if the commission, which the president is going to name, is constituted in such a way as to render a judgment about a couple of important structural fixes that need to be made in the intelligence business, then I think the recommendations they make to Congress could be quite helpful, and Congress has the power.

HEMMER: Give me a better understanding. When it comes to big decisions like war, like we all experienced a year ago -- in fact, Colin Powell was here a year ago at the U.N. making his case there before the Security Council. Is it not inevitable that the politicians who ultimately make the decisions that send the U.S. to war would clearly have interactions with the CIA? Is that not an understandable thing?

LANG: No it's very understandable. But it isn't understandable if you try to start to influence the outcome of the deliberations of the analysts over what evidence there is. If you start doing that, then it becomes your estimate of the situation. And when things go wrong, the policymakers and the politicians should take responsibility for what was their decision about the available evidence.

HEMMER: Yes, about two hours ago, Senator Shelby, Republican from Alabama, was on our program. He said the ball's not going to move very far after this speech today. Do you think the same?

LANG: Yes, I think this speech is essentially a nonevent in terms of where this process is going over to what extent the administration will be held accountable for whatever the outcome was in Iraq about these weapons. If you can't find these things, then they weren't there. It seems no matter how many times you say you're going to find them, if you don't find them, there's bound to have some effect on American life in the long run.

HEMMER: Colonel Pat Lang in D.C.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com