Committee staff that they could not be sure that they were providing all of the limited distribution and special access reporting on Iraq's weapons programs, because of the difficulty of searching for reports across the different special access compartments.

H. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Collection Conclusions

Conclusion 77. The Intelligence Community relied too heavily on United Nations (UN) information about Iraq's programs and did not develop a sufficient unilateral collection effort targeting Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and related activities to supplement UN-collected information and to take its place upon the departure of the UN inspectors.

(U) Conclusion 78. The Intelligence Community depended too heavily on defectors and foreign government services to obtain human intelligence (HUMINT) information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. Because the Intelligence Community did not have direct access to many of these sources, it was exceedingly difficult to determine source credibility.

(U) Conclusion 79. The Intelligence Community waited too long after inspectors departed Iraq to increase collection against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

(U) Conclusion 80. Even after the departure of United Nations (UN) inspectors, placement of human intelligence (HUMINT) agents and development of unilateral sources inside Iraq were not top priorities for the Intelligence Community.

(U) Conclusion 81. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) continues to excessively compartment sensitive human intelligence (HUMINT) reporting and fails to share important information about HUMINT reporting and sources with Intelligence Community analysts who have a need to know.

intelligence (HUMINT) collection assets contributed to this collection gap.

IX. PRESSURE ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSTS REGARDING IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) CAPABILITIES

(U) An essential component of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's review of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities has been examining the objectivity and independence of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community (IC) and whether any influence was brought to bear on IC analysts to shape their assessments to support policy objectives.

(U) On June 11, 2003, Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), held a press conference with Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), and Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Chairman Roberts announced that the SSCI had been conducting a thorough and bipartisan review of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and ties to terrorists, and made a public call for officials to come forward and contact the Committee if they had information about intelligence analysts having been pressured to alter their assessments. Following the press conference, Chairman Roberts reissued this call in a press release which said,

I am concerned by the number of anonymous officials that have been speaking to
the press alleging that they were pressured by Administration officials to skew
their analysis, a most serious charge and allegation that must be cleared up. I can
tell you the Committee has yet to hear from any intelligence official expressing
such concerns. If any officials believe, however, that they have been pressured to
alter their assessment, they have an obligation and I encourage them to contact the
Committee for confidential discussions.

(U) Chairman Roberts issued this call a third time at a closed Committee hearing on June 19, 2003, at which senior representatives of the IC and many of the primary analysts involved in drafting and coordinating the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's Continuing Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs were present. Chairman Roberts asked,

Did any of you ever feel pressure or influence to make your judgment in the 2002
National Intelligence Estimate or any other intelligence product conform to the
policies of this or previous Administrations? The second part of that is, has any

analyst come to you or expressed to you that he or she felt pressure to alter any
assessment of intelligence? And finally, if you did feel pressure or were informed
that someone else felt pressure, were any intelligence assessments changed as a
result of that pressure?

(U) Chairman Roberts issued the same call for analysts or officials to come forward to the Committee at least six more times in the summer of 2003.

(U) In addition to these calls, throughout the Committee's review, Committee staff asked whether any analysts had been pressured to change their analysis or assessments and about how they had developed their assessments. Committee staff also made efforts to contact individuals mentioned in press articles or who, through other means, had come to the Committee's attention as possibly having information about analysts who had been pressured.

(U) The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq's WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.” Most analysts simply answered, “no” or “never," but some provided more extensive responses. Some of their responses are below:

A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) biological weapons (BW) analyst said, "No, never. Never. Matter of fact, the assessments we make have always tried to - we always tried to be as accurate and always as truthful as we can, and it might be that our assessments suited what they needed. But we were never pressured to make an assessment a certain way or anything."

The National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Science and Technology said, "my answer to all of those is there was no pressure on me throughout that entire period. I did not have any analysts come to me with any information about the fact that they were feeling pressure to change their judgments. And I was certainly not aware of any, whether I heard it or not. So there were really no- as far as I'm concerned, there were no such things happening."

A CIA chemical weapons (CW) analyst said, "there was no pressure at all. They didn't tell us what to say or anything like that."