U.S. army analysts awarded for key Iraqi intelligence failure

Two U.S. Army analysts whose work was cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq have received job performance awards for the past three years, The Washington Post reported.

The civilian analysts work at the Army's National Ground Intelligence Centre (ANGIC), one of the agencies criticised by President George W. Bush's commission investigating U.S. intelligence.

Ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the analysts concluded it was unlikely that aluminium tubes sought by Baghdad were for use in Iraq's rocket arsenal. The Bush administration used that finding as evidence that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding Iraq's nuclear weapons program, the paper said.

The problem, according to the commission, which cited the two analysts' work, is that they did not seek or obtain information available from the Energy Department and elsewhere showing that the tubes were indeed the type used for years as rocket-motor cases by Iraq's military. The panel said the finding represented a "serious lapse in analytic tradecraft" because the center's personnel "could and should have conducted a more exhaustive examination of the question."

A Pentagon spokesman said the awards to the analysts were to recognise their overall contributions on the job.

But some unnamed present and formal officials said granting such awards showed how the administration had not held people accountable for mistakes on pre-war intelligence, the paper wrote.

The president's commission urged the Bush administration to consider taking action against the agencies, and perhaps the individuals, responsible for the most serious errors in assessing Iraq's weapons program.

Washington lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste, who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission and whose government experience goes back to service as a Watergate prosecutor, said it is important for the administration to hold the intelligence community accountable for mistakes.

"It matters whether it was carelessness or tailoring [of intelligence], whether it was based on perceived wants of an administration or overt requests . . . It is time now to demonstrate the need for the integrity of the process," Ben-Veniste said.