Testimony of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Cont'd.....
BILL NELSON: Respectfully, Mr. Secretary, I was told not only the weapons of mass destruction prior to the vote in the Senate, but <font size=4>I was specifically told what has now been made public by the president and the secretary of state: that there were unmanned aerial vehicles that could be put on ships off the eastern seaboard and flown over eastern seaboard cities with the weapons of mass destruction. And you can understand that I thought that was an imminent threat to the interests of the United States.
However, what I was not told was that there was a dispute in the intelligence community over the veracity of that information, specifically as reported by The Washington Post, that it was Air Force intelligence that specifically discounted that, that it was not true.
My question to you is why was I not told that there was this disagreement in the intelligence community, instead of being told that it was gospel truth that those UAVs could be flown over eastern seaboard cities?
RUMSFELD: I don't know who told you that. And I would not use the word "veracity," I would use the word "accuracy."
There was a discussion in the intelligence community -- and I've forgotten exactly how it worked -- but one agency believed that the -- I'm trying to -- is this unclassified or classified, now?
WARNER: Mr. Secretary, I suggest you answer that for the record. It's an important question and it'll give you the adequate time to...
RUMSFELD: It is and I think there's a classified answer and an unclassified answer. And I can give you an unclassified answer here and we'd be happy to -- Dr. Cambone can give you a classified answer in one minute.
BILL NELSON: Mr. Secretary, everything that I've said has been unclassified.
RUMSFELD: Right. I'm talking about my answer not your question. Your question clearly is unclassified.
My understanding is there was a discussion and some people -- as is usual in intelligence, some people believed that the equipment associated with the Iraqi UAVs, which we saw and watched tested and they flew considerable distances -- they were not big, but they did have the ability to carry something.
And that they had some vehicles in close proximity to them during some tests and there was a debate as to whether those vehicles had a role in connection with the UAVs or whether the vehicles had a role in connection with hydrogen balloons or weather balloons or something else.
CAMBONE: ....There was, Senator, a dispute on the role of the UAVs. The Air Force had a different view than others in the community.
....And I think that you have two parts of the story combined that I would like to separate for you, if I may, in a closed session.
But there was a dispute by the Air Force. It was resolved as part of the ordinary process of building the NIEs and the estimates that are done. The Air Force maintained its dissent.
What you are reporting on is an after-the-fact report of the Air Force's dissent. But let me clean up the parts of you in a different setting.<font size=3>
washingtonpost.com |
